RSS Feed Menu… if they help their constituents take advantage of stimulus funds they voted against? So argues Josh Marshall.
It might equally be asked: Are Democrats hypocrites if they enjoy the safety and security of the United States after voting against the military appropriations that defend it? Or if they pay lower tax rates after a Republican tax cut? Or if they accept the benefit of cheaper prices at the store after Republican tort reform?
Once enacted, laws apply to all. Everyone is obliged to obey them, whether they favored them or not, and everybody gets their benefit, whether or not you believed that benefit was worth the cost. Republicans had a better idea of how to stimulate the economy: a payroll tax holiday. Democrats had the votes to push through their worse idea. We all have to make the best of that worse idea, and Republican constituencies belong to that all.
Bulldoglover100 // Feb 20, 2009 at 7:50 am
I think that is a question that only those whose Representatives voted against it can answer. What did they demand be taken out of the stimulus? would it have helped the people in that area? If they put their own political leanings before the people they represent? then they may face being voted out during the next election. That was their choice when they chose to not listen to the people they represent……..funny word represent…it means the person elected is elected to RE- PRESENT what the people want and if they chose to not listen and represent their own wants? In my opinion they deserve to be replaced. That’s the biggest problem with so many in elected office. They think they were elected to use their own judgement…and they weren’t. They were elected to represent the opinions of those in their area. Now we have some Govenors trying to decide if they are going to accept the stimulus? LOL Good Luck to them getting re elected if they chose to allow the people in their areas to suffer during this crisis if they chose to not acccept funds that could help.
As to the War? Same opinion here.
Elected officals should be held accountable or we wind up with people who always put their own wants/needs first which always leads to corupt actions.
sinz54 // Feb 20, 2009 at 9:24 am
I still think there’s a difference. While individual liberals can benefit from GOP tax cuts, the Democratic Party didn’t make it their official *policy* that their members must enjoy paying higher taxes. You never hear a Dem Party official say “We Democrats just love to pay high taxes.” Whereas the GOP (or the conservative part of it, anyway) prides itself on being fiercely independent of government largesse. So if you’re fiercely independent of largesse, prove it by accepting any. Now, I’ve actually heard the far left say that they think paying high taxes is good, and that they think America deserved to be attacked on 9-11. For *these* folks, it would be hypocritical to want the National Guard to defend their own community from terrorism, or for them to benefit from a GOP tax cut.
sinz54 // Feb 20, 2009 at 9:25 am
Oops, I meant “prove it by not accepting any.” [Why doesn't this blog allow you to preview messages before posting?]
bibs // Feb 20, 2009 at 11:28 am
While one could make this arguement for Congress, it’s a much harder sell for governors such as Sanford and Perry. They can refuse to spend the money if they really believe anything they have been saying. My guess is that they will use the Sarah Palin strategy of loudly decrying the spending while happily accepting the money. Another word for that is hypocrisy.
ireign // Feb 20, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Sinz-I disagree with most of what you and Bibs wrote.
1. It’s not hypcritical to believe the stimulus is wrong but accept the money. If taxpayers of your state are going to end up derive the costs i.e. paying for the stimulus in the form of tax increases down the road or indirectly through higher deficits, than you should derive the benefits of the stimulus spending. Unless Obama agrees that for residents of Texas, South Carolina, etc. that they don’t have to pay federal taxes than residents of these states are entitled to the funds even though the governors of both states would prefer a different stimulus package. Thus, Sinz’s post about ” “prove it by not accepting any” is silly.
2. The Democratic party platform calls for a tax hike on what they define as “rich”. (of course, stupidly without differentiating between income and wealth). Thus, those Democrats who are superwealthy like George Soros, Warren Buffet, Mark Rich, and Republicans like Pete Peterson are a bit hypocritical when they try to take advantage of every tax loophole known to man while saying the rich should pay their fair share. That is hypocrisy because even if taxes were increased, through clever accounting they would not be paying much more in taxes while the doctor in his 30’s with a six figure debt and low six figure income would be paying a lot more.
3. Even assuming your argument was logical (which I don’t believe it is) just because the governor of a state is against the plan doesn’t mean that residents of a state should have to suffer.
realconservativ // Feb 21, 2009 at 12:03 pm
The government is going to spend (waste) $800 billion whether well-governed states like Alaska, Louisiniana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas accept it or not. For the past month, Sarah Palin has been warning about unfunded mandates, programs that the federal government will fund for a short period and then the states pick up the tab. Palin, Jindal, Sanford, Barbour and Perry seem inclined to accept it for infrastructure projects and nothing else. Nohing hypocritical about that.
sinz54 // Feb 21, 2009 at 1:07 pm
ireign: How do you know that George Soros and Warren Buffett “take advantage of every tax loophole known to man”? I’m sorry, I don’t agree with you. If you truly believe in being fiercely independent of government largesse, then you don’t take largesse even if it’s already been decided on. Perhaps there is a way that Governors Sanford and Palin can take the stimulus money, but use it simply to balance their state budgets or lower their state taxes, rather than spending it on useless pie-in-the-sky liberal projects. The goal here is to NOT help the liberals to implement their agenda. And by spending the stimulus money on infrastructure and whatnot, you’re helping the liberals get their agenda done.
ireign // Feb 22, 2009 at 10:48 am
Sinz54-It is well reported that Mr. Buffet while advocating for higher taxes actively avoids paying them. He concedes paying only paying a 17.7% of his income in taxes while the top rate is 35%. See http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/06/mr-buffetts-tax-bill.html for some suggestions on how he does so.
For Soros look at his interview http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218233,00.html
ireign // Feb 22, 2009 at 10:56 am
Sinz writes, ” If you truly believe in being fiercely independent of government largesse, then you don’t take largesse even if it’s already been decided on.”
Where did any of the governors say this? All governors accept and believe in federal funds. All states pay a good amount of money to the federal government. Most GOP governors happened to disagree on the benefits of the stimulus bill and find that the measure is too costly and a portion of the measure is not about stimulating the economy but pushing the Democrats agenda. That does not mean that Republican governors do not agree that roads are in need of repair.
This isn’t about that. This about governors saying the stimulus is not worth the cost. Since the governor’s constituents are being forced to pay for the costs, regardless of whether they support the bill, than the CONSTITUENTS deserve the benefits.
If you cannot comprehend the logic behind the aforementioned statement, than this is something not worth pursuing with you in the future. Under your logic, everyone who believed the prescription drug bill was a lousy bill and voted against it, they have no right to prescription drugs.