Showing posts with label states. Show all posts
Showing posts with label states. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Romney Misleads on Importance of FEMA and Federal Disaster Relief.

After a Republican primary debate this past Spring, Romney told Americans that he'd end federal disaster programs such as FEMA and make states shoulder the burden themselves. "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better" (link).

Then Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast, and Romney realized that he was once again that he was on the wrong side of yet another issue. So, he's trying to mislead Americans, yet again, by saying he does support FEMA and federal relief funds. As Sabrina Siddiqui reports for "The Huffington Post," the Romney campaign is saying:
Governor Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions,” said campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg. “As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.
Notice how the position opposing federal help remains except for a sentence hastily added at the end saying "This includes help from the federal government and FEMA." I'm so disgusted with all these "fiscal conservatives" saying government is horrible, incapable and a waste of tax dollars--until they need government help. Then they try to backtrack like Willy Coyote after realizing he ran off the cliff!! Romney must think Americans are all too stupid to notice him changing positions faster than a prostitute in Amsterdam!!

Romney's FEMA failure during Hurricane Sandy gives us a glimpse into how he would handle disasters as President of the United States. It doesn't look good. His short-sighted views on cutting emergency relief programs expose his weaknesses as a politician. He might be able to lead a board-room full of executives but he's clueless as a national leader.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

The 47% of Americans that Romney Attacked for Paying Few Taxes are Often Republican.

By now most of you have probably heard about Romney dismissing 47% of the country as free-loaders and dead-beats for not paying enough taxes. This coming from a guy who won't release but one year of tax returns. He's also a guy who has only paid 13% in taxes himself, which is much less than many Americans pay. The irony of his statements, however, are that they attack the very Republicans he needs on his side: seniors and poor, white, male, working class voters. According to  Andy Sullivan with "Yahoo! News":
The "47 percent" aren't just low-income city dwellers who rely on food stamps, housing support and other programs that traditionally have been championed by Democrats. Many are retirees and working-class white voters who are wary of government's role in their lives and who have tended to vote for Republicans in recent years, even as they take advantage of tax credits and government assistance.
How many are Republican voters? Well, according to an article by Brian LoGiurato with Business Insider, "Out of the 10 states with the highest percentage of filers with no liability, all but one — Florida — are reliable Republican stalwarts. Read more:

Romney is so clueless that he doesn't even understand his own base of supporters!! He has just told them that while he, Romney, does everything he can to avoid paying taxes, it's they, the "47% Republicans" who are dead-beats on taxes!! Wow. He has no idea that these people still pay sales tax for food, which is a regressive tax.
A value added tax or sales tax on food and other essentials such as clothing, transport, and residential rents can be regressive. Since the income elasticity of demand of food is usually less than 1 (inelastic) (see ,Engel's lawit tends to take up a higher percentage of the budget of a person or family with a lower income.
Mitt Romney puts his foot in his mouth so often that, by now, he must have his entire right leg down his throat!! Even though President Obama is pulling ahead in the polls, this is no time to back-off. We must keep the pressure on Romney and finish this election strong!! Time to double our efforts and finally be rid of Mitt, "Thurston Howell III" Romney!!

---End of Transmission---

Monday, January 24, 2011

Republican Welfare States: GOP States Pay Less Taxes but Get Most in Federal Spending; Opposite True for Democratic States.

Those states who pay the least in taxes, get the most--and they tend to vote Republican. Those who pay the most in taxes and get the least back tend to vote Democratic. So, says the Tax Foundation (a conservative leaning group) in an article by Andrew Chamberlain (CLICK MAP ABOVE TO ENLARGE).
Some 84 percent of federal individual income taxes—which account for over 40 percent of federal revenue—are paid by the those in the top 25 percent of the income distribution. The majority of these taxpayers live in wealthy, urban, politically "blue" areas like New York, California, and Massachusetts.
So, throw this information back in the face of a Republican/Conservative/Tea Party person the next time they blast the Democrats/Liberals/Greens for being, so-called, "welfare queens." If it wasn't for the progressive tax system that most Democrats and Liberals favor, most Republican states would be screwed. Oh the irony!!

In other words, Democratic states are redistributing wealth to the Republican states (irony). I actually don't mind this, as a Liberal, (being that I believe in a progressive tax system), however, it would be nice if some of those on the right would come down off their high-horse on taxes.
I'd like them to acknowledge that the progressive tax system actually helps them!! I'm not holding my breath though.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, December 10, 2010

DEA Thugs Raid Legal Medical Marijuana Operations.

Once again, this time last week in Michigan, the federal DEA has teamed up with recalcitrant state and local law enforcement in a bid to negate the will of the public and the law of the land. Heavily-armed state and federal lawmen raided a pair of medical marijuana gardens in the town of Okemos, outside Lansing, breaking windows, throwing smoke grenades, and seizing thousands of dollars worth of equipment and medical marijuana plants -- all in a raid of a facility that is undeniably within the confines of Michigan's medical marijuana law.

The feds don't even have to prosecute to have inflict severe pain, Abel said. "They clean you out, and then where are you? There will be bankruptcies filed because of this," said Basore. "Most of our caregivers are in the their 60s, and they're not rich." The DEA and reactionary state law enforcement officials are once again showing serious signs of thinking they are above the law. Someone needs to rein them in, whether through lawsuits, in the streets, or at the ballot box

TPJ: Is this America anymore; where the will of the people is what determines how the authorities can act? Or, are we now living in a police state? The federal government is out of control; drunk with power and in total disregard for the local laws in multiple states in relation to medical marijuana. This is medicine we're talking about!! Imagine if the DEA kicked in the door or your pharmacy and removed your access to the medicines that help ease your suffering?

They are running amok across state line after state line kicking in doors and ruining the lives of lawful citizens obeying state law. Its seems patently absurd and outrageous that millions of voters can legalize something but that the federal government can invade the state and crush that democratic voice under their jackboot of authoritarianism.

They are exploiting the loophole that exists between state and federal law but they know well that what they are doing is in violation of individual liberties and civil rights. I hope that in their alone time that these officers realize that what they are doing is morally wrong. We all must stand up against this type of intimidation whether or not you benefit from the healing nature of marijuana or not. Because this type of abuse of power often bleeds into other areas of civil liberties. The politicians are cowards for not passing a law to reflect the will of the people on medical marijuana legality. So, it is up to us to petition our government to get back in line with the people. Time to stop this abuse of power and return authority back to local governments.

Frankly, I'm surprised more conservatives aren't in support of dialing back this federal power that the DEA is exploiting. They are often the party that is most leery of government meddling in the affairs of individual states. Email your politician often and bug them to take up this issue because clarification is needed to call off the DEA thugs. This is supposed to be America, damn it. Land of the FREE!!

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

The Marijuana Tipping Point.

Washington is one of four states where measures to legalize and regulate marijuana have been introduced, and about two dozen other states are considering bills ranging from medical marijuana to decriminalizing possession of small amounts of the herb. "In terms of state legislatures, this is far and away the most active year that we've ever seen," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, which supports reforming marijuana laws. "I would say that we are close to the tipping point," he said. Travis Kuykendall, head of the West Texas High Intensity Drug-Trafficking Area office in El Paso, Texas. "There's nothing for society in it, there's nothing good for the country in it, there's nothing for the good of the economy in it."

HBW: No benefit to society? How about ending the crime associated with the illegal marijuana trade? How could a police officer be against reducing crime??? Nothing good for the country or economy? How about tax revenue that could help pay for better schools, better health care and better services? And how about the fact that legalizing marijuana would free up our prisons of non-violent marijuana offenders to make room real criminals like rapists, terrorists, child molesters and murderers. Plus, it would free up resources to deal with the real drug problem -- meth. Pot has no benefit to society? Bullshit. Your tired rhetoric doesn't hold up anymore because Americans are better educated about things, thanks in part to the great equalizing, informative and democratic communication tool that is the internet.

How many of these police officers and politicians, (who have most of the control on marijuana policy) go home and drink 2-3 glasses of alcohol at night after busting non-violent pot users? A lot I would venture to guess. So if it's o.k. to drink alcohol after a long day of work then why isn't it o.k. to smoke a joint after work? Especially when most people are starting to see that marijuana has less negative effects on people, society and the economy than alcohol. That said, I'm not for making alcohol illegal again because for one prohibition doesn't work but also; I believe in personal freedoms.

