2008 Darcy Burner’s Bailout Response
posted by on October 3 at 14:10 PM
Asked, earlier, and now answered by Burner spokesman Sandeep Kaushik:
Her position has not changed. Darcy believes that action is needed, but the bailout proposal voted on today did not do enough to deal with the underlying problems that created this mess. And it did not do enough to protect taxpayers. So she would have voted no on this proposal.
Which puts her in basic agreement with her opponent, Republican Congressman Dave Reichert.
And keeps her well outside the corner the Dems have painted themselves into on this. One less arrow in Reichert's quiver.
I'm very concerned that this bailout will be used to smear Dems for decades to come, and used to counterbalance Bush's otherwise unforgivable fiscal outrages over his whole tenure. The Dems caved too fast.
I really wanna see a list of every single chunk of pork/tax credit that was larded onto this bill (now up to $150 billion), which Congress critter was responsible for tacking it on, and whom it benefits (in plain English), but I don't know where to look.
Right on, Darcy! Capitalism cannot be reformed.
Well, that's not what she said but I suspect it might be true.
Yay Darcy! We need more Democrats who can recognize a piece of shitty legislation when they see one.
Murray and, sadly, McDermott couldn't, in this case. :(
This means that Burner acquitted herself better than did either Jim McDermott or our senators -- late converts, I guess, to the sloppiest form of pork-laden corporate welfare.
I misspoke: Senator Cantwell voted against the bailout.
My error.
The thing is, Burner wrote this article for the PI before Reichert came out with his response which is almost identical to her ideas. GO Darcy!
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.