Republicans Keep Taking Credit For Local Broadband Projects Funded By Federal Bills They Voted Against
from the you-can-thank-me-later dept
There’s an historic $50 billion in broadband subsidies currently heading to the states courtesy of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). There are plenty of potential hiccups on stuff like mapping that could screw things up, but, any way you slice it, this money should still have an amazing, positive impact on affordable broadband expansion in the U.S..
Amusingly though, the same Republicans who vehemently opposed and voted against both bills are now happily taking credit for the benefits among their constituents. Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville, for example, has repeatedly tried to take credit for state broadband efforts funded by money he voted against:
Republican Governor Ron DeSantis keeps crowing about Florida’s broadband investments made possible via Florida’s “Broadband Opportunity Program.” A significant chunk of those funds ($400 million, page 5) were only made possible via the federal ARPA bill DeSantis and state senators opposed, but good luck finding any mention of that in state press releases on the subject.
In Montana, Republican Governor Greg Gianforte has also repeatedly issued press releases lauding broadband subsidies doled out by the state, without mentioning that Montana’s ConnectMT program is primarily going to be built on the back of ARPA and IIJA funds.
In Texas, Republican Senator John Cornyn has also lauded the $3.3 billion in broadband funds headed to his state (more than any other state in the country) thanks to an infrastructure bill he voted against:
In West Virginia last month, Republican West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito helped celebrate the deployment of a new $4 million fiber network that’s bringing access to long neglected communities:
“This is so essential and so important to this region,” Capito told attendees. “I just want to say congratulations. It’s not going to be easy, but I can’t wait until we can stop talking about how we need to connect us all, you know. Because that will mean that we’re all connected.”
Except Capito voted against the federal ARPA funding (and a $1.7 million grant doled out to Woodlands Development Group) that laid the initial groundwork for the entire project. On the plus side, Capito did vote in favor of the infrastructure bill, though that funding hasn’t yet reached local projects yet.
In most states, Republicans are basically just taking the federal broadband funding they voted against, and infusing it into state-level programs with entirely new names. That the money came from the federal level isn’t even mentioned, much less that Republicans fought against it.
Normally, a functional, healthy local press would inform locals that Republican leaders are voting against projects that make their life better, then falsely taking credit for it on the other end. But given we’ve largely eviscerated what’s left of local news, leaving communities “served” by right wing propaganda mills like Sinclair Broadcasting, that’s almost certainly not happening with any consistency.
Filed Under: arpa, broadband, congress, digital divide, fiber, grants, high speed internet, iija, infrastructure, republican
Comments on “Republicans Keep Taking Credit For Local Broadband Projects Funded By Federal Bills They Voted Against”
Sure it’s happening with consistency. A highly viscous and opaque consistency, with hints of loam and half-digested grass.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Without Nuance
Most legislation nowadays contains multiple provisions, often for some items they do like, and others they don’t. A representative IS allowed to agree with some provisions of the bill, while voting against it because they disagree with the overall package. Karl is showing his narrow-mindedness, typical of democrat pundits: no dissent is allowed.
Re:
So in your mind if you sat on your ass as everyone else built something, you get credit for it?
That isn’t how this works. If you don’t do anything to make something happen you don’t get credit. This is especially true when you not only vote against it, but you vote in favor of blocking and banning what you are taking credit for.
Re:
That’s absolutely true.
But then they shouldn’t try to take credit for the benefits of the package if it’s voted through anyway. You don’t get to take credit for something you opposed.
Re:
And when they try to take credit for the passage of that bill and the positive effects that follow despite having voted against the passage of that bill, we’re allowed to call them “opportunistic hypocrites who think we’re all stupid”.
Re:
Suggesting that a politician should be allowed to take credit for a bill they voted against just because they pinky-swear they liked part of it makes no sense at all. If you vote for a bill and it passes, you are accountable for everything in it. If you vote against a bill and it passes anyway, you get no credit for anything in it.
This is all moot, of course, since the key problem is that the politicians are conveniently forgetting to mention they feds are funding these projects. That’s dishonest whether they voted for the bill or not.
