So I was talking with an esteemed linguistics scholar at Berkeley (I’ll leave that up to your imagination as to who it is) the other day about Tauscher. I mentioned the couple of interviews with the media and some of the basis for a primary challenge. I discussed all the areas that really angered us. You know, the “left cliff”,the“kabuki dance”,and my personal worst Tauscherism ever…THE BANKRUPTCY BILL. But we talked about what Tauscher was really doing, and after a little while a few words kept coming up
Tauscher fails to protect Americans from Corporations. Or, put another way, Tauscher protects Corporations OVER Americans. She doesn’t fight for the people, rather she fights for DC’s lobbyists. And don’t take this as some left-wing screed against all business, or all trade or whatever nonsense. I’m most certainly not against all business. After all, I like my tech toys, how do I get those without business…or without trade? No, this is about fair, reasoned trade, not just jumping at every possible deal to allow American companies to exploit foreign labor pools. I was quoted, well actually paraphrased, in the CoCo Times saying that I believed in ideology over viability. I assure you this is not what was said, but another part of the remark was accurate: Once voters hear Tauscher’s record, they won’t like it or her, he said.
Yup, I said that. It’s true too. She has a record that sets her up perfectly for a challenge, not from the left per-se, but from populism. She is actively supporting corporations over people. A populist primary challenge would hammer her on the fact that she hasn’t stood up against corporatism like her neighbors in CA-11 and CA-07 have. That’s really what’s underlying everything with her: she’s anti-populist. She is of the money,or as David Sirota put it, she is a “leader of the Money party”:
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA): Tauscher has been one of the most aggressive spokespeople for the Money Party, using her position to undercut major Democratic efforts to address core economic issues from a middle-class perspective. As an example, it was Tauscher who ran to newspapers desperately trying to let K Street know that she would be working to undermine Democrats’ efforts to reform our trade policy. More recently, she told the New York Times that Democrats would be engaging in a“kabuki dance” with their own base voters – implying that there would be moves for show, but that pay-to-play business as usual in Washington will continue in the new Congress.
In other words, she fights in favor of the moneyed interests over the interests of the people. Let’s move over the flip…
Let’s start with the bankruptcy bill, and then we’ll get into more stuff later. I’m going to bust out the famous New Democrats’ Letter regarding the bankruptcy bill, and this is all over the place, and most assuredly this won’t be the last time you see it grace these (virtual) pages. (ViaAtrios):
MEMORANDUM
To: NDC Members
From: Reps. Ellen Tauscher, Ron Kind, Artur Davis and Adam Smith
Re: NDC Key Vote Alert!
Date: April 13, 2005
Tomorrow, the House will consider S. 256, The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act. We write to let you know that final passage of the Bill will be a key vote for the NDC and to encourage you to support this common-sense, bipartisan legislation.
Encourages Personal Responsibility
This bill reflects the New Democrat principle of greater personal responsibility by ensuring that those who have the ability to pay off some of their debt do so, and reaffirming that bankruptcy should be a last resort instead of a first option. Requiring people to file under Chapter 7, rather than Chapter 13, and set up a payment plan to repay some or all of their debt is reasonable and fair.
Protects People Living Below Median Income
Only those living above the median income and who have ability to pay debt will be required to do so. Conversely, millionaires who use bankruptcy as a method of financial planning will no longer be allowed to buy extravagantly and subsequently have all debt written off.
Helps Consumers and Small Businesses
Bankruptcy costs are passed on to other consumers, and the average family pays hundreds of dollars a year in higher prices. Small businesses that might otherwise not be paid for their goods or services will have a better chance of gaining compensation as a result of this bill.
Ensures Help for Most Needy
S. 256 includes protections ensuring alimony and child support payments are made. We believe single parents and dependent children need our help far more than millionaires who benefit from current bankruptcy laws. All consideration will be given to factors including job security, medical bills, and other circumstances.
History:
New Democrats have long fought for common sense changes to our bankruptcy laws. Bankruptcy reform legislation has passed the House of Representatives numerous times. In the 108th Congress, it passed 315 to 113 with 90 Democrats voting for it and 70 percent of NDC members supporting it. Earlier this year, S. 256 passed the Senate with a vote of 74 to 25. It is past time that Congress pass sensible bankruptcy reform.
S. 256, The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act
YES on Final Passage
I think the years since enactment have proven what a disaster the bankruptcy bill really is. It’s really one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written. Is it bipartisan? Sure? The credit card companies paid congress members of both parties to sign onto the legislation that THEY wrote. This legislation wasn’t Republican or Democratic, nope this was Banky Goodness the whole way. And as for getting help for the most needy? Then why no exceptions for National Guardsmen, medical catastrophes, or for natural disasters? Sensible bankruptcy reform? Hardly.
No, this was Ellen Tauscher and the NDC selling out to the corporate elite. She needs to account for these votes and prove that she deserves re-election.
