Rothfus' first vote
Published: Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2013, 10:48 a.m.
U.S. Rep. Keith Rothfus' first vote in Congress was quite ironic.
He had to face a challenge to the Grover Norquist pledge he signed not to vote for any bill unless it was matched with dollar-for-dollar tax rate reductions. By voting against Superstorm Sandy emergency funds, Rothfus tried to deny needed help to the infrastructure crisis in New York and New Jersey, along with 140,000 FEMA claims. Our new congressman apparently feels ideology is more important than the thousands of our fellow citizens who remain out of their homes.
“I agree that we need to do something to help people in disasters, but we also need reform to make sure that programs are adequately funded,” Rothfus said.
That statement was easier than speaking the real truth. What he should've said was: “I signed a paper from a private citizen not to vote for any funds from the government unless there were tax reductions of equal dollars and I didn't want to lose my Norquist ‘pledge pin' with my first vote in Congress.”
God help us if we have a natural disaster here during Mr. Rothfus' term that will require emergency federal funds. He'll have to vote against us just so he can keep his “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” to Grover Norquist. Think any congressmen from New York and New Jersey will vote to help us?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Nukes, not hoops
- Fearful homogenization
- Forcing their beliefs
- Valid comparison?
- Fuel tax increase
- Leave economy alone
- ‘Knockout’ evil
- Name game
- Legacy: All lose
- Us & them
- Zubik is right