My friend Anthony did a better job talking about this issue. So be sure to check out his post on this matter if you believe in personal liberties as I do.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, October 23, 2009

Reid Close to Opt-Out Version of Public Option.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is just one or two Senate votes shy of having a filibuster-proof majority in favor of a public option for health insurance coverage with a provision allowing states to opt-out, multiple sources tell the Huffington Post. The Nevada Democrat, according to Hill sources, is furiously working the phones today to ensure that 60 Senators (including him) will back the provision. The work will continue through the weekend and comes despite the president's indication in a meeting Thursday evening at the White House that he prefers a public option that would be triggered in by certain conditions over the "opt-out" alternative.

TPJ: I must say that while I want the public option without strings attached I do think this "opt-out" version might just be a good compromise. It would put the decision to say, "No" in the hands of the governors (or state Congress) of each state. It might just be a really smart way to put the public option into motion because what governor or state Congress would say, "No, I'm not interested in promoting the health of the citizens in my state."

These guvs (or state Congressional leaders) could still be a heartless bastard(s) and go ahead with "opting out" but if they do they'll most likely not be re-elected because sickness and death cross party lines. When you get down to life and death decisions, things suddenly get really clear for even the most hardened political ideologue. How many people who live in a state where the public option is in place, who lose their job and need health insurance won't jump onto a public option plan to protect their family?

Even if some Guvs (or state Congressional leaders) decline(s) it and still get re-elected the population in his/her state would likely plummet with people fleeing the state to search for health care. At some point they'll be forced to accept the public option or face a crippled state.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Pot Legalization Gains Momentum in California.

SAN FRANCISCO — Marijuana advocates are gathering signatures to get as many as three pot-legalization measures on the ballot in 2010 in California, setting up what could be a groundbreaking clash with the federal government over U.S. drug policy. At least one poll shows voters would support lifting the pot prohibition, which would make the state of more than 38 million the first in the nation to legalize marijuana.

Under federal law, marijuana is illegal, period. But some legal scholars and policy analysts say the government will not be able to require California to help in enforcing the federal marijuana ban if the state legalizes the drug Without assistance from the state's legions of narcotics officers, they say, federal agents could do little to curb marijuana in California. "Even though that federal ban is still in place and the federal government can enforce it, it doesn't mean the states have to follow suit," said Robert Mikos, a Vanderbilt University law professor who recently published a paper about the issue.

James: You'd think Republicans would be for this measure passing if for no other reason than they are always saying how states' rights are sacred. It's based on the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In other words, if the Constitution doesn't prohibit something or delegate responsibility to the federal government then the decision should be left up to the people of each state. Well, the Constitution doesn't ban marijuana, in fact it's written on hemp paper, which is a cousin to the cannabis plant!! How ironic!! Nor does the Constitution say that the federal government can enforce the illegality of marijuana within the states.

In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could still enforce the federal ban on marijuana because of the "Commerce Clause." The feds weakly argued that pot grown legally in California for medicinal us could enter the interstate market, which is regulated by the feds. This allowed the federal government to still regulate marijuana in California though how California is responsible for someone selling their own pot across states lines is beyond me. Why doesn't the federal government just deal with things on a case by case basis and if they find someone selling pot across state lines then arrest them? To say instead that the whole state of California has to pay for this one person selling it across state lines is a clear breach of power in my eyes.

So if you're in California and support the legalization of marijuana I plead with you to get out and vote for these measures. And to those who might oppose it or be sitting on the fence just look at how well prohibition worked for alcohol in the 1930s. It was a disaster and the prohibition of marijuana has been even more of a failure. You may not smoke it and you may not like it but what right do you have to tell me that I can't smoke it in the privacy of my own home? I shouldn't have to not smoke pot in my home because you have a religious or moral objection to pot in general.

Don't you think that is giving the federal government too much power over our lives? If freedom, and in particular personal liberties mean anything to us then we should have a right to smoke a plant that has been shown to be less of a problem for society, law enforcement, relationships and communities than alcohol AND tobacco. It's not even physically addictive!! Yes, it can be psychologically addictive but so can your Aunt Stella's Double Chocolate bunt cake. If you want to stop smoking pot you might be moody for a day or two (at the most) but no withdrawals, no shakes, no vomiting--nada. Plus, it's an all-purpose medicine for upset stomach, nausea (Pepto Bismol has nothing on pot when it comes to stomach pain) depression, rage (you don't hear about people smoking pot and then beating their wife like you do with alcohol) and migraines.

