Mayor McCrory made an interesting observation, quoted in the daily paper today, that makes you wonder if Republicans are even aware of how hypocritical they sound sometimes.
In an article about Charlotte receiving less than its share of federal stimulus money, compared to the dollars flowing into rural areas and Fayetteville, McCrory griped about the situation.
Da mayor said, “This is a nationwide trend on how the money was divvied up — everyone is getting a little bit, and in the end there will be nothing to show for it … We should have spent it in Eisenhower- and Roosevelt-type projects for the next generation.”
Frankly, I agree with him on this point, but then, as some readers regularly let me know, I’m a “socialist.” The interesting thing about McCrory’s statement is that here’s a guy who has never done an even remotely decent job of representing the city’s interests in Raleigh, nor in wrangling money out of the state legislature. A guy who railed against liberal ideas during his unsuccessful run for the governor’s office. A guy who will take part tonight in an anti-health-care-reform meeting in Wingate, at which cries of “socialism” will no doubt resound. But now, he wishes the stimulus money had been “spent in Eisenhower- and Roosevelt-type projects”? Please, spare us.
But let’s assume McCrory meant what he said, and he would prefer “Roosevelt-type projects,” which his staunch supporters think were, of course, “socialist” (translation: the government helping anyone besides big business). Instead of whining, Pat, how about if next time, you do the political legwork necessary to actually make those projects happen for Charlotte? Then again, that might take too much of Hizzoner’s time away from sucking up to whatever corporation has planted itself in front of him that day. Some days you just have to shake your head.
This article appears in Jul 21-28, 2009.
A wise observation Mr. Grooms.
But McCrory, like many others are probably reserved to the fact that there is a TARP, since you’re forced to pay for it why not try to get as much as possible? Kinda like earmarks.
A more risky move would have been to decline TARP funds and protect state tax payers who opt out of paying their income taxes. Now that is the way to go, but it takes backbone.