We are the 99%

March 22, 2007

Congressman Tim Murphy - on Pork

Recently I heard our favorite evidence taker-baker, Congressman Tim Murphy on one of the many conservative radio talk shows here in the Burgh.

He was complaining with the host about the current "Supplemental" making its way through the US House of Representatives. Complaining about the pork that's been added to the bill that just supposed to be supporting our troops in Iraq.

He and the host agreed: The contemptable politcs of it all! How dare the Democrat party play politics with the troops!

How indeed.

Ladies and gentlemen, I turn your attention to a previous supplemental bill, HR 1268 - Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.

On 3/16/05, the bill passed the House by a vote of 388-43.

You'll notice that our friend Congressman Murphy is listed with the "yeas."

During his recent radio appearance (can a person really make an appearance on the radio??) Congressman Murphy was complaining, for example, about the milk subsidies that were tacked onto the Supplemental.

Yet in 2005 he voted for a Supplemental that included this:
SEC. 5104. The funds made available in section 786 of title VII of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005 as contained in division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447) may be applied to accounts of Alaska dairy farmers owed to the Secretary of Agriculture.
There were also provisions for off-channel sanctuaries for the Silvery Minnow:

SEC. 6014. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to perform such analyses and studies as needed to determine the viability of establishing an off-channel sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. In conducting these studies, the Secretary shall take into consideration:

(1) providing off-channel, naturalistic habitat conditions for propagation, recruitment, and maintenance of Rio Grande silvery minnows; and
(2) minimizing the need for acquiring water or water rights to operate the sanctuary.

If the Secretary determines the project to be viable, the Secretary is further authorized to design and construct the sanctuary and to thereafter operate and maintain the sanctuary. The Secretary may enter into grant agreements, cooperative agreements, financial assistance agreements, interagency agreements, and contracts with Federal and non-Federal entities to carry out the purposes of this Act.

And, doncha know it, provisions for the an Information Center in Yellowstone National Park:
SEC. 6032. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the National Park Service is authorized to expend appropriated funds for the construction, operations and maintenance of an expansion to the West Yellowstone Visitor Information Center to be constructed for visitors to, and administration of, Yellowstone National Park.
Don't get me wrong. The issue here is not whether any of these are important. That is a completely separate question (and worthwhile, too!). The point is that Congressman Murphy voted for the pork then, and he's protesting the pork now. The Republicans were in charge then. The Democrats are in charge now.

Who's playing politics, Congressman?

4 comments:

Rob Carr said...

Obviously, it's time to throw the Democrats and Republicans out.

You're right -- why should Murphy be complaining about pork now, when he didn't complain earlier.

And why should Democrats be allowed to get away with pork now when it's what they complained about the Republicans doing earlier?

You've written a scathing indictment of both sides here.

Rob of UnSpace

Whigsboy said...

Agreed. Make it a clean bill. Get rid of the fucking pork and get people to go on record with their vote. If they try to say, "You're not supporting the troops." You shoot back: "It's you who aren't supporting the troops! How is sending troops into battle who are suffering from PTSD 'supporting' them? How is sending troops into battle without the proper body armor 'supporting' them? How is sending troops into battle without armored Humvees 'supporting' them? How is sending troops into a civil war and then failing to fund the hospitals that will treat them once they come back 'supporting' them?"

It's bad enough the Dem leadership wimped out to the Blue Dogs and let Dumbya off the hook with this "certified in writing" crap. Is this a used car sale or something?

Cowards, nearly every freaking one of them is a freaking coward and it's so frustrating to watch them play political games while there are brave men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan getting killed and maimed. That goes for Doyle, Altmire, Murphy, Jabba, and the rest of them.

Anonymous said...

The lack of "support for the troops" shown by the Bush administration should be a national scandal. Why it isn't, I don't pretend to know. Maybe people are just too busy getting sub-prime loans and then vacationing at Disney on their credit cards...

Murphy is a mindless drone of a legislator. He's just lucky that the Dems didn't have a strong candidate in last year's election or he'd be hosting Nightalk with Melissa Hart, too. Of course, in his case, he'd love it, since "Dr. Tim" is convinced he's a handsome devil and really should have his own TV show....

Hmmmm, you know what? As a Congressman, he'd make a hell of a talk show host. (provided you don't use any big words....)

Piltdown Man

PA Blue Neck said...

Thanks for the lead on facts that helped me write a letter to the PG editor, published on 6/12/07. I'm so glad someone else is offended by Murphy's arrogant, nauseating narrative of how he is so above politics.

Believe me when I say he was none too pleased with my letter. Well I'm not pleased with his nearly lock-step-with-Dubya&Dick,Inc. voting record either.

Here's the letter:

War funding and our representatives

Thanks for reporting about Jason Altmire's recent town hall meeting in Shaler ("Altmire Takes Flak for Vote in Favor of War Funding," May 31). Although he should have sent someone to the Shadyside meeting on the same evening, of the four area federal legislators who voted for more unaccountable funding of the despicable Iraq occupation, he's the only one who personally faced his critics.

Sens. Bob Casey and Arlen Specter and Rep. Tim Murphy sent people from their staffs to face their constituents at the Shadyside forum. Thus the officials themselves were not responsible for directly responding to them. At least constituents represented by Rep. Mike Doyle (who voted "no") had the satisfaction of his presence.

By first declining the invitation to the Shadyside forum as reported in the May 29 PG ("War Opponents Hosting Town Hall Meeting in Shadyside"), and then sending someone in his stead, Rep. Murphy discouraged his constituents from attending yet still wasn't a no-show. Ultimately and minimally sending someone was proper. Still, the I'm-so-above-politics psychologist executed the perfect political calculus -- even though it was very likely a result of merely changing his mind.

Far be it from me to assume cunning on someone else's part. But doesn't Rep. Murphy assume cunning on the part of others when, as a guest on local conservative talk radio programs, he accuses Dems of being political regarding pork in the current supplemental spending bill they worked out? After all, he voted "yes" for a supplemental -- with pork -- on March 16, 2005, when Republicans were in control.