HYPOCRISY OR BUSINESS AS USUAL?
I’ve been watching the news coverage on Hurricane Sandy and found the comments of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie interesting. Christie, an outspoken (there’s an understatement) critic of President Obama, was praising Obama and FEMA. “The federal government’s response has been great. I was on the phone at midnight again last night with the President, personally, he has expedited the designation of New Jersey as a major disaster area,” said Christie. He added, “The President has been outstanding in this and so have the folks at FEMA. The President has been all over this and he deserves great credit.” Obama, he said, “told me to call him if I needed anything and he absolutely means it, and it’s been very good working with the President and his administration.”
Christie’s spirit of cooperation reminded me of the politicians who railed against the federal stimulus program, yet didn’t hesitate to ask for stimulus money. Texas Gov. Rick Perry likes to tell Washington to stop meddling in state affairs and opposed the stimulus program, yet Texas was one state most dependent on stimulus money. Texas was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years and made up the loss with $6.4 billion in stimulus money. On the same day Perry requested stimulus funds, he set up a “No Government Bailouts” petition. In Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan called the stimulus package a “wasteful spending spree,”and voted against it. Later he requested millions of dollars from the program for Wisconsin and $5.4 million in earmarks.
Another question is if Mitt Romney’s comments from the December of 2011 Republican debate come back to haunt him. Romney appeared to oppose federal funding for disaster relief and when asked about budget problems at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Romney said, “We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off.” So, effectively he advocated cutting funds to FEMA, but now he has had a change of mind?
What’s that old saying about “biting the hand that feeds you?” How is it okay to rail against a federal program, but take advantage of the same? I suppose you could call it opportunistic. I prefer hypocrisy. Just one day more...










































