Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, chatted with the hosts of Fox News' "Fox & Friends" on Monday, and shared a creative argument about the Obama administration and the Recovery Act.
"Stimulus was supposed to be quick. In fact, they never intended to spend it and will not completely have effectively spent it until after the president's re-elect. Always looking at how do you get the maximum hit when the president was up for re-elect."
Glenn Kessler asked Issa's office for evidence to bolster the congressman's on-air claims, but Issa's aides didn't have anything substantive to offer.
The Republican's grammar and syntax is a little tough to decipher, but it appears Issa believes the Obama administration deliberately delayed stimulus spending in 2009 in order to give the president's re-election campaign the "maximum hit" in 2012. There are a couple of ways to consider a line like Issa's, even putting aside his penchant for strange and unfounded conspiracy theories.
The first is the substantive question: is there any reason to believe the underlying claim? Not even a little -- nearly all of the money was invested long before the 2012 election got underway.
It's true that the Recovery Act money was not spent all at all once, which was intentional in order to prevent a sudden stop to the economic activity, but for those concerned with the facts, the "maximum hit" has come and gone.
But there's another, arguably more important, aspect to this: Darrell Issa seems to be arguing that public investments through government stimulus boosts the economy. That's true, of course, but aren't Republicans supposed to argue the opposite?
In other words, even from Issa's perspective, the only way his bogus conspiracy theory is coherent is if you believe stimulus money from Washington is good for the economy. Otherwise, there'd be no point in delaying the "maximum hit" to coincide with the campaign.
But if Issa believes his own rhetoric, why has he fought so aggressively against the Recovery Act and related efforts?
Leave a Comment:
I'm not sure I understand this but, couldn't this have gone 2 ways. Do they mean both partys held their Stimulus packages back, I don't get it. In our state we built a rail system down the middle of our Capital City and re-modeled the City Hall. 6 Million dollars wasted and none of it spent on the citizens of our State, Arizona. People were losing their houses right and left. Our Unemployment rate was one of the highest in the U.S. and we built a Mr. Rogers' Choo Choo
"There you go again, " Steve, bringing logic and reality into the discussion.
"Darrell Issa seems to be arguing that public investments through government stimulus boosts the economy. That's true, of course, but aren't Republicans supposed to argue the opposite?"
Oh, Steve. Details, details. You're referring to the reality-based world. Republicans don't reside there. The dimension in which they live allows one to hold opposite positions on an issue at the same time.
As one sage once said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."
It is quite obvious to republicans that:
- Obama is forcing gas prices higher as part of a reelection ploy
- Obama delayed the start of long term benefits of stimulus spending as part of a reelection ploy
Or maybe...
Issa and the repukes and their Fox Propaganda Network will say any lie that they can make up to discredit the n!gger democrat. We propagandize, you decide to believe our lies!
When any republican politician talks about the government in D.C. being broken, just remember that they are not complaining; they are bragging about what they have accomplished!
Seriously ... please STOP using the "n" word. I know that you are only using it in terms of how the GOP feels but still ... STOP. Please.
How does the idea that the Republicans negotiated down the size of the stimulus from the absolute minimum that economists said was needed to get the economy on an actual path to recovery instead of limping along like a lame horse fit into Issa's theory?
I mean, surely it was Issa's vote to make sure the stimulus took "maximum hit" during Obama's reelection, right? So the only thing we can surely take away is that Issa's working for Obama!
Oh, I love these illogic fallacies (illogicies?). They provide great creative-writing fodder.
Issa, like a lot of Republicans, are running their mouths because they are grasping for straws. They are losing all of their talking points as a campaign issue. This kind of talk is merely thinking out loud to see if people glom on to it. Ignore these kind of stories because there will be a lot of this until the elections get under way.
Of course he believes that Federal spending is stimulative -- look at how hard he worked to get more of it in his district and how much he bragged about bringing home that bacon in 2010. Just like the rest of the Congressional Republicans -- have a look, for instance, at Bachmann's letters.
And, yes, it follows that they have deliberately harmed the people of the United States in order to achieve a higher objective: Mitch McConnell's "one-term Presidency."
Interesting point. Hypothetically: would the people of his district care for a new bridge/park/building if they knew that it meant senior citizens or children in another district or another state would get less healthcare coverage? If what Issa says is, "I can get you money for that public fountain, but I'm gonna cut out funding for cancer screenings."
