[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass blog. Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow on Twitter.]
A few weeks back, an event took place at Faneuil Hall to celebrate the opening of a new visitor’s center. There was a fancy ribbon cutting, with our Republican junior Senator, Scott Brown, front and center for the photo opportunity.
Photo Credit: CBS/AP
Unfortunately for Republican Scott Brown, his presence at the celebratory event and ribbon cutting ceremony reeked of hypocrisy. Why? Congressman Michael Capuano put it plainly:
US Representative Michael E. Capuano, clearly needling Brown, who was seated at his side, declared twice that the funding to renovate the hall came from the stimulus package and from an earmark.
As the crowd applauded the Somerville Democrat’s comments, Brown, who has been critical of earmarks and the stimulus program, sat quietly with his hands folded.
Republican Scott Brown doesn’t seem to understand the basic premise that government spending (regardless of whether or not you agree with the amount spent or what the spending is put towards) buys things, things like textbooks, fire trucks, road repairs, bridge repairs, and, yes, Faneuil Hall visitor centers.
It’s blatantly hypocritical for Republican Scott Brown to be critical of the stimulus program, but then show up smiling ear-to-ear for the ribbon cutting photo op when it’s time to unveil what some of the money from that stimulus program is spent on.
In short, it’s hypocritical to criticize the spending but laud the item purchased. However, it’s an all-too-common right-wing Republican scheme:
ThinkProgress has investigated opponents of the Recovery Act, reporting throughout the year that many of the lawmakers who tried to kill the legislation have been returning to their home states to claim credit for popular stimulus programs. In a new research report, ThinkProgress finds that over half of the GOP caucus, 110 lawmakers — from the House and Senate — are guilty of stimulus hypocrisy.
Dozens upon dozens of Republicans who opposed and criticized the stimulus went on to attend ribbon cutting photo ops for stimulus projects, hand out giant novelty checks allocating stimulus funds, and otherwise advocate for (and/or take credit for) stimulus-based spending in their districts.
The ribbon cutting at Faneuil Hall’s new visitor center shows us that Republican Scott Brown is just as much of a stimulus hypocrite as many of his right-wing Republican colleagues.
for something he opposed.
As I observed about a year ago at this time, the states that clamor the loudest about “excess federal spending” also happen to be the states that lead the pack in receiving more in spending than they pay in taxes and fees.
This is more than just hypocrisy, it shows that the “central dogma” of the GOP is a lie. Surely the first step for “red” states that agitate for reducing the federal deficit should be to raise their own federal taxes or reduce federal spending in their state.
That’s ridiculous, that’s like saying that when a husband buys an expensive new car against the wife’s wishes, the wife should never be allowed to ride in it. No, when he used the family money to buy the car, he was impulsive and unfair to his wife who might have had other ideas of how to spend their money, but at least he bought a car, and she has every right to appreciate it and use it and bask in the glow of it, it was her money too.
is your argument.
Weak.
The wife would be asking the kids to give her credit for buying the awesome car.
The husband shouldn’t be able to get away with not only foolishly spending the family money on an awesome car that the kids would like, but also turning the kids against the wife. It’s one bad behavior on top of another. It’s not hypocrisy for her to expect some credit for the car from the kids, it is just fair. It was her money too.
Let’s try this again… and change up the metaphor a bit.
If I say “I’m opposed to you buying cookies! They’re really unhealthy! I refuse to pay for the cookies!”
…And then YOU buy cookies which my friends eat and praise…
Why do I get to say, “These cookies are unhealthy, but aren’t they so delicious? You should credit me with getting these delicious cookies for us all.”
And let’s say the cookies were all I brought back from the store, and my breathe stinks of alcohol, and the $20 bill we had is all gone. You damn well ought to be able to not only eat the cookies but also share the credit for them. I shouldn’t be like “aren’t these cookies delicious? Remember kids, afertig didn’t want me to buy them! she’s a hypocrite for enjoying these cookies.”
but still take their tax cuts. Every person filing taxes can always pay more taxes. so why don’t they (you)? Because you want “everyone” to pay more taxes, not just you. Maybe people who are against earmarks want them eliminated completely… but until such time they would like to continue getting their share of the revenue/projects/jobs… I personally disdain earmarks but I would not forgo them while other states get the money I passed on.
1. Scott Brown is an elected official. His standards should be higher.
2. A tax cut is something given to people regardless of their thoughts on it. Generally, ribbon cutting ceremonies are meant for people who… you know… helped make things happen, not people who tried to stop it from happening.
…between accepting funding and taking credit. My guess is John Kerry did vote for the stimulus, but where is he in the picture? Sen. Brown shouldn’t tell the feds to keep their money, but he also shouldn’t look like he is part of what got it here. As for tax cuts, I for one believe they should go away at a certain income level. MA has the option of paying the previous rate, which as a believer in a graduated tax I WOULD voluntarily pay if I made the income that I felt justified it.
No one of course is saying that Senator Scott Brown shouldn’t take advantage of whatever services the visitor’s center is offering. That’s the strawman against which johnd and John Howard have so successfully inveighed.
What is hypocritical is to take credit for its existence by appearing at the ribbon cutting when its existence is based on legislation and methods the Senator opposes.