Las Vegas Sun

June 4, 2012

Currently: 98° | Complete forecast | Log in

SUN EDITORIAL:

Hello hypocrisy!

After bashing the stimulus, lawmakers now want the cash — to aid economy

Wednesday, Oct. 20, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.

Many Republicans in Congress have complained bitterly about the stimulus bill. They have tried to scare voters by saying it will add debt to generations to come while doing nothing to help stimulate the economy.

Those who have decried the stimulus make up a “who’s who” of conservatives in Washington, including former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Tea Party acolyte Rep. Michele Bachmann and Nevada Sen. John Ensign.

Yet guess who lined up to ask for stimulus money once the law passed?

Yes, one and the same.

In fact, according to a recent investigation led by the Center for Public Integrity, many of Congress’ high-profile Republican critics of the bill, along with some Democrats who voted against it, wrote letters to federal agencies asking for stimulus money for projects in their states. In those letters, which were obtained through federal Freedom of Information Act requests, there is no concern about the federal debt or that spending would be a waste of money. Instead, the letter writers argue that spending federal money on the projects would actually stimulate the economy, encourage small businesses and save and create jobs.

The level of hypocrisy is stunning. For example:

• In interviews and public statements, Ensign complained of “pork-barrel spending” and said the stimulus would “pass on a huge debt burden” to future generations. But in five letters to Cabinet officials, he didn’t raise those objections. Instead, in one letter, he argued for stimulus money for a Northern Nevada project, saying it would “allow for the creation and preservation of numerous design and construction jobs.” In another letter, he supported a grant for a Reno-based company that makes high-tech batteries, saying the federal money would “directly and indirectly create or save over 330 jobs.”

• After being sworn in, Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., said the stimulus “didn’t create one new job.” Less than two months later, he wrote in support of a broadband project that he said was “essential to the economic well-being and recovery of Western Massachusetts,” adding it would “help prepare our next generation of entrepreneurs and job creators.”

• Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who has been a face of the Tea Party in Congress, has regularly complained about the “failed” stimulus, which she said would create “massive tax increases.” Yet Bachmann wrote more than half a dozen letters, pleading for the federal spending she so demeans. One project, she said, “would directly produce 1,407 new jobs per year while indirectly producing 1,563 a year.”

• McConnell, speaking about the stimulus legislation, told CNN last year: “I think we can fairly safely declare it now a failure.” Two months later, he sent five letters asking for stimulus money for his state, including a railroad project that could “attract industry, create jobs and move goods through areas underserved by national highways.”

So, how is it that the Republicans explain this incredible hypocrisy? Those who answered the center’s requests for comment essentially said it was a matter of helping constituents and that it wasn’t inconsistent to seek the money because it had been appropriated. But that is disingenuous. If the stimulus is a failure and bad policy, as they claim, why would they want any part of it?

The reality is that this is a crass ploy to try to fool voters. They can say they were against the stimulus before they were for it.

If these members of Congress paused long enough to put their angry rhetoric and galling hypocrisy on hold, they might see the truth. It can be found in their own words: Stimulus money is crucial to spurring the economy and creating jobs.

Discussion: 5 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. By floozy (Willaim Flusek)
    Oct. 20, 2010
    7:09 a.m.
    Flag

    It seems like a pretty lame argument when you think about it. Once the decision is made to spend the money and you know that the money will in fact be spent, then it seems like the only intelligent thing to do is to try to direct what parts of the money you can to things that may make a difference. To stand on the sidelines and refuse to take any of the money would only make sense if by doing so you could prevent that portion of the money from being spent. But in the real world, if Ensign, Brown, Bachmann or others do not try to direct the money to what they see as a worthwhile project, then it just goes somewhere else. It gets spent regardless of their their action so they are making the best of the situation. The argument is similar to the ones questioning why someone who thinks that the government is too big or part of the problem would run for public office. Well, if you don't get involved the situation will not right itself, so you have to wade in to make a difference.

    At least that is taking the positive look at the situation and there is always the chance that it is all political posturing and that some or all of these people are just trying to bring money home to the home state. But that seems to be a praiseworthy action when most politicians do it, so again, what's the beef if they are doing what good pols do.

    It is only hypocrisy if they voted against the stimulus for purely political reasons but believed it would work and the endeavored to take the money to do that work. If they truly believed that the stimulus was poorly conceived then they should have voted against it in the hopes of creating a better bill.

  2. By jajma (Margie Robinson)
    Oct. 20, 2010
    7:45 a.m.
    Flag

    No one's blaming these members of the GOP for availing themselves of the stimulus funds. That's a straw man argument. The point is that they've been saying that the stimulus created NO jobs in public while begging different federal government agencies for funds and justifying the requests by saying that the funds will create a certain number of jobs and "stimulate" the economies in their states and districts.

    Sure, they're entitled to the funds because their constituents are taxpayers. It's the unethical behavior and lying to drive a political narrative that is the problem.

    Conservatives present themselves as the "models" for ethical behavior but don't seem to mind violating those ethics by lying to their supporters. Conservatives also push the idea that they're Christians, but don't mind lying and supporting liars and hypocrites. I was just reading in Matthew today about the rewards Jesus said lie in store for liars and hypocrites like the Pharisees and Sadduccees in biblical times. If these so-called Christians don't think God is watching, I've got news for them as they continue on their path of personal destruction to have eternal tea parties with Mephistopheles and his 300 minions.

  3. By RHG (Robert Glancy)
    Oct. 20, 2010
    9:14 a.m.
    Flag

    If these members of Congress paused long enough to put their angry rhetoric and galling hypocrisy on hold, they might see the truth. It can be found in their own words: Stimulus money is crucial to spurring the economy and creating jobs.
    ___________

    Hmm, can the Democrat Party operatives that write for the LVSun tell us where these jobs are at? What's the unemployment rate in Nevada right now? I thought Obama had all these "shovel-ready" jobs on the burner ready to go. Turns out he doesn't.

  4. By mred
    Oct. 20, 2010
    12:17 p.m.
    Flag

    Also Gibbons is a hypocrite for suing the Feds over the healthcare Bill while putting in for subsidies under the Bill for early retirees.

    He also gets free taxpayer medical care for the injury he sustained during his "side job" breaking horses. His injuries should be paid by Medicare since he is 65 or by worker's comp.

    Time to put Gibbons out to pasture.

  5. By ColinFromLasVegas
    Oct. 21, 2010
    8:09 a.m.
    Flag

    It's a known fact that hypocrisy will occur. Especially in these mid terms.

    And the hypocrisy continues mostly centered around Republicans. They will tell you ANYTHING to get votes. And they expect you to not pay attention to what happened before. Do as I say, not as I do.

    It seems their only justification is that this is the time before the elections that pundits call "The Silly Season."

    Speaking of which....

    This is a great video that is a perfect example of television using the politicians to market their shows....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqQJB8DR_...

Post a comment

Commenting requires registration.

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

If you would like to submit your comment as a letter to the editor, you may submit it here.

Most Popular