Advertisement

Rep. Lauren Boebert Votes Against $20M Earmarks But Takes Credit Anyway

What a difference a few weeks and $20 million in earmarks makes for Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.).

Earlier this month, the Colorado congresswoman was among 40 Republicans who voted against a must-pass bill to fund the government that included more than $20 million for the district she currently represents.

Boebert made 10 community project funding requests in the bill — but she didn’t vote for the bill that approved them. Instead, she called the bill a “monstrosity” that “maintains COVID spending levels, funds the Green New Deal, and excludes nearly all conservative policy riders we fought for.”

Boebert changed her tune Monday when she issued a release where she took credit for the $20 million coming to the district as a result of the bill she voted against.

“Can’t wait for the ribbon cuttings and to see these priorities come to fruition,” she said in the release, while declining to mention that she didn’t actually vote to get the money to her district.

It’s probably just as well, since she’s abandoning her current district in order to run in a presumedly more GOP-friendly one across the state.

Boebert also sung her own praises on social media ...

... only for users of X, formerly Twitter, to call her out for taking credit for something she actually opposed.

HuffPost reached out to Boebert for comment on why she’s taking credit for a bill she opposed, but no one immediately responded.

She’s just the latest of a long line of Republican politicians who voted against a bill that would bring money to their districts only to take credit for it later.

Back in January, Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.) was called out by a CBS reporter for taking credit for delivering money to her district despite voting against the bills that provided the funds.

That same month, Minnesota congressman Pete Stauber praised $1.05 billion in federal money set aside to fix a 62-year-old bridge, even though he voted against the bill that funded the repairs because he didn’t want to be “complicit in paving a destructive and irreversible path towards socialism.”

Related...