Ron Paul Votes against Employees Free Choice Act

    I’m sure this is because he feels government shouldn’t be involved in the free market?  I’m so tired of this little weiner hiding behind that malarkey I could crap a libertarian.

    I think its really just that ol Ron Paul owes big business like the rest of his cronies.  The vote to have government pay for oil exploration offshore was involving Government in the “free market.”  Why not then vote for a bill that will help america’s middle class?  Union labor used to be the base of that middle class, until the government decided it was better for big business to ship the union jobs to Mexico or other third world shitholes.

   So why don’t you Ron Paul fans tell me what exactly it is that Ron Paul has against workers organizing?  you can run your mouths, now try teaching.

to pressure your senator to vote for the employees free choice act use this link.  I know bloggers like to write and talk, and whine…now how about sending your senator a little note?  Maybe have an effect for a change.  They screwed us with NAFTA and GATT…they owe us one.


17 Responses to Ron Paul Votes against Employees Free Choice Act

  1. John says:

    Also, I certainly can’t speak for Ron Paul, but I would imagine that the reason he voted against it is because it’s unconstitutional: There is nothing in the constitution permitting the congress to pass federal labor laws. I doubt he would be against it if passed by the states.

  2. kayinmaine says:

    Ron Paul will probably say that he voted against it because there was no amendment for a secret ballot in the bill. *rolling eyes* He just hates the illegal immigrants and he hates the American worker too.

  3. thanks for the article john. I read it, and have to say the points would be more valid if they were more substantive. Taking right-wing pro business stats, and using them as data is a little disengenuous. The NLRB is a predominantly conservative group. This easily explains why they’ve gone after less businesses.
    The secret ballot breaks both ways. I don’t see the union complaining, and have to feel fear of losing your job is probably more coercive than a fellow workers ire.

    Kay: Its not in the constitution is his favorite line. Except when he votes for other things that aren’t in the constitution.

  4. John says:

    The article didn’t advocate it that way, but the point you make about the secret ballot is still one against the bill: Whether the union likes it or not, having one’s vote known can result in a backlash from the opposing side, regardless of which way you vote. And it isn’t just the vote that matters. Perhaps the number of votes swayed will cancel out, perhaps not. Even if it doesn’t change the votes at all, the backlash itself is a problem.

    Can you give an example of something Ron Paul voted for that you believe isn’t constitutional?

  5. sure…but I’m using his definition and his votes to do so…he voted against abortion because the federal government has no place in that issue then voted to block partial birth abortions….can’t have it both ways.

    he also voted for the government to fund off shore oil exploration. Based on his fiscal beliefs each state should be responsible for its own offshore oil exploration
    whether its unconstitutional or not, and I’m by no means a constitutional scholar, he also voted against pay as you go.

  6. Steve Dasbach says:

    As a former local union president and contract negotiator, I don’t understand what’s wrong with having a secret ballot election to organize a union. Workers certainly could be pressured to sign organizing cards just as they could be pressured NOT to sign them. A secret ballot election ensures that the true will of the workers is respected.

  7. It’s a red herring Steve. While I couldn’t care less how they vote, the idea is to stop businesses from retaliating against workers trying to organize. The arbitration is used to push companies to bargain in good faith, since many companies refuse to bargain with newly formed unions, thereby maintaining the status quo.

  8. John says:

    I can kind of see his basis on the abortion issue…it’s analogous to believing that the federal government shouldn’t fund highways when a bill comes along proposing to divert a million dollars from an unnecessary bridge in Alaska to a different unnecessary bridge in Alaska. You can only vote yes or no; you can’t vote against the premise the bill is based on, that the federal government should be involved in such things in the first place.

    Do you have a link to the funding oil exploration thing? All I could find was the Affordable Gas Price Act, which permitted offshore exploration but I didn’t see anything about funding.

    I don’t think pay as you go is a constitutional issue. In any event denying the ability to issue debt can be catastrophic at times…we never could have fought WW2 without issuing bonds, for example.

  9. john: i got my info at

    its a big site so I’ll narrow that down for you in a bit.

    and they can insert an emergency procedure in the bill…no sweat there. Pay as you go is what I have to do, no reason the government shouldn’t.

    on the abortion thing, its one or the other…not one and the same…his votes were diametrically opposite, therefore the same argument can’t cover both votes…its not a semantics issue.

  10. John says:

    I have to say, that oil funding bill looks fairly indefensible. I’d be interested to see someone ask him about it and hear his response

    I don’t agree on the abortion issue though. He is pro-life, but his position is really that the federal government should take no stance on it and leave it to the states to decide. The problem is that right now they do take a stance on it. If a bill comes along and its purpose is to change that stance, there is no option for “stop having a stance” in the vote for that bill.

    As far as pay as you go, any sort of “emergency clause” would immediately be abused to the point of making the bill toothless. We’re fighting a war on [something], after all. If I remember correctly a substantial percentage of the money the government spends is already considered “emergency” funds.

    And individuals don’t have to pay as they go either. Americans are perfectly capable of spending more than they make, and they do it with great frequency, thanks to the fed and its propensity to lower interest rates by printing money and loaning it out.

  11. responsible individuals do not incur debt they can’t pay back. i just think its a good idea if the government doesn’t either.

    I’m fine with any position on abortion. i consider it a non-issue. But don’t say on one abortion vote its not the feds place, and then by your actions switch that position on the next.

    check out his yes votes…they tell a bit of a troubling story…the no votes not so much..

  12. JL says:

    are you referring to Bill HR 5386 when you talk about Ron Paul voting “for the government to fund off shore oil exploration?” that was the only yes vote from him in that section, and it’s very misleading because that was only one of many amendments to a bill which he ultimately voted against.

    I have been misled by these bills on a few occasions myself. On top of this irresponsible representation of that bill by vote-smart, bills often contain hidden “riders,” that are thrown in at the last minute, to sneak it by congress. for instance, the rave act within the amber alert bill which he opposed.

  13. hey JL yeah thats the one. I find it a bit disconcerting that because he votes against something in the end, that makes stuffing it with something like this ok. the fact is, on this issue, he voted yes to spend tax money on what should be a free market issue. He’s a crafty guy, and while it would be easy to pooint out the things he does that are wrong based on ethics and morals, i require some form of fact. this is fact. it’s ok to not mind, but it’s not ok to say it doesn’t matter.

    thanks forr coming by

  14. JL says:

    There were a number of amendments that were voted on prior to the final bill authorization vote. All he could do was vote to alter the bill, through the proposed amendments, so as to lessen the negative impact assuming that the final bill was passed. sometimes this means voting for the lesser of two evils, which I normally don’t condone, but this is drastically different than an election. this stuff can be very deceiving which is very unfortunate. I honestly believe that with Ron Paul as president he would work to eliminate much of this confusing bureaucracy and help to make government more transparent.

  15. JL we can give every congressperson the “lessen the negative” benefit. The way it works iis if we like them, we believe them. If we don’t, well, then they’re just a bunch of waste our money types. you happen to believe Ron. I don’t. Like it or not if a person lies a lot, you assume they are a liar.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: