Texas Governor Rails Against 'Bailouts,' But Uses Stimulus To Prop Up Budget http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/texas-deficit_n_812948.html?ir=Politics The nation's states face budget strains -- even one that says it doesn't. Texas filled nearly 97 percent of its shortfall last year with Federal stimulus dollars, even as its governor has been sharply critical of "bailout" policies, CNN Money reports, citing the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the wake of the recession, Texas is one of many states that, contending with diminished revenue, have benefited from Federal support. After facing a $6.6 billion budget hole, Texas used $6.4 billion of Federal money to help patch it, allowing the state to keep its $9.1 billion emergency fund intact, CNN reports. But on the same day he asked for the bailout money, governor Rick Perry started a petition called "No Government Bailouts." Indeed, Perry is a consistent critic of government spending, frequently pointing to his own state as proof that budget austerity -- spending cuts coupled with low taxes -- works. But now, with the stimulus money running out, and with the economy still sluggish, Texas is projected to run a nearly $27 billion deficit over the next two years, according to the state's own estimate.
Why is it hypocritical not to follow Federal rules and federal law. I am sure the Governor would like to have speed limits removed on some parts of Texas highways. But he doesn't because he would lose federal matching highway funds. Let's not even go into tax policy. You fight for your cause until you win or lose the vote then you live by the rules and law of the land. It seems you recommend anarchy. Don't accept the law and live by your own rules.
So he is the same sort of hypocrite as liberals who railed against the Bush tax rates but still took advantage of them?
How many liberals do you think donated a the amount of money they saved in taxes on the Bush tax cuts to the government? They could have paid extra taxes on principle.
In my opinion it would be hypocritical to be railing on a policy at the same time you are proposing similar policies. Like if i was to rail on Obamacare and then propose government healthcare then it would be hypocritical. If you go down this road of accusing anyone using or benefiting from laws already in place it is a slippery slope. Would i be considered a hypocrite if i sent my kids to school after railing on the teachers unions and how poor our education system is? Once laws are in place everyone is going to take advantage of them, technically every single politician who tries to change a law while obeying it is a hypocrite.
If the government allowed me to keep all my taxes and pay for everything i wanted individually i would, but unfortunately i dont have a choice. I would be more than happy to drive on nice toll roads(which would be better maintained), pay for an independent security force to police my area, private schooling, etc. and it would be cheaper for me. P.S. i dont have kids i was just using that as an example.