I'm not hearing Republicans say they opposed certain portions of the ARRA; I'm hearing that they (or most of them anyway) thought it was a total waste of tax payer money - PERIOD! As such, those who truly opposed it on such grounds should NOT be accepting funds for it or supporting projects it helped foster.
Except they shouldn't be. They'd be failing their consitutency if they did.
I would agree with you, 100%, if their refusal to take that money somehow meant that the money that WOULD'VE been allocated to them instead went back to the tax payers of their state.
That's not the case though. That money isn't going to magically go back to their tax paying consituents if they don't accept it. Its just going to go to someone else because the money's already allocated.
They are doing their people a disservice by not taking it and using it once its decided upon and allocated.
Let me give you an analogy.
Your a family...husband, wife, two kids. Your kids just play in a sports league with other kids. All the families early on in the year had put money into a pot to cover expenses like dinner after each game, awards at the end of the year, equipment and trip expenses, etc.
Today the parents begin discussing what they want to do for dinner after the game that's being played. A bunch want to go to Chuck-E-Cheeses and they’re going to get $50 dollars worth of tokens to let all the kids use. You argue they would’ve just got done with a fun activity (in the game) and that its wasteful to spend money on them playing video games and expensive low quality pizza and instead suggest you go to the local pizza joint near by that doesn’t have game but has more affordable pizza that actually tastes a bit better. You argue that way it saves money for more essential things. In the end you get voted down an everyone goes to Chuck-E-Cheeses.
Apparently you, and others, would think then that you as parents would be hypocrites if you then allowed your children to eat the Chuck-E-Cheese pizza and grab their share of the tokens once the $50 is spent because you as a Parent opposed the notion of going there.
I don’t really see it that way. You argued your point and why you thought the action was not frugal and simply wasteful. However, once the majority ruled and the decision was made you would be a bad parent if you didn’t allow your children to have any food, and you’d be overly harsh if you didn’t let them play with their share of coins because they would’ve just been handed to someone else, not put back into the expense pot (Because once you buy the tokens, they’re stuck as tokens…”allocated” as you will). Your goal as a parent is to do the best for your children. You argued for what you thought would be best initially by arguing for more frugality. Once that was decided you cannot live in the past but the present, and what would be best for your children at that point would be to allow them to eat and play.
I see this same sort of things with Politicians.
They did not like the Stimulus in principle. They thought that, as a whole, it was going to be damaging to the country. They thought it was irresponsible use of the tax payers money. They felt, at that time, it was in the best interests of their constituents to oppose it.
However, it got passed…
At that point the money is allocated. There’s no arguing about saving the tax payers money, cause its going to be spent. That means if its not being spent in their district its being spent elsewhere. This, despite the fact that tax payers from their interest would have some of their money theoretically paid into it. Once it is passed, and the money is allocated…once the decision is done…the situation changes. It is now in the best interest of their constituency to get that money into their district so that their tax paying constituents at least get some benefit from the legislation that their tax paying dollars are going to. Because much like the tokens, once that money is allocated to stimulus you can’t turn it back into cash for your tax payers. To NOT try and get money for your district, once the decision is made, is to do a disservice to your constituency and is the very antithesis of what a public servant should do.
It is, in my mind, no more hypocritical for a Politician to oppose something on principle and then, if it passes, attempt to make the best out of it for his constituency.
Where hypocrisy comes in is how its presented. If you are saying out one side of your mouth “This bill will create no new jobs!” and then out the other saying “Look how this money I got from the bill created jobs for my district” THAT is hypocritical. If you continue to go around after its passed saying “This bill has done absolute NO good for the country” and then turn around and tell your constituency how “This new [fill in service or building] is going to provide a great boon for our district” then that’s hypocrisy.
But if you said “This bill is wasteful of tax payers money, over all is going to hurt America, and is irresponsible” and then after people don’t listen to you and the bill is passed anyways you try to get the best for your district that is not hypocrisy…
Hypocrisy in that case would NOT be trying to get the most possible for your district or state once its passed, because THAT would be wasting your states tax payers money by not allowing it to go back to them in some way.
I agree with Right. SOME of the Republicans definitely ARE being Hypocrites. But everyone that was simply against the bill, but then trying to get money for their state/district after its already a done deal, is not. They are being actual responsible, reasonable, pragmatic politicians rather than ideologues punishing their constituents because the vote didn’t go their way.