Re:
Brave Sir Koby popping in to tell us up is down before bravely running away.
Re:
“Most legislation nowadays contains multiple provisions,”
That needs to stop. Single item stand alone bill is the way to go, unless you are a liar.
“Karl is showing his narrow-mindedness, typical of democrat pundits: no dissent is allowed.”
Koby is showing ignorance. Typical of Koby.
Oh, also projection is showing.
Re: Simple solution
If you are always whinning that “gubmint spends too much”,
then let’s make this simple: you vote against a bill, then your district or state doesn’t get any money appropriated by the bill.
See, cut your “gubmint spending” right there.
Re:
That doesn’t actually prove your point. They are taking credit for a bill that they voted against. It doesn’t matter why they did; they didn’t do anything to deserve credit.
This isn’t even just about hypocrisy; it’s about taking credit for others’ accomplishments that you worked to defeat. Why they worked to defeat it doesn’t make claiming credit for it any better.
Re: They wouldn't have voted for broadband standalone either
You’re thinking of a Schoolhouse Rock style scenario where you imagine broadband infrastructure is a provision they liked bundled with things they didn’t like.
In fact, they wouldn’t have voted for a standalone broadband bill, they would have happily voted for an amendment to take broadband out of the bill that passed, and none of these people have ever advocated for federal spending on broadband infrastructure in any capacity. Republicans have the power to propose and pass this standalone legislation if they so wished.
(for the old folks... )
Tommy Tuberville knows what he’s talking about. He has “tube” right there in his name!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Not false credit at all
It’s silly for the author to criticize the pols for boosting something good, just because it was a small part of something bad. We all know the ARPA was a $2 trillion porkfest stuffed with waste fraud and abuse.
I’m glad these pols voted against a corrupt, damaging omnibus bill, and am also glad to see them promoting progress on one of the few good parts of it.
That’s just how our politics works. If you want more honesty, then fight against omnibus pork bills.
There were twelve major sections in the ARPA bill, and so we should have had at least 12 roll-call votes taken to pass them.
And the bills should all be subject to regular order, so that we all get a long look at what’s going to be in them during the negotiating process
Re:
Do you not understand the difference between saying something is good even though you voted against it, and taking credit for the thing happening even though you voted against it?
Re:
No, it isn’t. If a politician wants credit for the positive outcomes of the passage of a given bill, they should vote to pass that bill. To claim credit for something they voted against makes them shameless and hypocritical; to excuse their hypocrisy makes those excuse-makers equally as shameless. And that principle is non-partisan.
Re: Re: no it isn't
As I already noted, voting against the omnibus bill because it is ultimately bad, while pushing for some nugget of good contained within it, is sensible within our current corrupt process.
Just because you are unwilling or unable to discern such a distinction, doesn’t lessen the truth of it.
If you want more clarity in the votes, fight for enforced regular order and far smaller appropriations bills.
Re: Re: Re:
No.
Re: Re: Re:
If the politicians mentioned in this article were truly against that bill they voted against, they wouldn’t accept a single dime from it for any reason. Their attempts to claim credit (or be seen as claiming credit) for the bill’s positive effects is a display of shameless hypocricy. Whatever one’s feelings about the bill as a whole, the hypocricy shown by those who want to both stand against it and still profit from its passage (politically or financially) is blatant and worth calling out as an equally corrupt part of our political process.
Re: Re: Re:
Do you notice that they only make the claims of support about it after it passes despite their negative vote? You’d have a point if you could show that they made a statement before the vote and specifically called for a separate bill with those provisions. You’re giving them far too much benefit of the doubt with no evidence.
Re: Re: Re: Shooting a horse and then claiming credit when it makes it across the finish line anyway
Whether they thought that the bill included some good parts is irrelevant, they voted against all of it so it’s grossly hypocritical for them to now claim that it’s thanks to them that the money is coming in when if they’d gotten their way it wouldn’t be.
Re: Re: Re:
Which would be relevant if that was what they were doing.
It isn’t, but you already know that and are being intentionally dishonest.
