Tarryl’s Stib op-ed in this morning’s edition is a perfect example of a politician who hopes that the people will read the headline, then skip the substance behind the issue. The subject of Tarryl’s op-ed is H.R. 4173, which I’ve nicknamed as the “Too Big To Fail Bill.” Here’s Tarryl’s opening shot at Michele:

It should be common sense. The financial crisis we’re in is in large part due to years of letting Wall Street, including banks and credit card companies, run wild with little government oversight. Taking steps to bring them back under control shouldn’t be all that controversial.

Somehow, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann missed that memo (”Giving more power where power is not due,” Dec. 11). Last week she voted against much-needed financial regulatory reform, saying no to a bill that represents the chance for a historic shift in the way our financial institutions do business.

Apparently, Tarryl didn’t see Rep. Brad Sherman’s quote. Here’s what Rep. Sherman said:

The bill establishes a permanent bailout authority or, as Rep. Brad Sherman (DCA) described it, “TARP on steroids.”

Did Tarryl want Michele to vote for a bill that included a provision that gives the Treasury Secretary permanent authority to write bailout checks without seeking congressional approval? That’s what H.R. 4173 provides for. There isn’t a thinking person around that’d want that much authority invested in the executive branch.

Here’s Tarryl’s next misguided criticism:

The regulatory reform that Bachmann characterizes as a Wall Street giveaway was relentlessly attacked by Wall Street itself, which spent millions in advertising and millions more on lobbyists to try to beat it, weaken it and fill it with loopholes. That Bachmann joined Wall Street in that attack probably tells you all you need to know about who she’s representing in this fight.

Tarryl is digging herself a hole on this one. The reality is that Michele voted against the bill to preserve a time-tested principle known as checks and balances. Giving a cabinet secretary the ability to write bailout checks without congressional approval is downright irresponsible.

QUESTION: Does Tarryl really want to argue for voting against preserving checks and balances? That’s what she’s doing thus far in criticizing Michele for not voting for this bill.

Here’s an outright fabrication:

It puts an end to bailouts by making sure that taxpayers aren’t on the hook for Wall Street’s risky decisions.

It does nothing of the sort. Rep. Brad Sherman says it does the exact opposite. FYI: Rep. Sherman is one of the most liberal representatives in the House of Representatives. In fact, Michele voted against TARP last fall. Now Tarryl’s arguing that Michele wants TARP to burden taxpayers? Tarryl may lack alot of things but she’s got world class chutzpah.

Michele Bachmann talks a good populist game about changing from the old ways of doing business. We should all agree that it’s time to put an end to Wall Street’s shenanigans. But given a choice between representing her financial supporters or the people of the Sixth Congressional District, she voted to let Wall Street keep doing business in its old, bad ways.

Again, Tarryl, Michele voted against Wall Street. If H.R. 4173 is signed into law, Wall Street will be able to lobby the Treasury Secretary for a bailout if they engage in risky behavior. Since alot of the recent Treasury Secretaries are former employees of Goldman Sachs, how difficult would it be for them accomplish that? I’m betting it wouldn’t be difficult at all.

That may not surprise you when you look at the more than $100,000 that Bachmann took from banks, credit card companies and similar financial interests. Most special interests fund their friends, not their enemies.

Tarryl, does that mean you’ll return the campaign contributions from special interest groups like SEIU, AFSCME, IBEW, the painters union, and the United Steel Workers Union? Those organizations’ PACs have contributed $25,000 to Tarryl thus far. Their contributions wouldn’t have anything to do with them wanting to buy your vote on EFCA, would it?

Tarryl, you know about EFCA, right? That’s the legislation that Sen. George McGovern said would eliminate the right of people to cast a secret ballot for organizing or rejecting unions:

As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I’ve participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn’t always win, but I always respected the process.

Voting is an immense privilege.

That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.

The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as “card-check.” There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.

Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.

Tarryl, it seems to me that you’re not representing Main Street. You wanted Michele to vote for a bill that would’ve given the Treasury Secretary the authority to write out bailout checks to his Wall Street cronies. In addition to that, you’ve been bought and paid for by the unions that want you to cast the vote that eliminates secret ballots during union organizing campaigns.

How is that looking out for Main Street?

Tarryl spent the entire op-ed whining about Michele not representing Main Street. I’d love hearing Tarryl explain how raising taxes on small businesses is representing Main Street. I’d love hearing Tarryl explain how spending the entire surplus in 2007, including the one-time money, while the economy was slowing down was representing Main Street.

The simple truth is that Tarryl’s never met a tax increase she wouldn’t vote for. The truth is that Tarryl is as reliable a vote for the liberal special interest groups as there is in St. Paul. Imagine what she’d do in the lobbyist capitol of the world.

Now THAT’S a frightening thought.

Technorati: Strib, Op-ed, Tarryl Clark, Wall Street, Bailouts, Checks And Balances, Unions, United Steel Workers, SEIU, AFSCME, IBEW, Special Interests, Tax Increases, EFCA, DFL, Election 2010