Ron Paul Votes in Favor of Government Spending-On Poverty?

Now, yes, technically it was just one of those meaningless and frankly time-wasting "sense of the Congress/such and such Month" resolutions not involving any actual money being spent, and Mr. (or Dr., I should say), Paul may be pre-occupied with his son's Senate race in Kentucky, but still, this is somewhat of a shock that Paul would vote for this.

The non-explanation part of the resolution, introduced by McDermott:

Whereas it would be appropriate to designate the month of January 2010 as Poverty in America Awareness Month: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) the House of Representatives--

(A) supports the designation of Poverty in America Awareness Month; and

(B) recognizes the important contributions of those individuals and organizations that have made a commitment to providing critical support and services to needy individuals and families; and

(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--

(A) eradicating poverty in the United States should be the goal for all people in the United States, including all levels of government;

(B) the severe economic downturn has highlighted the need to ensure that the Nation's most vulnerable individuals and families are able to meet their most fundamental needs during a time of financial crisis; and

(C) Congress should recommit itself to helping individuals and families facing economic hardship receive the assistance they need and deserve in moving towards greater economic security through programs under Title IV of the Social Security Act and other related programs.

18 Republicans voted against it, but not Ron Paul. He was one of the 387 YEAs. If I were one of his minions, I'd be pissed right about now.