Re: Re: Re: They are all Yossarians
“Actually, there were many officers’ clubs that Yossarian had not helped build, but he was proudest of the one on Pianosa.”
Yossarian, Catch 22
Re: Re: Re:
Except they specifically denounced that specific part of the bill, but even if they had pushed for it, that doesn’t mean they have any right to take credit for it passing despite their votes against it.
Re: Re: Re:
None of them pushed for any such thing, and operate constantly against it, so you don’t get to make that argument.
Not that the argument is remotely valid in the first place.
Re:
Nobody’s complaining about their “boosting” it, numbnuts.
Re:
All that to stack a straw man. Logical fallacies are par for the course for rightoids, I guess.
Re:
They’re taking credit for that progress. It doesn’t matter if they had good reasons to vote against the bill; they are out of line when they act like they were responsible for it passing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Bode once again lies or indicates ignorance
There is no taking of credit in any of the quotes provided here. None of these people said, implied, or hinted that they were responsible for the provision of the funding.
Lauding is not the same as taking credit. Celebrating is not the same as taking credit. Announcing is not the same as taking credit. Cheering is not the same as taking credit.
To state otherwise betrays only naked partisanship.
Bode has a good overall point. To lie so brazenly about it is unnecessary.
Re:
In the context of politics, all those things are equivalent to “taking credit”. Consider how the politicians mentioned in this article all talk about how their states are receiving funding, but don’t mention at all where that funding comes from or how they managed to receive it. Those politicians want the average person—a “moron in a hurry”, really—to draw a specific conclusion from those posts: “I, [politician name], hold partial (if not full) responsibility for getting our state this funding.” They don’t want their votes on the bill that supplied said funding to disrupt the jump to that conclusion.
Re:
Try reading the links cited before putting foot in mouth.
Re: uh huh
Yeah because politicians are well known for bringing attention to positive progress that happens DESPITE their efforts. It’s pretty easy to follow their train of thought on this.
1) They know I am their government representative (everyone who follows me is either someone I represent or doesn’t matter since they are not in my district)
2) I hold up this thing and say “look at this good thing the government is doing for you”
2b) Make sure not to mention anything one way or the other about whether I supported this or not, the ones who matter are never going to bother checking and will assume I am part of that good.
3) Profit (uninformed voting constituents are more likely to vote for me again)
Re:
The “I’m not touching you” defense.
Rejected.
Re:
Source: LittleCupcakes’ unbroken history of pathological lying.
'Since I failed to stop it, I'll just take the credit for it.'
Republican: Someone who would vote against the funding for a hospital since ‘there’s already one in the nearby city, it’s only 30 minutes away and anyway I’ve never needed a closer one’ and then brag about how many people are being helped thanks to them when it gets built anyway.
Re:
Republican: Also someone that would take the credit for any beneficial thing they’re made to do as incoming POTUS after arguing vehemently against said beneficial thing happening even during their presidential campaign. See: Obama’s closure of Gitmo through Trump.
Re: Re:
And even then, Gitmo is still open, proving that Trump lied again when he said, “I closed Gitmo, not Obama!”
And WHO paid for it?
Lets see.
99% of All advancements in the USA are backed by the Gov.
Then the corps take over and claim THEY DID IT.
But it came out of OUR pockets.
So, the Gov does something its been TRYING TO DO for 20 years. (maybe, as they have PAID for it 2 times already)
Then the State gov. reps. Dont say anything except that it WAS PROBABLY Their idea.
But MOST STATES, have made regulations based on Favoring the Corps, WHO aint done much of anything.
So if this Fails?
WHO paid for this?? YOU DID.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Yeah. Now Trump is taking credit for people believing in God since he has resorted to selling God Bless the USA bibles.
Trump says its his favorite book but declines to tell which part he likes.
My guess is that the Four Horses of the Apocalpse is his favorite part of the bible like it is with most Republicans that want to reenact biblical scenes and there is even a term for it by psychologists called Jerusalem Syndrome. They travel to Israel and dress as biblical characters and everything. Like suddenly develloping dissociative disorder and an identity crisis at the same time. Psychology Today has even written about it.