So please listen to reason and know that the taxation of marijuana could bring in billions of dollars to fund health programs for kids and adults. As well as pay for roads, transportation cost or anything that a state might need extra money for. Establish a ban on smoking it outside the confines of your property, establish a ban from smoking and driving but allow people the right to smoke a plant that (if you believe in a Creator) "God" put here in the first place!! Maybe he WANTS us to smoke it to help us relax knowing the stress that Earthly life would put on us!! You don't know for sure that "God" would be against smoking a natural plant, do you? Have you had a visitation from "Him?" If so, would you please notify the news because I'd like to hear what "He" said. But seriously, leave it up to the states if nothing else and if a majority of citizens vote to legalize it then wouldn't preventing that vote from being implemented be undemocratic and outright dictatorial? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Which States Pay more Taxes and which States Get the Most Money From the Feds?

TPJ: Nice tidbit from Chris Matthews, talking about information he picked up from The Tax Foundation:

Matthews: Of the states that give more in federal taxes than they receive, the donor states--the ten that pay the most in taxes compared to what they get back they're all blue states--states that voted for Obama. And 8 of the 10 states who take more than they give are red, republican states who voted for McCain.

TPJ: So who are the welfare queens now Republicans? Stop whining about tax and spend because most likely if you live in a Republican state you'd be screwed without that tax money coming into your state. Paying taxes is the price of being a citizen in one of the most advanced, wealthy, pro-business, highly attractive to entrepreneurs and smart students, high standard and quality of life states in the world.

If it wasn't for having the amazing luck of being born in America these folks who make $250,000+ a year wouldn't have that terrible problem of having to live in that income tax bracket. Oh it's such a hardship!! Now they will have to sell one of their three homes!! I mean, life is not worth living without that ski condo in Aspen. All they are left with is the villa in Tuscany and the mansion in Orange County. THE HORROR!!!

I am nearly choking on the irony here that the states who bitch about paying taxes the most get the most in return for those taxes!!! The rest of us are going about our civic duty paying our taxes with the understanding that it's the dues for being in the club. Conservatives seem to love the Sam's club to stock up on supplies and you have to pay a due for that club so how do you think you can be in "America Club" without having to pay your fair dues? And I don't mind paying more in taxes to help the states that need more help, which happen to mostly be Republican. I don't want to shaft fellow Americans even IF they are Republican and/or Conservative. This is America--we take care of our own.

I don't know how many times I have to go over this but I will again for the sake of repitition being the only way some people learn, "If you are paying more in taxes chances are you can afford to pay more in taxes. If you're making $250,000 a year I don't think you're wondering how you're going to make next month's budget. You have plenty to spare and the rest of us get a tax cut--that's like 90 something percent of us so if you don't make $250k or more then your taxes won't budge so sit down and chill out. No one is coming after your wallet except to put some more money in it.

So you Republicans who enjoy whining about federal taxes and federal spending should pay attention to this statement, which pretty much sums up this post: "The people who have the most complaints have the least to complain about." That's you in those 8 out of 10 Republican states. Why aren't those liberal states who pay the most complaining? Because they know that taxes are essential to a strong America. Oh the irony from the Republicans just keeps getting sweeter and sweeter.

Yesterday it was Rick Perry, Republican Governor of Texas talking about secession from America!! Does that mean that we can invade them for the oil? Oh that would be irony at it's Texas best--especially for "W." Other irony being that as my friend from Left of Centrist says, "How ironic that some in the party of Lincoln (The Republican Party) are now calling for secession." Where were the pitchforks when you guys [Republicans] double the national deficit? Where were your tea bags then?

PHOTO: I chose the picture at the top of the post because I found it especially disturbing. Please people, don't involve your kids in these kinds of things--politics is a messy, often ugly, confusing, stressful process for adults. Kids shouldn't be burdened with this kind of stuff--let them drop their signs and go play. Let them be kids.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, March 06, 2009

Republican Criticism of Earmarks Rings Hollow.

In a February 26 Associated Press
article on the omnibus legislation passed by the "Democratic-controlled House" on Tuesday, David Espo reported that "Republicans assailed the legislation as too costly" and quoted Republicans criticizing the bill as, in the reporter's words, "bristl[ing] with earmarks." While Espo included examples of Democratic earmarks, at no point did he give any indication that many of the earmarks were included in the bill at the request of Republicans.

