close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20101128074154/http://openleft.com/diary/20436/newestranking-hypocrite

Newest Ranking Hypocrite

by: Mike Lux

Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 16:30


The modern Republican Party has certainly had its share of flaming hypocrites over the years: Newt Gingrich calling for impeachment over an affair while having one himself; closeted gays like Mark Foley voting against gay rights while trying to seduce 16-year-old pages; holier-than-thou Christians like Tom DeLay happily taking Jack Abramoff's ill-gotten cash. The list is long and keeps growing. But in this year's election, I think you have to give the award for the paragon of Republican hypocrisy to one other Joe Miller, who apparently has never met a public welfare program he hasn't (a) been a recipient of; and (b) is now trying to get rid of.

Check out this great new story from Alaska:

Joe Miller says he received Medicaid

U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller said today that in the past his family received assistance from federal Medicaid and Denali KidCare, the state low income health care program. His write-in opponent, Lisa Murkowski, called him a hypocrite for taking the assistance while now saying federal entitlement programs are unconstitutional.

The Miller campaign for the past week-and-a-half did not answer when asked what low income assistance he received. But Miller today answered the question when asked by reporters after a debate, saying he considers it a distraction but people are entitled to know.

"I have the same sort of struggles in my past that other people have had. There is a proper role for government. The question is, who controls the power, is at the federal level or the state level? It's our perspective that the state is the best arbiter, the state is the best point at which we make those decisions," Miller said.

Miller said he hasn't been on government assistance "for years." He didn't provide a timeline but campaign spokesman said he believes he stopped receiving the benefits in 2002.Miller, who has eight children, said his family received Denali Kid Care, the state program that includes federal Medicaid money.

Miller criticized Murkowski in June during the Republican primary for supporting Denali Kid Care, some money of which funds abortions.

"As you are aware, just last week the Anchorage Daily News reported that the Denali KidCare Program funded 662 abortions last year. Senator Murkowski has been a champion of this program, voting against the majority of her Republican colleagues for CHIPRA (HR 2) in January of 2009," Miller wrote in a fundraising letter.

Miller said today he was critical of expanding the program, not the program itself. "We've also got a federal government today which is in completely different conditions than it used to be. At the time, I don't know what the deficit was but it certainly was less than half I believe than what it was today," he said.

Miller, when asked what other federal or state low income assistance he received, noted that he received a low-income state hunting and fishing license in 1995.

"That was contingent on two things. That you have low income or that you have a program. That was before Denali KidCare, I think at the time we had three children and one on the way, and I believe it was probably some form of Medicaid program we were on at the time," Miller said.

Murkowski said there was nothing wrong with using government "safety nets."

"What I find so hypocritical about Miller is he has stated repeatedly his opposition to these programs, stating that they are unconstitutional. So if you believe they are unconstitutional then why would you avail yourself of these safety nets.you either walk the talk or you don't."

Miller said what he's talking about is state control of the programs. "That doesn't mean we cut off the programs, that is ultimately a state decision. And I think there is a use, in fact the most effective use is probably those programs that help transition the populations from more of a situation of dependency to one where you can be independently economic.

A friend in Alaska tells me he also may be late in paying his property taxes.
I love this guy. He reminds me of the folks at the Tea Party rallies who want to keep the government out of their Medicare, or the man who said that yeah, he was on Social Security and Medicare, but some people didn't deserve welfare, dammit.

Like his on-again, off-again buddy Sarah Palin, I think investigative bloggers in Alaska can probably have a field day with this guy. He will be the gift that keeps on giving.

Mike Lux :: Newest Ranking Hypocrite

BERJAYA
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View BERJAYA Send As Email BERJAYA
Limited Fun (0.00 / 0)
"I think investigative bloggers in Alaska can probably have a field day with this guy. He will be the gift that keeps on giving."

Well, it is only fun if he is beaten!  Can these bloggers keep this guy out of the senate?  I don't want continuous entertainment.  I'd just as soon have this guy disappear into the AK wilderness after 11/2.


RE: "Joe Miller says he received Medicaid" (0.00 / 1)
MY COMMENT: The entire state of Alaska seems to be nothing but a bunch of "welfare queens"! And most of them are meth addicts.

You are an ass (4.00 / 1)
The 20% of Alaskans who are members of native nations who had their lands stolen are "welfare queens"?

Most Alaskans are meth addicts?

Only GOPer trolls can believe such things, much less make the basis of a comment. A worthy candidate for my first troll rating.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?


[ Parent ]
Number one, what is a guy who's dependent on government assistance doing having eight kids (4.00 / 1)
Number two, I hate to say this but Joe Miller is the epitome of the American swing voter: talk the big talk when it comes to how government sucks, but when it comes to walking the walk, walk right into that government aid office.  And then if anyone tries to take away your government benefits, cry like a spoiled baby.

Again, a lot of so-called conservatives, especially the more ignorant/apathetic ones, ideologically despise government because that's what they've been taught to believe by Ronald Reagan/Republicans/Fox News/their family, neighbors and friends/ambient political/ideological noise, but then when they learn what "less government" actually means, all of a sudden it's "no, no, no, I need my government!"  We need to change this, and calling out Joe Miller is a step in the right direction.  As liberals, we need to continue the right direction by making the case that, yes, even committed conservatives can and should benefit from government help, rather than let the issue simply be "Joe Miller is a hypocrite".  Because the message that Miller is a hypocrite, while it may be true and satisfying to point out, doesn't challenge the conservative idea that government should do less rather than more.


I don't understand your .view of the "American swing voter" (4.00 / 1)
The vast majority of Americans are willing to support higher taxes, even on themselves.  And what's wrong with complaining about government? People like some things government does and don't support other things it does.  Are you happy with how the budget gets divided up? I'm also fairly certain that objecting to having one's government benefits taken away is not necessarily a bad thing either, but often is simply good citizenship.

That said, I agree that the left needs to make the case for the value of government for protecting everyone, and that 'he's a hypocrite' fails to articulate our values, making it a weaker argument. (I'm not against arguments about hypocrisy per se, only for making them the central point).  The fact is that most who attack government in the abstract (who are generally conservatives, not swing voters) are really against government protection for classes of people. We simply want to expand its protections to all.  This is about who counts as a person and citizen, not who likes government.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
That's what I've been saying about the American swing voter (0.00 / 0)
They're ideologically/abstractly anti-government, but they are supportive of specific liberal policies, such as raising taxes or (more commonly) government programs that benefit them.  But I'm skeptical of what you say about a "vast majority" supporting higher taxes on themselves.  It's one thing to say yes to an opinion poll (if that); it's another to actually vote for a candidate who'll promise to raise your taxes.  And if they do support higher taxes, it's usually when said tax increase is specifically linked to a particular program they like (e.g. as written in ballot initiatives), showing that they think government normally wastes their money completely, which is just not true.

And what's wrong with complaining about government? People like some things government does and don't support other things it does.  Are you happy with how the budget gets divided up?

C'mon, I'm sure you're aware that I was talking about those who complain about government in the abstract or as a matter of ideology.  I suspect many of them do so because that's pretty much all they know about politics, because the dominant ambient ideology in this country is less-government conservatism.  Ask these people about actual specifics ("what government programs would you cut?") and they'll either be dumbly silent or they'll cling to their favorite pet programs.  Even (as an example) Joe Wurzelbacher, Mr. Rugged Individualist Who Wants Government Off His Back, came out against any cuts in Social Security/Medicare and defense, leaving him to rage against the remaining 20% of the federal budget.

I'm also fairly certain that objecting to having one's government benefits taken away is not necessarily a bad thing either, but often is simply good citizenship.

It has nothing to do with citizenship and has everything to do with either pure selfishness or bankrupt ideological thinking.  Joe Miller is a great example: a beneficiary of government who hates government.  Such a position is more readily explained if there's a dominant ideology that teaches you to hate government.  That's how someone can take government help (a natural desire) and at the same time say government should not be helping (a learned belief).

I agree with what you wrote in your second paragraph.


[ Parent ]
Not wanting to have one's taxes raised (0.00 / 0)
regardless of what it's going to be spent on is not the same as being ideologically opposed to government. Nor is believing that government wastes money. Why would people claim a willingness to pay more in taxes in a poll if they didn't mean it?  It's not like admitting you won't vote for someone on the basis of race - if anything, our media culture tells us that paying taxes is for chumps, which suggests polls may underestimate support for taxes.  

If people are willing to support a long list of government actions and are willing to pay for it, they aren't anti-government. (Paul's shown how polls have reflected this consistently for decades.) Since that long list can easily be summarized as support of government providing economic security and opportunity for all, I think it's fair to say that people have a pretty clear ideology that is neither pro- or anti-government, but rather supports government doing a wide range of things but not other things. I think asking about government itself confuses the real question.  When people are faced with policies that help 'people like them' and policies that help 'other people' they will often choose the former.  That doesn't tell us how they will respond to policies that help 'all of us.' Note too none of this is limited to swing voters (who make up a tiny faction of the electorate - most self-identified independents vote just like partisans), but rather applies to most of the electorate (including, oftentimes, majorities of Republicans).

That said, Joe Miller (or people like him) don't hate the government.  Anarchists might, conservative don't. The rest of us are arguing over what government should do and who it should help.  Miller supports government helping people like him - our response, as I see it, shouldn't be that government is always good but rather it should help everyone not just some people.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
I get what you're saying (0.00 / 0)
but I don't think it contradicts what I'm saying.

If people are willing to support a long list of government actions and are willing to pay for it, they aren't anti-government.

That's what I'm saying - that when it comes to specific government programs they'll eagerly say yes, but if you ask whether or not government should do more in general, or whether government should have a role in those very things that they just said yes to when asked specifically, they say no.  That's because they're not really making the connection that it's government that's going to be doing all the things that they want.  In some extreme cases, they might not even be aware that what they like is government-provided (e.g. Medicare).

I believe this was also borne out in the opinion polling on the public option.  The public option almost always did better in polls that left out the words "government-run".  Like a trained monkey, average non-junkie voters are repelled by the mention of the term "government" because the ambient political message in this country is that government can never do anything right - even when it, you know, can.

Here's another great example of the difference between programmatic and ideological support for government.  I just watched the first debate between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman for CA Gov.  Both candidates kept talking about how government was too big and needed to be reduced, while at the same time, contradictorily saying that "we" need to spend more on things like education.  At one point Whitman even said that we had to cut government so we can move that money to the UC and CSU systems, as if those systems were separate from the government.

No one called her out on this contradiction of course, because our conservative political climate allows people to get away with this all the time: bash government like hell in the abstract, but then talk about all these programs and institutions you love without having to admit that they're part of the very "government" that you keep bashing.


[ Parent ]
BERJAYA

BERJAYA

USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS BERJAYA
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS