Vern Ehlers Votes Against Economic Stimulus Package

Vern Ehlers Voted Against the Economic Stimulus Package

On Wednesday, Grand Rapids area Representative Vern Ehlers–along with the entire Republican delegation in the House of Representatives–voted against the economic stimulus plan prepared by Democrats and President Barack Obama.

In a statement explaining his vote, Ehlers largely rehashed Republican talking points on the bill:

“The main reason I decided to vote against this bill is the incredibly high cost it poses to Americans who are already financially strained. The spending in this bill costs each American household around $6,700, which will be added to our national debt.”

“Only around three percent of the $825 billion bill would go toward job-creating, “shovel-ready” road and highway construction spending. Supporters of this bill claim it will produce three to four million jobs, which means it will cost $200,000 for each job it creates.”

These numbers have been criticized by liberal groups who charge that they are inaccurate. This has been particularly true of the $200,000 per job figure, which groups such as Media Matters say ignores other benefits from the stimulus package in the areas of education, health, and public safety.

Media Matters has also prepared a list of “myths and falsehoods surrounding the economic recovery plan” that looks at several of the misleading statements being made about the bill by Republicans like Representative Ehlers.

Last year, Ehlers voted for a costly economic stimulus package proposed by the Bush administration.


Author: mediamouse

Grand Rapids independent media //

2 thoughts on “Vern Ehlers Votes Against Economic Stimulus Package”

  1. It’s good to criticize the Republicans about their stance on the stimulus package, but how about some criticism of the fact that the Dems have packed it full of hundreds of billions of tax cuts to corporations (to appease the Republicans)?

  2. I think Ehlers is a hypocritical empty suit. Where was he when we needed fiscal responsibility instead of “war supplementals” and tax breaks for the richest Americans? Where was he and his “concern” for deficits when Bush doubled the national debt and turned an annual surplus into the biggest deficits in US history?

Comments are closed.