Coverage from the Seattle Times and the P-I tells part of the tale.
Two points to extract from their coverage:
1) Reichert has Burner dead-to-rights on the "pay-go" issue. According to the "pay-go" principles Congressional Democrats and Burner have committed themselves to after 2006, all tax cuts passed under their majority have to be offset. The Times coverage explains further:
"Pay-go is a great concept, but there are only three ways to make it work," Reichert said. "You can raise taxes, you can make drastic cuts or you can borrow more money. Which one will my opponent do? I believe she will raise taxes."
If Darcy Burner is a vote for a Democratic tax plan, including that of Barack Obama, then yes, that will include raising taxes on the supposed "rich" in order to fund any "middle class" tax cut...assuming one is actually forthcoming.
It should be little surprise that in the high cost-of-living region in which we live, some people who Democrats consider to be "rich" actually consider themselves to be "middle class," with the angst over paying for college and other expenses to prove it. Never mind the economic hard times that further make tax increases of any kind sound unpalatable.
2) The P-I's coverage included this:
But Burner touted her plan for beginning to pull out U.S. troops from Iraq, while Reichert said, "The generals run the war - and those are the people I would listen to" when it comes to the timing of a withdrawl [sic].
Problem: Burner's "Responsible Plan" for Iraq is largely a repackaging of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. Ok. But, Baker-Hamilton was compiled in 2006, before the now much-discussed "surge" and other events since its initiation that have changed much of the reality on the ground in Iraq. Meaning, the "Responsible Plan" is now largely irrelevant.
Ironic given that Burner herself called the surge "irrelevant" earlier this year.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 08, 2008 08:06 PM | Email ThisAnd here's the problem with paygo: When they dropped the capital gains tax rate, the revenues from that tax went UP. It did not 'cost' anything, it was a win-win for the treasury AND taxpayers. What's not to like about THAT? And with the Bush tax cuts, news was reporting the we were having record revenue days for the national treasury. Another win-win for the treasury AND taxpayers. When Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, revenues had doubled from the day he entered office to the day he left. Another win-win for the people and the treasury. Lawmakers should absolutely keep these things in mind and not pretend that tax cuts always 'cost'. Au contraire, they can be revenue-bringers.
So, as a member of the larger Democratic majority in the next Congress, Burner could be ranked as low as the 250th most powerful Representative -- a stature her immediate predecessor could never even hope to achieve.
Posted by: tensor on October 8, 2008 08:17 PMDarcy is regularly the punch line of jokes at Microsoft where she supposedly built her resume.
(Yes, she has supports from the nut-roots programmers, but the people in the financial and marketing departments that worked with her will tell you she was just another pants suit walking the halls with delusions of relevance.)
Dave Reichert represents my district - the 8th - not Seattle where Darcy's real support base lies. (Don't believe she's Seattle's candidate? Stand outside at the end of one of her fund raisers in Bellevue and watch all the cars jump on the I-90 west to head for home in Seattle.)
Despite your own delusions, you "Emerald City" residents don't really dicate everything going on in Washington and you don't get to elect our representatives.
Posted by: johnny on October 8, 2008 08:29 PMPlus, I don't even think Reichert has even read the 9/11 Commission Report which found that one of the main reasons why we were attacked on 9/11 by Al-Qaeda was because the US military was occupying territory in the Middle East. Specifically, our naval ships were in the Persian Gulf and we set up bases in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War in the early 90s. The report found that our occupation in the region emboldened and motivated Al-Qaeda to attack us on 9/11. So for Reichert to continue to support the US military occupation of Iraq is not only stretching our armed forces thin by moving them overseas and away from our borders but it is also HURTING OUT NATIONAL SECURITY because we are emboldening and motivating groups like Al-Qaeda to attack us in the future.
Get Reichert out of office. Enough of these neo-conservative Bush policies. Aren't you guys tired of these policies yet? Seriously...
Posted by: HeyDawg on October 8, 2008 08:41 PMNo.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on October 8, 2008 08:52 PMI'm tired of rightwing pols like Reichert who want to raise my taxes ON MY CHILDREN. I want my generation to take respibility for it's screwups and not dump it on my children.
US Debt when Bush started office: 5.5 Trillion. Now: 10.0 Trillion. Heckuva Job, Republicans.
The Republican platform now is not designed to balance the budget. Why? Because instead of cutting spending to cover tax cuts (like a true conservative), Republicans like Dave Reichert and George Bush resort to borrowing the money from China and India to cover their big spending. And we wonder today why we are in a financial crisis???
