When the first bailout bill was proposed, Congresswoman Diane E. Watson was in the minority of both California and fellow Democratic who cast opposing votes. Watson, who largely represents Central Los Angeles, issued a press release saying she was “not convinced that this unprecedented plan is credible, accountable, nor will it work in its current form.”
On October 3rd, when the House was presented with an amended version of the act, she voted yes, stating:
I cannot in good conscience stand by and watch the credit markets contract further. Rather than let the State of California fall to its knees and potentially collapse through inaction, I chose today to vote for legislation, although imperfect, that can potentially restore faith in the markets.
Besides approving of a House vote to extend unemployment benefits, Watson gives no other specifics for what changed her mind, failing even to mention that some “pork” she’d been championing for four years had been tacked on.
The summary from Common Sense:
Sec 502. Provisions related to film and television productions
In an effort to keep film and television productions in the U.S, they would be eligible for a tax incentive program. Under this program, the cost of production of qualifying films would be permitted to be immediately expensed — that is, fully deducted from income for tax purposes — in the year the expenditures occur. This provision also makes permanent other favorable tax treatments for production. Historically Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) has been a supporter (dating from its creation in the 2004 corporate tax bill). The cost is estimated at $478 million over 10 years.
Which isn’t to say this is bad pork.
Watson is up for re-election in November… her challenger, Republican David Crowley, a 50 year old college student, doesn’t appear to be a threat.