RSS
Home
Reichert & Burner Debate
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
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.
Originally posted at Sound Politics.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
