Republican Hypocrisy on Stimulus Bill

[rjd970]

Looks like being a dirty liar isn't only reserved for liberals...

Senator Kit Bond (R)
Congressman Don Young (R)
Congressman John Mica (R)

These three voted against the bill, and then went to their constituents and bragged about the economic benefits it would bring. Yep, that's right, the bill they voted against is a victory for their districts. Ridiculous.

Bond's Statement:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Claire McCaskill and Kit Bond from Missouri, Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall from New Mexico and Chuck Schumer from New York applauded a measure included in the final economic recovery package that will allow states more flexibility in providing grants to communities for water, waste water or drinking water projects through the State Revolving Fund (SRF).

After attempting to add a similar provision to the version of the bill crafted in the Senate, the senators sent a letter to the members of the joint House and Senate conference who are tasked with reconciling differences between the bills from both chambers, to request they include grants as an option for states administering the SRF. The original House-passed version of the economic recovery package included such a provision.

The senators were please to see that the final version of the economic recovery package passed in the House today included the original SRF measure that would require at least 50 percent of the capitalization grants each State receives under the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds be used to provide assistance in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants. Including this provision was essential in order for States to reach communities that would otherwise not have the resources to repay loans.

“The entire purpose of this bill is to ensure we get money flowing out into the economy quickly and this particular piece of this bill goes even further in that regard by helping local Missouri communities tend to projects that need to be fixed anyway,” McCaskill said.

“Missouri communities need these funds to clean their water and I am proud that our bipartisan provision was added to the final package in conference,” said Bond.

“This means it will be easier for New Mexico to access funding to make drinking water projects possible in communities throughout the state,” Bingaman said.

“I am pleased the final conference report includes our amendment which will help New Mexico access funds to bring clean water to our communities and help get our economy moving again,” Udall said.

“Including this measure has made a good recovery package even better. It will ensure that more communities can get access to the resources to carry out critical water and sewer projects,” Schumer said.

Currently, the economic recovery package only allows states to fund SRF projects through loans, negative interest loans or principal subsidies. However, many states, like Missouri and New Mexico, have constitutional laws that make it extremely difficult to administer the SRF through these means in the timeframe required under the bill. For states like Missouri, that means many rural communities could be precluded from accessing this funding.

Young's Press Release:

Washington, D.C. – Alaskan Congressman Don Young won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners last night in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Senate version of H.R. 1 included a provision that appeared to prohibit the use of programs administered by the SBA that are designed for procurement through minority-owned business enterprises, women-owned businesses, Veteran and Service Disabled Veteran programs, HUBZone and Small Business Administration 8(a) programs. Rep. Young worked with Members on the other side of the aisle to make the case for these programs, and was able to get the provision pulled from the bill.

“I was approached by members of the Alaskan Federation of Native with concerns about this provision,” said Rep. Young. “I told them that no matter if I supported this bill or not, I would make sure they were not hurt by it. These programs are a success and are working just as Congress intended. Through these programs, community based projects function as an economic driver for Alaska Natives and Alaska small businesses, and empower organizations to provide benefits to entire communities and regions throughout our state. Small business makes up the majority of employers in Alaska; they are vital to the growth and development of our economy. There are over 5,000 American Indian and Alaska Native owned businesses, and the numbers are continually growing. As I said, regardless of my feelings for the bill, I would make sure Alaskans were not hurt by it, and that’s why I fought to get this changed.”

Mica's Press Release:

Washington, DC – Funding for transit projects in the stimulus package could accelerate the Central Florida Commuter Rail project, according to Congressman John L. Mica (FL-07), the Republican Leader of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Congresswoman Corrine Brown (FL-03), the Chairwoman of the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.

“The total appropriation for transit systems includes $750 million for the New Starts program,” Mica said. “Nationally, the Central Florida Commuter Rail project is next in line for final approval and federal funding from the Federal Transit Administration.

“The timing couldn’t be better. All the project needs is the State Legislature’s approval of the CSX-Florida Department of Transportation liability agreement,” Mica said.

“Providing additional funds to this popular program will increase the availability of federal funds for the Commuter Rail project and may speed up the contract terms,” said Brown.

“This action has the potential to provide Central Florida with a quicker, cost-effective transportation alternative and some relief to the region’s growing highway congestion,” Brown added.

The Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts program is the federal program which funds new transit projects or extensions to existing systems.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

A hypocritical politician?! Say it isn't so!

 

[KB5252]

Could it be possible that this was a part of the bill they were in favor of but there was just way too much pork in the bill overall to put their name on?

I don't see it as hypocrisy, I won't even praise them for voting no because the decision was way too easy, the pork had no business being in an emergency stimulus bill.

 

[rjd970]

We can go ahead and add Senator Lindsey Graham (R) to this distinguised list as well.

