Posted on 06/15/2015 9:21:35 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Just what we need. A squishy (or fluffy, depending upon how you view cellulite) northeast governor considering a run for the presidency visits Iowa and uses talking points lifted directly from progressive propaganda to attack Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100%.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie took aim at 2016 Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) on Friday, accusing him and other lawmakers of “hypocrisy” over federal disaster relief.
“We have Sen. Cruz, who voted against Sandy relief. Now he says he’s got floods in Texas. He says, ‘Hey, we need some help down here in Texas.’ It’s great, right?” Christie said in the early-voting state of Iowa, according to CNN.
Christie similarly criticized Colorado lawmakers who opposed federal disaster relief following Superstorm Sandy but then sought relief after major flooding in their state in 2013. Sandy caused significant damage in New Jersey and along much of the East Coast.
This nonsense has been floating around the left for a while and, like so many egregious lies, it has a grain of truth that makes it plausible to nitwits. So, yes, New Jersey was hit by a major hurricane, Sandy, back in 2012. Christie celebrated by hugging Obama as Mitt Romney was running for president. For what, we’re not really sure. The hurricane hit New Jersey on October 28 and an aid bill wasn’t passed until January 29, 2013. And Ted Cruz really did vote against the aid package. Let’s turn to Heritage Foundation for some insight:
Apart from that, much of the $60.4 billion in requested emergency spending is aimed at either mitigating future events and repairing or replacing federal assets.[5] Of Obama’s requested items, less than $23 billion of the $60.4 billion involves addressing emergency damages sustained by state and local governments, private-sector businesses, and individuals.
As a point of perspective, with the vast majority of homes and businesses privately insured, the total cost estimate for the entire private industry is just more than $20 billion.[6] Why is the federal spending proposal three times as large?
Yes, you read that correctly. Not only did the bill not pass until 91 days after the event (by contrast the Katrina relief bill passed 11 days after the event) but 2/3 of the bill was simply pork barrel spending that had nothing at all to do with disaster relief. It was spending that was bootstrapped into a “must pass” bill in order to avoid scrutiny.
This is not to say Ted Cruz is above criticism. But if the best Chris Christie can do is regurgitate DailyKos talking points he needs to reconsider his qualifications to be president.
There are multiple sources for the 2 billion dollar deficit.
Bloomberg. Forbes, Politifact, just to name three. Facts are Facts. Deal with it. Among the long list of other fiscal failures, Walker presides over a 2 billion dollar budget deficit.
I cut and pasted the article. That is what you read. I didn’t type it in, and lest I be accused of editing. left it as it was.
"Wisconsin’s two-year shortfall hits about $2 billion when state agency requests — which will certainly not be filled in full by Walker or the Legislature — are taken into account."
All the agencies submit a budget request to the state. They ask for the sun, the moon, and the stars. These requests are, as always, significantly larger than they get year after year. Hey, you can't blame them for asking. But you also can't add up all of these requests and claim that it is a budget shortfall. At least if you are a rational person.
So no, Walker does not preside over a 2 billion dollar budget deficit. In fact, this isn't even referring to the current budget - it is referring to the budget being working on for the next two years.
At some point an obsession distorts ones thinking.
I really don’t care about any of those liberal statistics. Liberals are shouting these all over the liberal sites. It doesn’t surprise me that you are parroting them.
Yeah, Politifact is liberal. Sheesh!
Even if the legislature does not allocate all the budget requests, it will still amount to over a one million dollar deficit.
Does Walker plan on being Governor for the next two years? Then it is his deficit. He’ll have to own it.
You’ve been added to the Every Cruz Article Ping List!
Nope. I am expressing an opinion and a ton of facts. You are too blinded by fandom to see it. But that is not a problem because reality will hit you pretty hard and of course you will need us who have been telling you for months what will happen. It will be a big disappointing fall for you guys but well be here to lift you up again. It is a vicious cycle I have seen many times from supporters who use emotions and not reality when supporting a candidate especially candidates that are weak in every way.
Actually, they are run by libs and skew their “facts”
The vast majority of fact checkers are like that.
that doesn’t mean that the other poster is right in his argument.
All of the newspapers and some national publications are reporting on the pathetic performance of Wisconsin in jobs and fiscal matters.
When the campaign gets rolling, this will come out more and more.
Only if Walker wins the nomination, or is ahead of Bush as the primaries get close.
And it would be about as true as Politifact reporting it was "basically false" when Ted Cruz said there was no gain in global temperatures by data in the past 18 years.
Congrats on looking so foolish to rely on them for an unbiased report......
Do you have any stats on Wisconsin from a source you consider reliable that refute those statistics, or is this just whistling past the graveyard?
I do know you dodged my question about the "basically false" report on the true statement by Ted Cruz.
Frankly, that makes you look a little out of your league.......
My statement, not question.
I’m sure you are much happier not looking up the facts on your candidate’s record. Ignorance being bliss and all that.
He's not my candidate.
Are you ever going to stop feeling silly?
1. You pretend that liberal sources are not biased.
2. You pretend that you can extrapolate for Walker through these sources, but are mute when it happens to Cruz.
3. You ignorantly said I'm a Walker supporter.
This could be fun......
My apologies. I see from previous posts that you have a favorable opinion of Cruz.
I didn’t give any credence to the Climate Change issue that said that Cruz was technically wrong, because it was much ado about nothing. The figures do negate the warming claim, in fact, since the warming is so negligible.
The reason that I give credibility to the Walker stats is that they come from publications like Forbes and Bloomberg, as well as local publications in Wisconsin. I do look for publications that refute those facts, but can’t seem to find any. If you do, please let me know, if you don’t mind. I do want the truth, and it would be nice if we actually had another viable candidate.
Totally false. Cato’s Bill Watson and I explained this at length in The Federalist last year, but here’s former Attorney General Ed Meese to reinforce our conclusions:
The TPA legislation… is clearly constitutional because Congress retains its authority to approve or reject all future trade agreements. It might be unconstitutional if Congress tried to delegate its authority to approve the final deal–but that is not at issue. Congress may always kill any future international agreement by withholding its final approval. The only difference under TPA is that Congress consents not to kill the agreement by amendment (i.e., the ‘death by a thousand cuts’). The Constitution grants each house of Congress the authority to establish its own rules of procedure, and it makes perfect sense for Congress to limit itself to straight up-or-down votes on certain resolutions, such as base closures and its own adjournment motions.
Constitutional law professor John O. McGinnis also recently reviewed TPA and concluded that TPA “simply permits Congress under its ordinary procedures to commit to a future majority vote of Congress to vote up or down on an agreement that the President has negotiated. Representative democracy is thus served by the later vote on an agreement whose text is known.” And then there’s the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1890 case of Field v. Clark approving the constitutionality of an analogous law—the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which granted the president even more authority than TPA. It was no big deal.
Finally, it’s important to reiterate that, contrary to some claims, FTAs are not treaties (which are typically “self-executing,” require two-thirds approval by the Senate, and have the force of law upon ratification). They are “congressional-executive agreements” that, even after being signed by the president, have absolutely no legal force until they are converted into implementing legislation (which would amend current law), passed by Congress, and signed into law by the president. Such agreements have for decades been used by the United States for many different issues, including trade liberalization, and U.S. courts have repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges thereto.
In short, a constitutional argument against TPA requires you to reject over a century of precedent, the repeated rulings of U.S. courts, and the opinions of even the strictest of constitutional scholars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.