Interesting analysis, but totally irrelevant. I don't think Issa was saying what HE believes, but rather what he wants OTHERS to believe. Indeed, Issa is pretty media savvy, and he probably thinks that he is stating what most Fox News viewers ALREADY believe.
Cynical, yes, but after all this is an election year.
Steve, give me a break with this one. You know full well Issa meant that some stimulus money was held back to pay people to vote Obama. You go on and on in your post but you know full well what he was getting at.
Okay, present your evidence / cite your source for that claim, please.
I suspect that Slasher's comment was snark...
Oh, now I get it. They believe President Obama is as corrupt as they are. Interesting, that they keep coming up with these conspiracy theorys as if they have thought of using them themselves. Evil, manipulative minds think alike. I'm glad our President isn't one of them. I haven't heard any conspiracy theorys coming out of his mouth. They sound really paranoid and that's not a healthy emotion to have. I almost forgot who I was talking about....Crazy.
Just apply the, "I know you are but what am I" principle. What are the Republicans accusing "The Left" of and are there any cases of the Republicans doing exactly that?
To Shumuwada. Yeah - the most uncorrupt presidency in the history of the US. is that of the Obama administration. He's so squeaky clean it drives them crazy. If only he could drive them crazy it would solve all of our problems
How about looking at the correlation of Stimulus dollars given to states with Democrat delegates?
Umm the states w/ the largest populations were given the most stimulus. Almost all of those are Democratic and not Republican. Texas was one of the largest recipients of stimulus dollars and so too was Florida. But every single state benefited regardless. Beyond this you'd still be admitting that stimulus money helps which would contradict statements that you've made in the past. That's kind've the whole point. Additionally what would it benefit Obama to spend money in Democratic states? They are Democratic states- meaning they are already going to vote for him. Wouldn't your argument make more sense if you were asking to look at states like Colorado or Virginia or Florida or Pennsylvania? You know- swing states?
Le sigh
Um, should the money if it was truly to help go to states with higher unemployment, bankruptcy and foreclosure rates? It didn't. Wouldn't most of the jobs being spent be Gov't jobs? Dues paying jobs? Where does a large amount of that money end up? Fueling the Obama machine.
Le puke
Eric
FYI the more populous states are the one with the higher unemployment etc. Geez man ge a grip please!
@Maria - Report from GMU delves into how and why the dollars were spent, put the kook-aid down.
http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/WP1015_Stimulus%20Facts%202.pdf
Eric
I don't like kool aid therefore I would not be even tempted to drink it. I know how stimulus dollars were spent in my community La Habra Heights, CA which is a very Conservative, very Republican city. It went to much needed road improvements. You seem to paint everything always with a very wide brush. I think you need painting lessons.
Issa is but one dangerous elected person in a sea of Po'jama People (h/t FZ, One Size Fits All). -Kevo
I thought Issa might have been hiding in his cave since his all-male panel debacle. The boy in "The Sixth Sense" saw dead people. Issa sees conspiracies. The man should go back into his cave.
Issa should never be taken seriously. He is one of the loonier people in a state that says sawdust/wood dust is a "chemical" that is known to cause cancer. Yes and breathing can cause respiratory distress!
Darrell Assa-hola has to be the reincarnation of an accuser at the Salem witch trials.But he makes the accusers look like George Washington and the cherry tree.
Isa apparently has forgotten that when Republicans were elected in 2010 one of their first orders of business was to stop unspent stimulus money and to use that money to pay down the debt. I am pretty sure Issa voted in favor of this....
Sigh
And create jobs.
The problem journalists have is that they never learned the first rule that planners learned in school, "All developers lie, it is our job to catch them"....Until journalists learn "All politicians lie, it is your job to catch them" the news will continue to be he said/she said and the sex scandal or missing white girl of the month. Sorry, but as the 24 hour news cycle continues to grow, the quality and competence of those supposedly covering the news diminishes. Are all journalists home schooled or graduates of charter schools and online colleges?
To paplanner versionII. That used to be the case. There were real journalists like Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, and others too numerous to mention. When the news business was lumped into entertainment and big media moguls only cared about the bottom line and ratings, things changed dramatically.