From Stark
U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, has offered an explanation for his votes on tax, war and stimulus measures that got him identified by the Washington Post as one of just nine House members who voted for deficit-expanding legislation in all three categories. We had a blog post on this matter Tuesday, June 15.
In an email, Larsen spokeswoman Emily Halnon said the Post’s characterization of Larsen’s votes is a bit simplistic. While Larsen did vote for the Bush tax cuts in 2001, he voted against extending those cuts. Halnon also says Larsen is part of a bipartisan effort to move the federal government to sustainable spending levels. Here is the full text of her email:
“While Rick did vote for the 2001 tax cuts, he has voted against extending the Bush tax cuts several times since. He firmly believes that Congress needs to end tax cuts for the top two percent of income-earners to help to tackle our debt and deficit crisis.
“A majority of economists agree that the Recovery Act saved our economy from catastrophe and helped to reduce unemployment across the country. A majority of tea partiers don’t. Rick is committed to implementing a forward thinking plan that protects our economic progress and helps bolster private sector job growth while working to shrink the deficit and control the debt.
“Rick knows you cannot have credibility on reducing the deficit and controlling the debt unless the economy is growing and has consistently pushed that it is urgent for Congress must take a balanced approach to balancing the budget, shrinking the deficit and controlling the debt. No ideology is going to fix this problem.
“This year Rick has voted with Republicans and Democrats to cut nearly $50 billion from the President’s 2011 budget and will be part of the solution to develop a balanced approach to cuts and revenue to move the long term budget to sustainability, the standard that people expect.
“He also believes that all new federal spending or tax cuts need to have a source of funding identified to pay for them. He backs a three-year spending freeze on all general non-defense spending in the budget, supports repealing $6 billion in ethanol subsidies and believes Congress needs to restore fiscal responsibility and accountability to the defense procurement process.”
A majority of economists DO NOT agree that the Recovery Act saved our economy from catastrophe and helped reduce unemployment across the country. Unemployment is higher than in January 2009, long term unemployment is at it’s highest level ever.
Since Rick voted for the Recovery act, 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs and more than a few in his district are also unemployed, maybe Rick should find another drum to beat!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Let’s not forget, however, that some 7 million lost their jobs under Bush before the Act.
Are you saying that if the Recovery Act had not been passed, more Americans would have jobs? Isn’t that a bit like saying, “After the fire fighters turned their hoses on the fire, half the house burned down. They should have stayed away…?”
Are we STILL blaming Bush for everything that ails this country?
When will Barack Hussein Obama and his minions begin to accept any responsibility?
(Sound of crickets chirping…..)
I guess that spending freeze would include the Patty Murray’s bill, S. 942.
A spending freeze is not going to do ANYTHING. It would only freeze the spending at unsustainable levels. I don’t know if Rep. Larsen thinks we are all too stupid to know this, or just doesn’t care.
john, you are obviously twisting the words of the poster to fit your scenario. The Recovery act didn’t create any jobs because it didn’t expand the economy. In other words, the stimulus money didn’t stimulate, it detracted. In your analogy, the fire fighters didn’t pour water on the fire, they poured fuel.
The stimulus bill was more of a money laundering scheme than an economic stimulus, siphoning money to Democrat party supporters, who in turn donate more money to the Democrat party.
What was the Recovery Act suppose to do, keep unemployment under 8%, it hasn’t but instead what has happen, unemployment has gone up, so the recovery act was a failure.
So much so that even the O made a joke recently about Shovel ready jobs and that there really won’t any, why is that, well how much of the recovery act went towards infrastructure any way, about 5%, so what did the recovery act accomplish, were did the money go, what direction: bigger and better government at the expense of private industry.
The recovery act went the wrong direction, the private sector is the answer for more jobs, jobs that will support the public sector.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
“…the private sector now must drive growth rather than the government, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
If only they would do what they say!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
The GOP did everything they could to derail and deflate the stimulus, and now they blame Obama because it was ineffective.
Gawd, AFY, please don’t quote Geithner as an authority. Yeah, the private sector will drive growth … in China! Spare us all the Demo and Republicrap. In the end, the stimulus was so compromised, and shot full of tax breaks, about all it did was keep the wolf away from the average American’s door for a few months and get the next asset bubble going.
Now the same idiots are going to tell us that austerity will lead to prosperity and contraction is expansion. There is no longer a simple US economy. Capital roams the world looking for the greatest return (ie exploitation of labor).
Maybe when the elections are over, there can be an honest discussion of economic, fiscal, and monetary policies. In the meantime it’s pretty much self-serving bs.