News
Patty Murray Campaign Says She's Been Consistent on Emergency Unemployment Assistance
Reporting on the unemployment insurance brawl yesterday (the Democrats want to authorize $33 billion in emergency spending to extend the insurance while Republicans say no because there's no money), I called both the Democrats and the Republicans hypocrites.
I called the Republicans hypocrites for saying they were against deficit spending even though today's $2 trillion deficit happened on their watch (Republicans signed off on massive unfunded tax cuts for the rich). And I called the Democrats hypocrites for violating their 2010 pledge to play by their own "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO) rules, which require new budget line items to include cuts to pay for them.
US Sen. Patty Murray's campaign spokeswoman Julie Edwards called today to say the Democrats weren't hypocrites. She explained that "emergency" appropriations (like getting money to the long term unemployed during recessions) have never fallen under PAYGO guidelines, pointing out that both Republican and Democratic Congresses have extended unemployment insurance during economic downturns without meeting PAYGO standards. "There's no change in position on this," Edwards said.
I did not get a similar protest call from the Rossi camp this morning although I had to do some follow-up reporting on something they said.
During my initial reporting on this story, I pointed out that the GOP (and Rossi) were in favor of unfunded emergency spending—$37.1 billion—on the troops in Afghanistan right now.
Rossi's spokeswoman Jennifer Morris told me the reason the Republicans were okay with the emergency funds for the troops was because the Democrats hadn't passed a budget. The $37 billion was a necessary work around to get money to the troops right away, she said.
It was a pretty good zinger. No budget?!? (Morris even laughed as she pointed it out.)
But here's why I didn't include that point in my original story: While the Democrats haven't passed a 2011 budget, they have passed the 2010 budget. The emergency troop money is an add-on to the 2010 budget. (Also, if the missing budget was a reason to pass emergency money for the troops, why not for unemployment insurance? But again, Morris' zinger was a red herring anyway—the Democrats had, in fact, passed the relevant budget.)
As I was getting ready to publish last week's story, I contacted Morris to tell her that my reporting had diminished her zinger, and I asked her if she wanted to comment.
She did not.
I called the Republicans hypocrites for saying they were against deficit spending even though today's $2 trillion deficit happened on their watch (Republicans signed off on massive unfunded tax cuts for the rich). And I called the Democrats hypocrites for violating their 2010 pledge to play by their own "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO) rules, which require new budget line items to include cuts to pay for them.
US Sen. Patty Murray's campaign spokeswoman Julie Edwards called today to say the Democrats weren't hypocrites. She explained that "emergency" appropriations (like getting money to the long term unemployed during recessions) have never fallen under PAYGO guidelines, pointing out that both Republican and Democratic Congresses have extended unemployment insurance during economic downturns without meeting PAYGO standards. "There's no change in position on this," Edwards said.
I did not get a similar protest call from the Rossi camp this morning although I had to do some follow-up reporting on something they said.
During my initial reporting on this story, I pointed out that the GOP (and Rossi) were in favor of unfunded emergency spending—$37.1 billion—on the troops in Afghanistan right now.
Rossi's spokeswoman Jennifer Morris told me the reason the Republicans were okay with the emergency funds for the troops was because the Democrats hadn't passed a budget. The $37 billion was a necessary work around to get money to the troops right away, she said.
It was a pretty good zinger. No budget?!? (Morris even laughed as she pointed it out.)
But here's why I didn't include that point in my original story: While the Democrats haven't passed a 2011 budget, they have passed the 2010 budget. The emergency troop money is an add-on to the 2010 budget. (Also, if the missing budget was a reason to pass emergency money for the troops, why not for unemployment insurance? But again, Morris' zinger was a red herring anyway—the Democrats had, in fact, passed the relevant budget.)
As I was getting ready to publish last week's story, I contacted Morris to tell her that my reporting had diminished her zinger, and I asked her if she wanted to comment.
She did not.
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