I am shocked that other conservatives aren't appalled at how much the Republican Party has drifted away from its core principles (cut spending, eliminate federal bureaucracy/red tape, call for a limited federal government)
Please, vote Reichert, Bush, and the rest of the big government neo-cons out of office. They are "convservative" pretenders whose policies have led us to this mess.
Posted by: HeyDawg on October 8, 2008 09:35 PMWhy not track him down and ask him what he thinks about pulling the troops out before the job is done?
johnny@3,
Doesn't surprise me much. From what I've heard, Burner was at MS when all the diversity craziness started, and she was more into running their women's org than than pulling her weight in her product group.
When Bill Clinton left office, the federal debt was shrinking, Al-Qaeda and Iran had no influence in Iraq, and stock prices were high. Want more of what has happened since? Vote for Rep. Reichert, and the policies he blindly rubber-stamps for his masters.
'Despite your own delusions, you "Emerald City" residents don't really dicate everything going on in Washington and you don't get to elect our representatives.'
The proprietor of this blog resides in Green Lake. Which part of the 8th district is that, exactly? How about advertisements bought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Governors' Association? (Their very name tells you they MUST be from out of state!)
The "rich" are defined as anyone who doesn't vote Democrat.
I'm pretty sure George Soros votes for Democrats. But that refugee from Communism earned his hundreds of millions; he didn't inherit all of his money, like G.W. Bush did.
Posted by: tensor on October 8, 2008 09:49 PMWake up Conservatives! Darcy, not Reichert, is your candidate!
Posted by: BellevueWolverines on October 8, 2008 10:49 PMWhich stock prices, specifically, were UP when Clinton left office? Mine certainly weren't, thanks to the dot.com crash of March 2000 when...er...um...oh, yea! That's right! CLINTON was in OFFICE??? How the hell did that happen? Why couldn't this man single handily keep the market from crashing? And why was it still in a slump when he left office? Could it be that a President has absolutely NO control over the stock market? Please cite what Clinton did, SPECIFICALLY, during his presidency to keep "stock prices up". Footnotes and references will be required.
As for there being a budget surplus when Clinton left office? Well, the only way to respond to that is to say it is a LIE. There was no surplus when Clinton was in office, or when he left office, and there NEVER was. This is easily verified by the US Treasury data on its web site.
At the end of FY 1994, Clinton first full budget year in office, the National Debt was $4.69 Trillion! the deficit was $281.26 BILLION
1994: Debt: $4.69 Trillion Deficit: $281.26B
1995: Debt: $4.97 Trillion Deficit: $281.23B
1996: Debt: $5.22 Trillion Deficit: $250.83B
1997: Debt: $5.41 trillion Deficit: $188.34B
1998: Debt: $5.53 trillion Deficit: $113.05B
1999: Debt: $5.65 trillion Deficit: $130.08B (yikes!!,Debt going up since '96. Deficit went UP from previous year)
2000: Debt: $5.67 trillion Deficit: 17.91 Billion
2001: Debt: $5.80 trillion Deficit: $133.29B
Now, I'm no Accounting major, and I did suffer from getting a public school math education, but unless I'm wrong (and I doubt it) in NO YEAR of Clinton's administration did the National Debt go DOWN, not did B.J. leave Bush with a surplus that he turned into a deficit. I will grant you he came close in 2000 (what's a few 10's of Billions between friends?). But $17.91B is not zero (I know I was taught that in math. Or was it algebra? Nevertheless...) And it is DEFINITELY not representative of a SURPLUS. And, as we can see, his 2001 budget generated and INCREASE in the deficit. So, the deficit appears to have started GROWING in B.J. last year in office. Subtracting Bush's $38B tax refund, B.J. still had a $95B DEFICIT So, where is your SURPLUS?
Without going into anymore exhaustive detail, which would make my head spin...what we really had was a PROJECTED SURPLUS. Which, in fact, came from EXCESS Social Security taxes being paid to, in essence, protect the baby boomers.
Now, I'm not done yet. Because I must address the "George Soros earned his money" statement. By even the most liberal definition of "earned" he did nothing of the sort. This ex convicted insider trader made is money of currency speculation that essentially wiped out many nations currencies. He also pretty much single handily brought down the Bank of England. Not to mention his suspicious holdings in off shore accounts associated with know drug cartels, and large deposits in the Bank of Colombia (yes, the drug capital of the world). I can see where a liberal might call this earning, but people with morals would not call it that.
See how easy it is to do research, Tensor? Seriously dude, read a book once. You might be able to salvage a modicum of respect.
In order for "pay as you go" to work, which entitlement programs is Burner willing to get rid of? Because she will either have to vote to cut spending or vote to raise taxes. An no conservative is going to agree with her if she wants to cut military and intelligence spending.
