Thursday, February 19, 2009

Greg Walden: Against It Before He Was For It

The Shadout Mapes:

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., joined Oregon Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio in casting the only no votes from the Oregon delegation against the stimulus bill.

But just as I below in the case of DeFazio, it's not stopping Walden from aggressively pursuing stimulus money - and attaching his name to it. In fact, Walden said in a teleconference with federal forestry managers that he wants to get an "unfair share" of the stimulus money for his congressional district.

The problem isn't Greg voted against it and then decided to take what he was given and do good for his district. That's his job and his duty as a M.C.

The problem is that Greg doesn't have the principle that DeFazio did, and you can count on his marketing in the next election as someone who was really on board with the stimulus.

He was against it before he was for it.

>Hey, you out there in the 2nd District–wouldn't it be nice to have someone in office that says what he or she means and means what he or she says? Greg's doing the right thing now ... but remember he wasn't on board with that county payments thing until he knew it was the difference between his keeping his job and not keeping his job.

He'll only do the right thing for you if he really has to. Rest of the time, he'll do what his party tells him to.

That's the way Republicans roll.


  1. They seem to be extra Stepford wives-y this time of year. Not a free thought in sight. I hope they feel better after their 2010 tune-up!

  2. That is catty comment about Rep. Walden. He does not have to change the mind of his district on the error of ARRA. He does have a responsibility to mitigate the damage it does. Oregonians are paying out $10 billion for ARRA.

    Spending without taxing forces printing money. Printing money causes inflation.

    If you are willing to vote for this package, then if it does not work you should be able to take a cut in salary. For a U.S. Representative or Senator, it should be their whole salary if their State or District fails to have the jobs materialize in their area.

    The low end claimed for the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is 3 million jobs. That is about one job for every 101 people in a nation of 305 million people.

    In the House of Representatives there are 435 US Representatives who vote and 6 who do not vote that represent the Territories that are not States. That is about 691,609 people each for 441 who represent the people of the States and territories.

    So, that means about 6917 for each District. In Oregon, there are five Congressional Districts. That would mean at least 35,580 jobs for Oregon, if you figure it that way.

    If you look at the total population again, 305 million, Oregon is 3.8 million of that or one in every 81 U.S. citizens. If you divide that 3 million jobs by 81, that means Oregon should get at least 37,037 jobs from ARRA. One of the Oregon U.S. Representatives is claiming we will get 44,000 jobs from this spending, so this seems fair.

    It sounds helpful, too, when we have about 180,000 unemployed in Oregon. . That 180,000 is twice the unemployment of a good economy, so we need to reduce to 90,000 unemployed.

    However, let's just hold the Representative to the 37,037 jobs. That would mean this ARRA should bring the unemployment down to 143,000. So, if we are at that low end by the end of the year, the Representatives who voted for ARRA should be able to keep their salary and job. Otherwise....

    However, remember that one in 81 figure. The ARRA costs $787 billion. That means ARRA is costing Oregon $9,716,049,382 to get 37037 jobs or $262,232 per job.

    Can't we get a better deal than that? If we paid workers to just build windmills at $62,232 per worker, including wages and benefits, that would be a very good deal for the workers.They would still have wages of $42,000 after paying for benefits.

    Yet, it would leave $200,000 left over for those roads and bridges we need. But even if we just built windmills, it would be a better use of our money. You can install at least three sizeable wind generators for $200,000. Imagine 37,000 windmiills and 37,000 people employed for a year.

    Would you rather have? The "Stimulus Plan" of Congress? Or mine?

  3. @johnlloydscharf: Yeah, I'm catty. So what? I'm much nicer to Republicans than Republicans have been to Democrats over the past decade or so.

    As to the rest of your comment, I do take the point, but you miss mine. The point isn't the quality or the makeup or the whats in the ARRA, but Walden's (and others') response to it, as a bloc.

    After monumentious complaining about there being not enough tax cuts in it, they included even more ... I think it's currentl about 40% tax cuts as a total of the package ... they got more of what they wanted ... and in the house, they still voted no as a bloc.

    They would have voted no on it even if the President Obama came to each of thier individual offices and crapped out a solid gold ingot on each of their desks.

    What they're going to do now is get what they can for their districts (which I actually approve of) but you just watch ... next election cycle, they'll magically become supporters of the Presidents plan, even though they voten "no" on it.

    I predict Walden will do the same.

    Walden wouldn't have voted "yes" on a better plan, because the Republican goal isn't to help America; it's to get back in power. And Walden's goal is the Republican goal.