In a flip flop, Stutzman voted for the compromise tax bill which includes an extension of unemployment benefits.  Less than one month ago, Stutzman voted against an extension of unemployment benefits.  Now he has voted for the bill that includes that very same extension.

I guess his desire to protect the interests of the wealthiest outweighs any qulams he previously had about unemployment benefits.  After all, it won’t be the unemployed who line his pockets with campagin donations in the future.  And, he got two years of tax cuts for those at the top who don’t need them in exchange for one year of unemployment benefits for those who do need them.

Pretty easy to see where Stutzman’s loyalties lie.


About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Congress, Marlin Stutzman, Republicans, Third District and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. cw martin says:

    I just love this world. We spend half our time screaming at Congress to get something done, and then when certain men bend their own beliefs in the name of compromise so that something can get done, they are labelled flip-floppers. There are too many in Congress and too many of us that will not bend. I didn’t care for it when I heard Obama accused of flip-flopping by Sarah Palin this afternoon and I don’t care for it here. If all we are anymore are “radicals” and “flip-floppers”, we’ve already lost.

  2. Cw:

    My point is that he could have voted for the unemployment benefits extension in November, and he chose not to do so. The difference? His concern for the richest in this country even though those individuals don’t need any assistance.

    You mention “bend their own beliefs in the name of compromise”, and I don’t have a problem with that. I have a problem with his reasoning. He could have bent his beliefs in November to help the Third District unemployed, but he didn’t.

    He campaigned on cutting the deficit, yet he has now voted for a bill that will add to the deficit. Again, why did he stick to his “philosophy” in November and now decide to abandon it in December?

    And, yes, I call these flip flops.

  3. G.R. says:

    Boy, you really have something stuck up your craw since Doc Hayhurst lost. Nice try on the John Kerry spin, but that dog won’t hunt here.

    Charlotte, you obviously either don’t understand the reason it was voted down back in November or refuse to publish it here, or maybe you’re just ignorant. In part, the republicans wanted unspent stimulus funds as part of a way to pay for it, and the dems wouldn’t give it back. They wanted it to stay in the general fund, imagine that. The democrat party didn’t want a consensus on how to extend these the benefits in a fiscally responsible manner, that’s a fact. Let’s just print some more damn money honey.

    Now that we have the “Obama Tax Increase” held at bay, the economy should pickup some steam and that will directly affect tax revenues, hence, paying in part for the unemployment extension.

    Through November, the unemployed have collected $319 billion in jobless benefits over the past three years, with $210 billion of that tab footed by taxes levied on businesses and the balance by you and I, (the feds). While I wouldn’t have voted for it, this bill gives small business owners 2 years of breathing room on tax increases, which will allow them to invest some of that into new hiring, which will boost the economy. All November did was require us to print yet more money, (borrow it from China), and further burden those that create 70% of the jobs in this country.

    At the end of the day, I think you just have a bone to pick with Stutzman because a). He beat the Doc, and b). He’s a republican.

  4. G.R.

    Ad hominem attacks are not necessary. I am neither ignorant nor did I refuse to print anything about the November vote. I wrote a blog post.

    How do you explain Stutzman’s assurance that he was being sent to Congress to cut the deficit and then voted for a bill that increases the deficit?

    The notion that “dog won’t hunt here” is your opinion.

    Of course I wanted Tom to win. But Tom’s loss doesn’t mean I can’t keep track of Stutzman’s votes so that I can call attention to his promises on one hand and his actions on the other. His actions speak louder than words.

    He made a huge deal out of cutting the deficit and one of his first votes is to increase the deficit? That dog will hunt here.

  5. G.R. says:

    It’s not an Ad hominen attack, and the term ignorant is in no way a slander against you. See number 2.

    1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
    2. Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: “ignorant of astronomy”.

    Stutzman was sent there to cut spending and adhere to the constitution. If you did read my earlier comment in it’s entirety, he had voted for it in November with the democrat party, there was no means for recovery of the cost. The lack of a tax increase, (and that is what this would have been) now allows small business owners to inject some of that back into the economy, and the fed will be a recipient of it. = payback.

    • But in his present vote, he did not cut spending, and he did not adhere to his interpretation of the Constitution – whatever that may be.

      Stutzman could have voted for the unemployment extension back in November. Then, if that had passed, he would have the additional issues in the current bill to address. The unemployment extension happened regardless of how he voted in November, and now, it looks like he “compromised” his initial position of cutting the deficit. What’s the old saying, “You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.” He avoided a yes vote in November only to vote for it in December.

  6. G.R. says:

    So, I guess my last comment his the digital trash bin.. it figures. I argue with facts and you won’t post it.

  7. G.R.

    I do not trash comments because they disagree with me. I have published all the comments I have received from you. The last one I received was about the ad homimem attack. I am looking at it right now.

    I will go back farther in my queue and see if I missed one.

    The only comments I trash or put in spam are those that promote business websites by using my articles that have no relationship to their comments.

    Please look again and see if you find your comment. Again, I assure you, the only comments I don’t publish are spam-like comments. Oh, I have, once in a while, trashed something where the person used such foul language or was just plain mean, vulgar, and vindictive. If you read my goals, I have asked that commentators remain civil to each other.

    And, by the way, if we talk about the spirit of compromise. You didn’t even give me a chance. You simply made the assumption that I am close-minded, don’t care about healthy discussions, and tossed your comment because I didn’t agree with you.

  8. nice winona lake office. bet you can fish from the balcony. wonder how much lake front office space costs? I know where theres a vacant storefront. used to be an online escort service, and massage parlor. a good shot of “roach killer” to bug bomb the bed bugs, a nice coat of paint, and a few cans of fabreze to rid the smells like sweat, etc,,, ; and i bet it could be had cheap- just like the previous tenants, and a higher class of prostitute( political). hmmm Winona Lake- sounds like a porn star name. and a nice place to hold important meetings and open houses with deep pocket contributors. lets redistrict Marlin to Riverhaven? or some other NE Indiana backwater? lol! ps- does constitution rhyme with prostitution?

Comments are closed.