BLITZER: Should South Carolina take the money?

GRAHAM: I think that, yes, from my point of view, I — you don’t want to be crazy here. I mean, if there’s going to be money on the table that will help my state, but I’ve got a job to do up here, and that is to try to help people and not damn the next generation. We had a $415 billion package to help people who have lost their jobs, that cut taxes, that create new jobs. We’ve got a spending bill, not a job creation bill. And we’re being all things to all people.

We’ve dug a hole for the next generation of young Americans they can’t get out of. Total cost of this bill is over $1 trillion and it’s not going to create jobs as much as it does throw government and when you send the money to South Carolina, that’s not going to create a job for the national economy. It’s going to help a bunch of politicians balance their books and not create jobs in South Carolina.

What!? I'm against the principle of the bill, but let's not be crazy here, it is alright if my district gets theirs.

YouTube - Lindsey Graham Is Soooo Sorry He Couldn't Work With Pres. Obama on Stimulus Bill

 

[rjd970]

Could it be possible that this was a part of the bill they were in favor of but there was just way too much pork in the bill overall to put their name on?

I don't see it as hypocrisy, I won't even praise them for voting no because the decision was way too easy, the pork had no business being in an emergency stimulus bill.

I absolutely see it as hypocrisy. They are against the pork, and spending in the bill. They wanted massive tax breaks instead. But spending is Ok, as long as it benefits their district? How can these guys label the part that benefits them bipartisan, and then vote against it?

 

[KB5252]

I absolutely see it as hypocrisy. They are against the pork, and spending in the bill. They wanted massive tax breaks instead. But spending is Ok, as long as it benefits their district?

Infrastructure is needed, it will help stimulate the economy, both on the local and national level, a good majority of the spending in this bill will do nothing to stimulate the economy and was never intended to.

The repubs wanted a combination of tax breaks and spending that would jump start the economy, they didn't get the tax breaks they wanted and the bill was rife with spending. Just don't see their position as being hypocritical.

 

[rjd970]

Infrastructure is needed, it will help stimulate the economy, both on the local and national level, a good majority of the spending in this bill will do nothing to stimulate the economy and was never intended to.

The repubs wanted a combination of tax breaks and spending that would jump start the economy, they didn't get the tax breaks they wanted and the bill was rife with spending. Just don't see their position as being hypocritical.

Well, I do. I don't see why they would go around touting the results of a spending bill they voted against on principle. At the very least, they could stop with the grandstanding to the media and on the house floor if they are going to brag to their constituents on what they did for them in a "bipartisan" fashion.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

yawn

 

[KB5252]

Well, I do. I don't see why they would go around touting the results of a spending bill they voted against on principle. At the very least, they could stop with the grandstanding to the media and on the house floor if they are going to brag to their constituents on what they did for them.

If you look at the portion of the bill they were praising it was one and the same. Their problem with the bill was not infrastructure but slipping in health care and more under the guise of emergency stimulus. Had this bill been directed at stimulating the economy, and not anywhere else I would bet you would have seen many repubs put their support behind it, even without the tax cuts they wanted.

 

[volinbham]

We can go ahead and add Senator Lindsey Graham (R) to this distinguised list as well.



What!? I'm against the principle of the bill, but let's not be crazy here, it is alright if my district gets theirs.

YouTube - Lindsey Graham Is Soooo Sorry He Couldn't Work With Pres. Obama on Stimulus Bill

I view Graham's as less of a problem since he's not claiming credit for getting this money for his state.

He's absolutely correct -- since the bill passed you take the money otherwise your constituents are subsidizing other constituents.

Now for the ones taking credit for getting specific provisions in bills that they didn't vote for? That's another matter.

 

[rjd970]

If you look at the portion of the bill they were praising it was one and the same. Their problem with the bill was not infrastructure but slipping in health care and more under the guise of emergency stimulus. Had this bill been directed at stimulating the economy, and not anywhere else I would bet you would have seen many repubs put their support behind it, even without the tax cuts they wanted.

I doubt it. Anything less than the version they offered would have resulted in the same way. I don't see any repubs voting for this, no matter the concessions.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I doubt it. Anything less than the version they offered would have resulted in the same way. I don't see any repubs voting for this, no matter the concessions.

they weren't voting for it, but the outcome was inevitable by any and all accounts, so ignoring the potential for windfall to your constituents would have been stupid.

Bragging about it is another matter and reprehensible to me.

 

[KB5252]

I view Graham's as less of a problem since he's not claiming credit for getting this money for his state.

He's absolutely correct -- since the bill passed you take the money otherwise your constituents are subsidizing other constituents.

Now for the ones taking credit for getting specific provisions in bills that they didn't vote for? That's another matter.

I just glanced through it and did not see this. I have to agree.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Screw every last one of them. The dog crap below has more value than any of these persons lives!