So, care to try again in defining her?
Posted by: Dave on October 8, 2008 11:38 PMGoogle "Dow Jones Industrial Average."
"Now, I'm no Accounting major..."
Obviously. Clinton posted a surplus in 1998, 1999, and 2000. You didn't give a source for your figures, for obvious reasons. Alan Greenspan COMPLAINED we were paying down the debt too fast under Clinton! Luckily, the unelected G.W. Bush Administration put a stop to that, aided and abetted by Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, and the other felons who led the Republican Congress.
"Without going into anymore exhaustive detail, which would make my head spin...what we really had was a PROJECTED SURPLUS. Which, in fact, came from EXCESS Social Security taxes being paid to, in essence, protect the baby boomers."
Clinton repaid $360 Billion into our Treasury. Try looking up the federal government's official figures sometime.
"Now, I'm not done yet. Because I must address the "George Soros earned his money" statement. By even the most liberal definition of "earned" he did nothing of the sort. This ex convicted insider trader made is money of currency speculation that essentially wiped out many nations currencies."
At least he made money at it. Care to compare the dollar's value in January 2001 to its' value now? No, I didn't think so. Heckuva job, Bushie!
"See how easy it is to do research, Tensor? Seriously dude, read a book once. You might be able to salvage a modicum of respect."
You didn't cite a single book, fool. Wonder why?
Posted by: tensor on October 8, 2008 11:41 PMI am sick to death of this class warfare crap.
YOU snots think because we prefer to keep our OWN money, money that we've scrimped and saved and earned, that we are greedy pigs. I for one have had enough of this BS.
WE are the engines of this country.
WE struggle when our property taxes double.
WE pay for our kids educations rather than depend on the student loans.
WE pay for our cars and KEEP them rather than dump them for your new fads.
WE cut coupons and shop sales, mow our own lawns and GIVE to CHARITY.
WE pay our mortgages and WE don't carry debt.
And damn it, WE want to have something of what WE EARNED to pass down to OUR children, no matter how moderate.
WE trust that our own children and grandchildren can be far better stewards of OUR money and of the economy than some socialist bureaucrat.
WE can't do that when your democrat/socialist thieves in government and those that want to be. like Obambi and the Cottage Lake nitwit DEMAND that we give MORE.
How MUCH more?
How MUCH is our fair share?
When does the responsibility for our fair share supercede our responsibility and desire for our OWN children.
We already PAY our fair share for some of the most moronic boondoggles you socialist have dreamed up and WE say ENOUGH.
If you are such a damned fan of MORE MORE MORE, shut your mouths, open your wallets and "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is".
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
Share the address with your pals and fellow socialists: Obambi, the Cottage Lake nitwit, Stingy Biden, Gore and Clinton and the lying thief in Olympia.
Get your damned hands out of our pockets. We are tired of being monetarily molested by you thugs... and there is no magic pill to get rid of the product of your rape.
You are certainly free to show your patriotism by writing as many checks to the Treasury Dept as you like to help pay down the debt and "protect your children". You can do it weekly, monthly, however frequently you like. You don't have to wait until April 15th.
But kindly refrain from telling me how much of MY money I am allowed to keep.
Posted by: Dave on October 8, 2008 11:56 PMLess Damage - Please don't send her back here - HA-HA
We are still dealing with the damage she created as the unelected self anointed meddler of the Ames Lake Community Club. Our property rights are about to be taken away by a judge because of the 2005 inaction of the community due to Darcy Burner convincing the community that she would take care of it. She has done her damage here, Don't allow her to go to Congress and damage our district and our Country. For what it's worth, it's been over 3 months since her house unfortunately burned down. She stated that they would re-build, and it would take about a year. Not one thing has been done to the carcass of the former palatial estate of the "successful businesswoman" Darcy Burner. Considering that her and her husband and 5 year old son are all unemployed, I'm thinking that after Dave kicks her butt again this year, she's planning on moving anywhere that she thinks will elect her to Congress. Why not, nothing to keep them here. Unemployed, lost 2 times, could probably get away with the lies of a grandiose background of business experience and wonderful community involvement, unchallenged and not looked into. Maybe Daniel K will get his wish of voting for her for POTUS in 2015 after all. Just not via the 8th CD of Washington State.
Posted by: ameslaker on October 9, 2008 12:03 AMNot.
Possible.
But I'm sure if elected to Congress from somewhere, she'll already be running for President by 2015 with the backing of the nutroots.
Dream on Goldy, Andrew, Kos et al.
