Says DNC head Tim Kaine in a fundraising letter: "It's a breathtaking display of public hypocrisy. At least 116 Republican governors, senators, and representatives have spent the past year railing against the Recovery Act, while simultaneously requesting funds to create jobs in their districts and taking credit for projects at ribbon-cutting ceremonies."
So according to the Democrats, if you oppose certain funding, but then -- when you lose the vote to kill that funding -- want to make sure that your district -- full of taxpayers who are paying for that funding -- gets its fair share of that funding ... you're a hypocrite.
This, obviously, makes no sense. I am opposed to Social Security; but I am paying into it, and I will take what is legally mine when it comes time. I was opposed to Obama's (extremely tiny) tax credit last year, but I will take my fair share of it. Many Democrats were opposed to the Republican tax cuts for all American income tax payers, because they also cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans ... but those same wealthy Democrats took those tax breaks.
Only a moron could believe that taking your fair share of a program you didn't want, but that you're paying for, is hypocrisy. Unfortunately for Tim Kaine, I am taking him at his word, that he believes what he says, which means he's pretty dumb.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 17, 2010 05:06 PM | Email ThisDid you just steal this from Prof. Mankiw?
Posted by: Samuel on February 17, 2010 05:30 PMSaying "But everyone was doing it!" is a novel excuse in high school, but not when you're an elected congressperson.
Posted by: Barack on February 17, 2010 06:31 PM"Barack": you're wrong. The most telling thing is that you didn't actually respond to my argument that demonstrates this. You're as dumb as Tim Kaine (unless you're just being dishonest).
The word on the street is that Steele is trying to usurp the Tea Party movement into the Republican Party, which goes against the concept of Tea Parties. They are both dim bulbs, but in different ways.
Posted by: KDS on February 17, 2010 07:29 PMJust what the HELL do these morons think Medicare is? Government healthcare, socialized medicine.
Sorry, but if you are against "government healthcare" and want to "save medicare", THEN YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. Either that, or a moron. Something tells me there are a lot of tea-baggers in the latter catagory.
The only thing here that I don't understand is your question: apart from that, what do you pretend that I don't understand?
Just like those GOP wingnuts who decryed the "evils" of "government healthcare" and "single payer" but then tried to accuse the democrats of "destroying Medicare".
Yes, that is another great example of how Democrats are dumb. I am against Medicare. But I am also against cutting benefits for Medicare for people who are currently on it. There is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about that stance. That you think so only shows you're not very bright.
if you are against "government healthcare" and want to "save medicare", THEN YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE
Incorrect, of course. It depends on what you mean by "save Medicare." Many people, like me, want to save it from cuts for current beneficiaries, but would like to phase it out over time.
And I note that -- just like "Barack" before you -- you did not, in any way, address my stated argument. Obviously, because you can't, because there is no rational -- or even moderately convincing IRrational -- argument against it.
I had no say in their establishment. They're there whether I like them or not. I have to pay for them. And they have a direct affect on my commute every day whether I use them or not. Whether or not I choose to use them, I'm still forced to participate in their use. So if their existance is forced upon me at my expense, how am I a hypocrite for wanting to at least see that my money's worth is gotten out of them?
Same with the stimulus spending, or Medicare, or whatever. Whether or not I agree with them, their existence is forced upon me and I have to pay for them, so I must "participate" in them whether I like them or not. To ask that I and others at least get to participate "fairly" in these programs that are forced upon me is not hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is saying one thing, than willingly doing another. Saying one thing, then being forced to participate in another whether you like it or not, but at least trying to see that there is some sort of "fairness" in how you are forced to participate is not hypocrisy... it's trying to see to it that you aren't screwed over as bad as you could be.
Posted by: Mike H on February 17, 2010 09:22 PMI guess over the last 6 years you wilfully withheld about 23% of your income taxes so you didn't fund the DOD and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or did you pay all your income taxes and pay for the wars while hypocritically denouncing them?
Did you continue to pay your income taxes at the pre-2002 tax rates or did you hypocritically pay the lower GOP/President Bush tax rates while denouncing the tax cuts?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 17, 2010 09:37 PMIt must be really scary to go through life as you do, so completely in the dark about the things going on around you.
Let me try to help lift the veil of darkness from your eyes, just a little bit. I'll use Tim Kaine's own words to help.
Are you excited?
Here we go.
Tim Kaine mentioned four Republicans in his fundraising letter. He mentioned Rep. Joe Wilson, who told the Department of Agriculture that the money he was seeking "would provide jobs and investment" for his South Carolina district. He was trying to get that money for his district; if successful, he would get credit for the jobs that money would help create.
Then Kaine mentioned Governor Tim Pawlenty, who balanced his state budget with the same funds he's so often attacked on TV. Again, Pawlenty actually used that money to balance the budget: he actually did it, and gets credit for it.
This is how it works! If you do something, you get credit for doing it. Shall we continue? I can only presume you're getting really anxious now, as a whole new world of knowledge and understanding is revealing itself to you. (Well, actually, I guess I can take credit for it!)
Kaine then mentioned Senator Mitch McConnell, who bragged about funding for a military project in Kentucky. Again, McConnell actually got that money steered to that project. He gets credit for doing that, because, well, he actually did it!
Last, but not least, Kaine mentioned Rep. Eric Cantor, who sought funds for a high-speed rail project in Virginia to create jobs. Same story here: if he sought the money and was successful, then ... he would get credit for the jobs created!
