Redstate

energy and transport bills?  Hmmm.  Seems like poor choice of times to be fiscally conservative for those that didn't oppose the pork.

has been a function of government since the days of Joseph and the Pharaoh. While I understand concerns about the money being pilfered by corrupt officials (Tancredo's first comment on the subject) I can't grasp a philosophy that would oppose the idea in principle.

But these eleven guys are legit, and I'm pretty sure they've voted all pork and pretty much all increased spending in general.

This is a genuine list of the absolute fiscal conservatives without compassion.

These 5 voted for the transportation bill:

Westmoreland (GA)

King (IA)

Hostettler (IN)

Garrett (NJ)

Foxx (NC)

Barton (TX)

(source)

You were linking to the appropriations bill, not the authorization bill.  A common mistake, no big deal.

Here's the right link here

And here are the heroic 8 that voted against that monstrosity:

Boehner

Flake

Hensarling

Jones (NC)

Royce

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Thornberry

And these folks didn't vote for one reason or the other:

Brady (PA)

Capps

Delahunt

Fattah

Johnson, Sam

Mica

Miller, George

Paul

Pitts

Pombo

Schakowsky

Schwarz (MI)

Stark

Wexler

But I'd really only think that Ron Paul would have actually voted no as he consistently votes against garbage like the transportation bill.

These voted 9 for the final energy bill:

Barton (TX)

Foxx (NC)

Garrett (NJ)

Hostettler (IN)

King (IA)

Otter (ID)

Sensenbrenner (WI)

Tancredo (CO)

Westmoreland (GA)

(source)

Meaning that, to answer your question Barton, Foxx, Garrett, Hostettler, King, and Westmoreland all voted for the transportation and energy bills, and against the bill for additional Katrina aid.

Jeff Flake and Ron Paul were the only two to oppose all 3 bills.

Not only did I link to the wrong bill, but apparently I can't count to 6 either.  I also had trouble finding the Energy Bill vote in the comment below, but I think I got the right one.

As dpclearly pointed out above, I linked to the wrong vote on the Transportation Bill.

Assuming the link above is correct, that means that Jeff Flake alone was the only one to vote against all 3 bills.

I checked.

It's a common error and it doesn't help with the increasingly bizarre names they give the bills.

Your point, however, is quite valid.  If they can stomach other bills with billions in wasteful spending and no accountability, they can stomach another one that has a greater likelihood to be used for beneficial purposes.

Silly me, a bridge to nowhere in Alaska pales in importance to finding the refugees homes, food, clothing, and some semblance of normality.

If you can reorganize this information into something that's verifiable and accurate (as in, make sure you've got the right bills, and links to the roll call votes), I'd like to post it as an addendum on my website's version.

If you want specific credit for aggregating the information, either post here with a link (if you have a blog or website) and whatever name you'd like me to use for you.

I don't really care whoever does it, but if somebody has the time and the inclination to do it and post it here, I'd like to reprint it at TimSaler.com.

I'd do it myself, but I'm very busy at the moment, and I'd like to credit somebody else since y'all thought of this before I did.

I saw a TV interview with Scott Garrett on FNC. As I recall he said he voted against it because there little if any accountability for all this money. Legitimate point but since it looks like he voted for the transportation bill it does seem a bit strange. I guess he thinks that those funds will be well accounted for --- wasted but accounted :-)

No credit necessary.

Of the 11 Republican Representatives you list, here are their votes on Transportation and Energy Bills.

1. TRANSPORTATION BILL (Roll Call)

Voted for:

• Joe Barton, Texas;
• Virginia Foxx, North Carolina;
• Scott Garrett, New Jersey;
• John Hostettler, Indiana;
• Steve King, Iowa;
• Butch Otter, Idaho;
• Ron Paul, Texas;
• Tom Tancredo, Colorado;
• Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia.

Voted against:

• Jeff Flake, Arizona;
• James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin.

2. ENERGY BILL (Roll Call)

Voted for:

• Joe Barton, Texas;
• Virginia Foxx, North Carolina;
• Scott Garrett, New Jersey;
• John Hostettler, Indiana;
• Steve King, Iowa;
• Butch Otter, Idaho;
• James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin;
• Tom Tancredo, Colorado;
• Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia.

Voted against:

• Jeff Flake, Arizona.
• Ron Paul, Texas;

Which means the following House Members voted for both the Transportation and Energy Bill, but against additional Katrina relief:

• Joe Barton, Texas;
• Virginia Foxx, North Carolina;
• Scott Garrett, New Jersey;
• John Hostettler, Indiana;
• Steve King, Iowa;
• Butch Otter, Idaho;
• Tom Tancredo, Colorado;
• Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia.

And the only sole fiscal hawk to vote against all three bills:

- Jeff Flake, Arizona.

Posted. Thanks so much, I really appreciate it.

http://www.timsaler.com/?p=167

To completely oversimplify,

Let's say that 400,000 people need help.

Then 50,000,000,000 divided by 400,000 individuals = $125,000 per person.

I heard Scott Garrett on radio.  He was saying that we needed more of an idea how the money would be spent.  That perhaps we might allocate funds in stages.

I don't know that I would want to play the scrooge in this case.

Also, you would think there would be some way for congress to write some oversight into the bill, if they were worried about accountability.

Congress? Oversight? Accountability? We are talking about the US Congress, right?

Your flight to Alpha Centauri 3 leaves at 7 AM so you better get to sleep early :-)

I think it's more like 1,000,000 people effected, and 90,000 square miles of devastation.

So you could say it's $50,000 per person or about $55,555 per square mile.

It's all a matter of perspective.

I don't disagree that we should monitor this carefully and make sure it is being spent well.  That's government's job, and Congress' for oversight.

But if the idiot can vote for the freaking Transportation scam, er, bill and the energy bill, then he can certainly vote for an additional $50 billion that is allowing FEMA to continue its mission of helping rescue and secure these folks in the time of an unprecedented natural disaster.  Maybe if we gave him an earmark to put up a bike path or something he'd be willing to change his vote.

Look, I'm a fiscal conservative, and I'm worried as heck about the spending and the total lack of accountability of what we're spending billions and billions on, but this guy and his ilk are total boobs.  I respect Flake, he's consistent.  But if you're going to start picking and choosing what you are going to vote for, you vote for bills that will immediately save lives as opposed to bills that build bridges in alaska.  IMHO.

Not only does Congressman Flake vote against virtually every appropriations bill, but he also refuses to request money for pork projects in his district.  Many Members falsely believe that if they do not bring home the bacon, they will not be reelected. Yet, Flake is now in his third term in Congress, and he continues to be overwhelmingly reelected by the people of Arizona.

"I can't grasp a philosophy that would oppose the idea in principle"

Well, that philosophy, as so well framed by Grover Norquist, has been all over these threads.  

One method by which the polarization of the electorate has been achieved has been to demonize the very concept of government.  The case for small government (which I strongly support) has somehow devolved into a diatribe against all government action, which I think we as a Nation will come to regret. I actually find the sneering and sniping and general disrespect shown for the concept of government to be quite alarming.  The contempt is not reserved for corrupt politicans, or incompetent government workers, or fiscal mismanagement or even our own lax oversight; but rather it is the ideas that government can or should do anything for the populace that are being ridiculed.  

There are some things only government can do.  There are some things government should do.  When our government does those things we should demand efficiency, competence and accoutability.  

Instead we have who ever filled in for Rush Limbaugh the other day saying things like no one should expect much from the government in these situations because Republicans don't believe in government.  Is that really where we as a country want to go?  Is that really the aim of "small goverment conservatives" - virtually no goverment at all?