Posted by: ameslaker on October 9, 2008 12:18 AMA Conservative favors cutting spending across the board; intelligence, military spending included. No federal government program is exempt. If you don't believe that then you're not a Conservative (ie Reichert).
How do you know Darcy won't cut spending? We know where Reichert stands on a balanced budget. He votes to continue to spend money even when the federal government doesn't have it (Iraq War).
I don't think Darcy is running on an outdated platform. Have you watched any of her commercials lately? They discuss Reichert's ineffectiveness, Darcy prioritzing education, and how she would combat the failed Bush economic policies as perpetuated and supported by Dave Reichert in Congress that have put us in this position (spend money, borrow money, inflate the dollar).
Dave Reichert may claim to have solutions. But what good are those solutions if they are bad? For example how good is getting your tax dollars back if your dollar no longer has any value or purchasing power? Think about it.
Posted by: BellevueWolverines on October 9, 2008 12:33 AMWow, the staff members at Darcy Burners office must be burning up the wires this AM pretending to be "conservatives who are going to cross party lines to vote for Burner" on this board.
You can always recognize the sock puppet posters by the way they carefully word things.
Absolute, unmitigated horseshit.
No serious conservative would say this, and no serious conservative believes this. Certainly no conservative since Ronald Reagan.
If you are going to throw stones, fine, but if you are going to try to attack us using our own standards, know what they are.
Posted by: Cliff on October 9, 2008 06:41 AMI will just bet that Darcy and family are running straight into the CAO that her buddies Ron Sims, Dwight Pelz, Larry Phillips and the rest put into place. Rebuild a Waterfront Home on an older septic system? Hmmm... Welcome to the world of DDES, DOH and King County. Of course I trust that the folks at the County are going treat Darcy just like any other citizen, Right?
Posted by: Huh? on October 9, 2008 06:50 AMI attended yesterday's debate and Reichert was the clear winner. He's a perfect match for this moderate district. Reichert by 5% (at least)
Posted by: diamondshards on October 9, 2008 07:03 AMI remember back in early 70s at the UW. There was a terrific race between Hempleman, the young D, and Pritchard, the businessman. Two terrific candidates and both pro-business. What went wrong between here and there?
Posted by: swatter on October 9, 2008 07:22 AMI cannot explain for the same reason I can't explain why the Ghost of Joseph Stalin won the latest round of "American Idol": It never happened.
Do your own research, but you are comically ill informed.
Posted by: Cliff on October 9, 2008 07:37 AMRegarding the national debt - you are, in fact wrong. Please see the Official US Government Debt Website. The site, TreasuryDirect, is brought to you by the U.S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of the Public Debt and you can read more about it here.
Anyway, enter November 1, 1993 (the first day of the first Clinton budget) as the starting date, and September 30, 2001 (the last day of the Clinton budgets) as the ending date. You will get a DAILY accounting of the national debt with annual breakouts. And you will see that in fact there never WAS a year-over-year surplus, the national debt always increased.
This is probably the biggest lie most often repeated relating to the Clinton administration. The budget was never balanced, by virtue that the debt never decreased. Every year more and more debt built up. The Clinton surplus never existed.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 9, 2008 08:29 AMYou are calling Bush a Liar too since he referred to the surplus quite a bit in 2000 and 2001. Look it up.
Posted by: Robert on October 9, 2008 09:07 AMYou are calling Bush a Liar too since he referred to the surplus quite a bit in 2000 and 2001. Look it up.
Posted by: Robert on October 9, 2008 09:08 AMThey never seem to have an answer for that, other than blathering about "need" and "social responsibility" - neither of which are terms they can actually define.
Posted by: AT on October 9, 2008 09:14 AMRead the key words. (ALLEGED)
The Democratic and Republican candidates for president of the United States, Al Gore and George W. Bush, have focused their election campaign platforms on how much of an alleged $4.2 trillion budget surplus predicted over the next 10 years should be handed over to the country's richest capitalists.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 9, 2008 09:43 AMAnd those same sock puppets post the same things elsewhere. Word for word. Simply head over to The Times Politics Northwest blog. See if you recognize the names of the 'new' posters on this thread.
One of the best ways to identify them? I usually vote Republican but ...
Yeah. Because we've never seen that before. /rolls eyes
Posted by: jimg on October 9, 2008 09:47 AMTook 30 seconds:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010825.html
President's Radio Address
09/25/2001 10:06 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Congress will shortly return to Washington to make its final spending decisions for 2002. A new budget report, released this past week, shows that despite the economic slowdown that began in the third quarter of last year, the federal budget is strong, healthy and in balance. In fact, the 2002 budget surplus will be the second biggest surplus in American history
I see you failed miserably in explaining how Clinton allowed the market to crash in 2000 and failed to turn it around before left office.