I hope by now you see how dumb you were, and that in the future you will remember these lessons and be less dumb. Here's hopin'!
Also, there are current letters from congressman who have been speaking out recently that the stimulus hasn't created jobs and is a waste, yet the letters tout the jobs created by projects in their own districts and how it has helped stimulate their economies.
I would agree with your point, but what do you say about representatives that: (a) propose projects for a bill they have no intention on supporting, and (b) publicly state that the stimulus hasn't created jobs, yet write letters documenting the jobs and aid the stimulus has had on their own districts. Do you not call them on this? The WA Post and Wall Street journal articles highlight the letters on congressman letterhead documenting these actions. Refer to those articles for background on my statement.
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2010 09:18 AMIf not, how do you proposed to rein in Medicare costs, which are projected to eat up more and more of the budget (and the GDP in general)?
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2010 09:25 AMAgain, not hypocritical. You know it's likely to pass, and you know if you don't get your earmark in there, it won't get funded, and your district won't get it. This is not hypocritical in any way whatsoever, unless the funding request in the bill increases the size of the bill. But that's usually not how it works, and I'd be surprised if that's how it worked in any case you could find. How it usually works is they set up a total and then divy it up with specific requests in the bill.
Whether it happens before or after the fact is irrelevant, again, unless the request increases the package's size.
Also, there are current letters from congressman who have been speaking out recently that the stimulus hasn't created jobs and is a waste, yet the letters tout the jobs created by projects in their own districts and how it has helped stimulate their economies.
As a blanket criticism that's a non-sequitur. You'd have to examine specific conflicting statements. I know that I've seen Democrats complain that someone says the money "created jobs," whereas before they said it won't "create jobs," but in context, the original statement was talking about long-term sustainable job creation, whereas in the specific case, they are talking about specific jobs created for specific projects (which will, as predicted, go away).
It's not hypocrisy in such a case: it's making the best of a bad situation. "Yeah, this isn't what we wanted, but at least we got some of the money back to our district and got some people back to work with it." Not hypocrisy, in such a case.
what do you say about representatives that: (a) propose projects for a bill they have no intention on supporting
Good for them -- again, as long as it's allocating money already in the bill, rather than increasing the bill's size (and as a separate issue, as long as it's things government SHOULD be spending money on, and it's not being wasted).
(b) publicly state that the stimulus hasn't created jobs, yet write letters documenting the jobs and aid the stimulus has had on their own districts
Again, depends entirely on the specifics.
Do you or don't you support Rep. Ryan (Republican from WI) budget proposal that does call for future cuts in Medicare?
I don't know the proposal. I am against cutting CURRENT benefits for CURRENT beneficiaries. I am in favor of cutting benefits for FUTURE beneficiaries, slowly, over time, so that they (and society) can prepare for it. I might be open to some cuts for current beneficiaries, in the form of means testing or somesuch, if part of a larger package to bring it way down more over time.
1. On the WA Post and Wall Street Journal articles, they do state the official letters from the GOP congressmen that promote the job creation and aid the stimulus has brought to their districts (physical letters on official letter head). So, there should be no disagreement on the fact that these congressmen were stating the benefits of the stimulus package in their own districts. What I am unsure about is whether these congressmen, specifically, also stated the counter argument (i.e., that the stimulus package didn't create jobs). I believe the newspaper articles might have been drawing the inference between Republican leadership's statements (e.g., Bohner, Cantor, etc.) and these specific examples of where Republican representatives were officially stating the opposite. So, if that is the case, then it is a matter of leadership saying one thing and the local congressman saying another. In my book this is still hypocrisy (or at least embarrassment) on the leadership's part. Do they not talk to the other people they supposedly represent to get the facts straight?
On the Ryan budget, I believe it addresses future cuts, not cuts to current beneficiaries. So then it is a question of where to cut the line (i.e., who falls into the current group and who doesn't)? I believe when Reagan addressed SS, it did phase in the increase in retirement age over time. I know I was young enough that it moved it from 65 to 67 for me (not that there will be any money left by the time I get there).
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2010 10:13 AMIrrelevant to my point. The question is whether any of their statements contradicted their previous statements, and you would need to show specific contradictory text for you to have a rational claim of hypocrisy.
if that is the case, then it is a matter of leadership saying one thing and the local congressman saying another
Which also is not hypocrisy, unless you can show they are somehow colluding to that end ... obviously, congresspeople often disagree with their leadership.
I've asked a few times now for actual contradictory text from before-and-after that demonstrates actual hypocrisy, rather than the Democrats made-up definition of hypocrisy, which is "anything we can say to make people think the Republicans don't have integrity, even if it is a big fat lie." None has been provided, and I am not going to hold my breath. :-)
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) Said Stimulus Funds Would Create ?Much Needed Jobs.?
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) Said Stimulus Money Is Needed ?Desperately.?
?Reichert acknowledges that the stimulus bill will deliver tangible good news to his constituents? ?I feel a responsibility at this point to make this still work.??
So if I understand they really wanted the stimulus but railed and voted against it because the party said too and it would pass anyway. Looks like the represtent no but themselves.
Posted by: ddog on February 18, 2010 11:22 AMDid you pay lower taxes thanks to the across-the-board Bush tax cuts? Were you opposed to those tax cuts?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 18, 2010 11:38 AMI am still looking for the (now supposed, since it doesn't come up on Google using simple search) Washington Post article on the subject. I also looked for recent articles on NC, since that was one of the states mentioned.
Any event, from what I have found, Pudge is correct in his statement.
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2010 01:31 PM