Moreover, Espo cited the Taxpayers for Common Sense as a critic of the earmarks in the bill,
without noting that the group cited earmarks by both Democrats and Republicans.

While quoting Republicans attacking the bill for earmarks, Espo did not note a
handout distributed on February 24 by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) titled "You can't spell 'earmark' without an 'R,' " asserting that "40% of the earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill are Republican earmarks." The handout also stated that "[t]he earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill total less than 1% of the budget," and that they "were reduced by 43% last year, and the omnibus appropriations bill reduces earmarks by another 5%."

"Republicans are continuing to try to sweep their history under the rug
and convince the American people that they are committed to fiscal responsibility," stated the handout. "But their record on earmarks and the amount of earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill make it clear that Republicans are just using this as another political ploy."

TPJ: The dirty little secret about earmarks is that most of them are justified. Anti-government types always single out one or two examples of outrageous earmark spending as if it represents ALL earmark spending. These Congress people are there to represent their districts and states to the federal government. This often means fighting for some of the federal dollars paid by their constituents to come back to them in the form of projects that hire people, keep them in a job or build something that will benefit the community through things like tourism.

People like to complain about a museum built in some state but you know what? Someone has to build that museum and that keeps people working, new workers are needed for that museum and those people spend money on products in their community and state, which helps keep the economy moving. You might say that the jobs are few and the spending little but if you live in small to medium city it makes a BIG difference. And it makes a BIG difference if you're one of the people hired because of it.

That said, I do agree that not all earmarks are justified but that doesn't mean that the whole process is bad. If Senators and Representatives didn't fight for investment dollars for their constituents then they're basically seat warmers with no purpose than to cast a vote now and then for or against a war or to honor some championship football team. I find it funny that many Republicans are supposedly for states rights and fighting for their security and prosperity to balance out the power of the federal gov't. However, at the same time they are against earmark spending that benefits those very states to be able to balance out the federal government. So they say, but as we see from these figures they fight for just as many earmarks as the Democrats do. I guess earmarks are o.k. for Republicans but not Demcorats.

And I want to emphasize this because the Republicans aren't mentioning any of this. The percentage of earmarks have been reduced. Plus, it only represents 1% of the overall spending bill but the Republicans are crying wolf as if it were the majority if not a super majority of the spending. When will the Republicans stop playing games and shoot straight with the American people to get our economy going again and not try and score cheap political points in Washington? At this point people don't care whether they get a job through an earmark or through the want ads--they just want and need a job.

---End of Transmission---

Monday, March 02, 2009

Conservative States Consume More Porn Than in Liberal States.

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states. However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds. "Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama. Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage. The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users.

TPJ: Strangely I'm not to surprised by Utah being number 1. It is home as most of us know of the very conservative Mormon church, which is very strict when it comes to sexuality. It makes sense that sexually repressed people would be more likely to look at pornography. They are sex starved and so look to find a release and seem to discover it in porn. Often times when you make something forbidden and taboo you simply make it more appealing and intreguing. Sexuality is a normal and natural expression of life as human beings and when you try and shut that down it will find ways to emerge one way or another and that could lead to this high porn rates.

I feel sorry for folks who have to clamp down their natural desires and urges as I use to be one of those people--I grew up Mormon and I was one of those looking at porn. I can tell you that I looked at it because I had no other outlet for my sexual urges and so it poured out in consuming porn. And the sad thing is that I'd hate myself afterward for looking at the "forbidden!!" I learned to hate myself and my body because I was taught that it was normal and healthy to repress my sexuality. It messed up my views on sexuality and caused me so much unnecessary guilt and shame. I am still trying to recover from those scars and programming in my sexual life. That sexual repressive programming is one of the things that I still have a lot of anger toward that church over.

---End of Transmission---

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Republican Governors Play Politics While Their States Suffer.

There is a saying that when the rich wage war it's the poor who die. Well in some cash strapped states the phrase should be retrofitted to say, "When the politicians play games it's the poor who suffer." First the Republicans in Congress backed by many Republican Governors opposed President Obama's stimulus bill saying it is "wasteful spending" and "generational theft." Then they turned around once it passed and bragged to their constituents back home how there will be all kinds of money for this project and that project.