Re: Soros. Now you are saying he made money. No argument there. The crooks at Enron made money. Drug dealers make money. Pimps make money. What's your point?
Maybe you should go read up.. it was (projected)
We never had zip in the bank.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 9, 2008 09:50 AMShe really might be happier moving to Seattle and getting a house there, so she can take on Jim McDermott. that's a much better goal for her, I think.
Posted by: Michele on October 9, 2008 10:03 AMhttp://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=1519460
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 9, 2008 10:21 AMI'm kinda hoping she moves back to Nebraska or anywhere far far away. Even though Seattle voters love unqualified ineffective representatives, her lack of a resume is still too well known locally. And I think most of us, except the extreme left are pretty sick of her smarmy condescending demeanor and of course that grating voice. IMO - good riddance.
Posted by: ameslaker on October 9, 2008 10:28 AMI'd rather have Clinton's taxes and great economy than Bush's tax cuts and lousy economy.
Posted by: Robert on October 9, 2008 10:30 AMDude, even Clinton doesn't think the 90's economy was about his tax hikes. Neither does any respectable economist.
Try again.
Posted by: Cliff on October 9, 2008 11:13 AMSo they're both wrong. There never was a budget surplus - you willing to admit that? I am...
Bush is not the hero of the Right when it comes to the economy. Way too much spending, and that has dragged down the economy enormously. But the tax cuts were great, and really worked. Even Clinton tries to claim tax cuts as he still seeks to build some sort of positive legacy.
And Clinton left us with a recession. The economy was dropping into the toilet in 2001. I guess you forget that, though, don't you? When Clinton entered the Presidency the country was already out of recession. He took a growing GDP and managed to turn it around into a recession for the next President.
Which is exactly the OPPOSITE story that you Marxist Slavery Party hacks claim. The MSM and your lie is always "Clinton inherited a recession and gave us a budget surplus and a vibrant economy!"
When in fact the cold hard facts are that Clinton inherited a recovering economy, and through bungling managed to bring on a recession as he was wrapping up his term... Oh, and there never was a budget surplus.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 9, 2008 11:45 AMThey the dems also forget 911 and the mess is caused on Wallstreet& economy.
Bush was able to turn that around and we took off.
Yet as you have said and I so agree. GW went on a spending spree.
Really? Everyone who? The same "everyone" that agreed Elvis is still alive? The moon landing never happened? The bullet came from the Grassy Knoll? The US Govt planned 9/11? Is that the everyone to whom you refer? You certainly can't support your argument with facts. I challenge you to do so. Please show us data that indicates ANY Clinton budget posted a surplus. (good luck becuse it doesn't exist)
Posted by: Dave on October 9, 2008 12:59 PMActually that it not true. A conservative favors cutting entitlement programs. Conservatives are perfectly fine with spend tax money on what the Constitution specifically defines. A conservative would NOT favor cutting military
spending. I agree no federal govt program is exempt. But the Military is not a "federal govt program"
"How do you know Darcy won't cut spending?"
Uh...because she's a Democrat? That's like asking me how I know an alcoholic will have another drink? I still didn't see and answer to my question. What SPECIFIC entitlement programs has Burner committed to cutting? Remembering that the military is not an entitlement program.
Go!
"I don't think Darcy is running on an outdated platform. Have you watched any of her commercials lately?"
I try not to watch her commercials to avoid getting ill. I said it was here Iraq platform that was outdated. Although it seems a case could be made that continuing the failed policies of FDR and LBJ that she seems to be putting forth are also outdated.
"For example how good is getting your tax dollars back if your dollar no longer has any value or purchasing power? "
Did you really just type that??? Unbelievable! And if Burner actually believes that ahe deserves to lose. It's MY money. I'll take my chances keeping it and spending it rather than the govt. deciding for me. If my dollar doesn't have any purchasing power, if the govt takes it from me, that same dollar has no purchasing power either. What's your point?
Posted by: Dave on October 9, 2008 02:21 PMUh sorry dude, Bush and the Congress just spent it. The good news is they get a good interest rate on it. The bad news is that China and the Saudis are holding the note. The main question is how and when you or your children will pay for it... (current taxes? future taxes? inflation & devalued currency? national default?)
Posted by: EJ on October 14, 2008 02:47 PMUh sorry dude, Bush and the Congress just spent it. The good news is they get a good interest rate on it. The bad news is that China and the Saudis are holding the note. The main question is how and when you or your children will pay for it... (current taxes? future taxes? inflation & devalued currency? national default?)
Posted by: EJ on October 14, 2008 02:47 PM