Then they shift gears again and say, "Well we might not take all of the money because we need to be 'fiscally responsible'" like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. So you know what Jindal and next-door neighbor Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi are doing? They are going to take most of the money but refuse the money slotted to help the unemployed because in their eyes it would mean a long term commitment to paying extra to help the unemployed. Oh the horror!! What a horrible thing to have to do--help people find new jobs. Yeah, that wouldn't help the economy at all--idiots. Plus, many of these southern states have had finanical struggles even before the recession and he's going to refuse some of the money???

I don't know about you folks but I can tell when smoke is being blown up my ass. You're not going to sit there Gov. Jindal and tell me that you're fiscally responsible by refusing (in comparison) a tiny fraction of the funds but accept the vast majority of them!! That's like eating all the cookies in the box but two and argue that you didn't eat the last two because you wanted to be "responsible" when it comes to your weight. Since we are the ones who pay the tax dollars and since we back in our states are hurting then don't you think that we have the right to some of those dollars when we really need them? Of course. That's how it works, we invest in the government to keep things going and then when we can't keep things going the government invests back in us until we can right the ship again.

Like someone on Huffington Post said: Having one of these Govs in your state is really a whole lot like taxation without the tax payer send your $$$ to the Feds and when they give you some back, [TPJ: via the stimulus] a retardo like Jindahl, Perry, Sanford, or Haley "Boss Hogg" Barbour decides you don't get anything????

I like what Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in response to the games of these other Republican Governors. He said today that if they refuse some of their alotted money that he'll gladly take it--so would I.

And did you notice that many of the Governors that are talking about refusing some of the money to their states via the stim bill are people being talked about as favorites for the Republican party nomination for president to challenge President Obama in 2012? Gov. Jindal was talked about as being a possible V.P. choice for McCain and is now being talked about for 2012. Alaska is one of the states talking about refusing some of this money and we all know about Sara Palin's political ambitions.

In addition, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina was talked about as a V.P. choice in '08 and there is considerable buzz that he might run in 2012. So, I ask you dear readers, "Is this about a principled stance or about political ambitions for president in four years?" I would bet the house on the later--if I had a house but maybe Richy Rich Jindal could offer me his. I hear the Gov. mansion in Louisiana is pretty posh--and it's paid by the people of LA so maybe they should foreclose on his house. Speaking of which, that might just happen. You might want to cool your jets a bit Gov. Jindal on refusing some of the money to look good to your base so that you can run for prez in 2012. You might not get re-elected as Gov. if you refuse this money for your constituents who are hurting. Not to mention still reeling from Hurricane Katrina and Rita.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Republicans Take the Stimulus Money Despite Voting Against the Bill.

Well I was right. There are many Republicans who voted against the stimulus bill who despite bragging about doing so are now holding their hands out for the benefits of the bill for their states:

McClatchy Newspapers' David Lightman points out that Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, for instance, issued a press release last week heralding how he "won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners" by working with Democrats to pull a provision from the Senate bill that he feared would hurt American Indian and Alaska Native owned businesses.

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., issued a press release saying, “I applaud President Obama’s recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America’s future.” As Lightman points out, "nowhere in the Mica statement, or in Young's initial statement, was any mention that they opposed the bill."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., recently tweeted: "If you know of someone thinking of buying first home, now may be the time. Stimulus incentive is very generous! Up to 8k! Check it out."

TPJ: I thought their opposition to the stimulus bill was out of principle of standing up for fiscal conservatism? It sounds to me like they knew the bill was going to pass so they split the baby to get a twofer--vote "no" so that they can stay in elected office by the constituants for standing up against the evil, commie, big spending liberal government. At the same time, however, take the money and make your constituants happy again!! They must have two left feet because they are walking in circles--take advantage of the bill they loved to hate while decrying the "excesses of government" at the same time. There is a name for people like these guys and gals--Charlatans.

If this bill is so horrible and government spending is such an terrible thing then why take the money? They should refuse it or else don't claim to be standing on principle of fiscal conservatism. Yet you know that these same Congress people will use the fact that they voted, "no" as something to run on in their districts in the next election. I hope their constituents realize that they are being played by their Representatives and Senators.

And ironically some of the most conservative states (in the south) get more money form the federal government then they give to the federal government. So they've been doing this "bite the hand that feeds them" routine for awhile now.

---End of Transmission---