Ocasio-Cortez goes on tear defending role in Amazon’s New York exit

It used to be that Congress-critters assumed that their primary job was taking care of their constituents. "Taking care" of them meant improving the financial climate of their districts. And if an old-time New York-style Congress-critter had the chance to facilitate a deal like convincing Amazon to set up shop in Long Island City, you can bet your bookbag he or she'd have done cartwheels down the biggest sidewalk in Queens if it'd have helped. He certainly wouldn't have done anything to queer the deal. True, he'd have hoped a little of the grease would have dripped onto his own hands too, but hey, that's just doing business in the Empire State. But he'd have been making his constituents very happy, providing jobs, increasing tax revenues, and increasing his chances for re-election.

All of which seems to escape new media darling Crazy-Eyes Ocasio-Cortez. She's still convinced she did something laudable, despite everyone advising her to the contrary.

And wow, is she thin-skinned!

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vigorously defended her role in sinking Amazon’s move to New York City on Tuesday in the face of bipartisan criticism, claiming the deal would have been "one of the biggest giveaways in state history” and would have priced people out of the local community.

"Frankly, the knee-jerk reaction assuming that I ‘don’t understand’ how tax giveaways to corps work is disappointing,” she tweeted. "No, it’s not possible that I could come to a different conclusion. The debate *must* be over my intelligence & understanding, instead of the merits of the deal.”

The freshman Democratic New York congresswoman has faced days of criticism from normally friendly media voices and fellow Democrats over her role in Amazon's decision to pull back from building a $2.5 billion campus in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens.

Amazon had cited the opposition of "a number of state and local politicians” in its decision to abandon the plans. Ocasio-Cortez and others at the local level had pointed to incentives such as a $2.5 billion in tax breaks as a reason for their opposition.

"If we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that money, if we wanted to,” Ocasio-Cortez said last week.

No, Sweetie, it doesn't work like that, and lots of people are telling you why. There is no $3 billion there. It would have eventually been there if Amazon had come in. It's not there now and it won't be. What economics school did you go to, again?

I'm starting a completely unfounded rumor that she didn't read the textbook because it was "Economics for Dummies" and she was insulted by the title.

Read the whole thing, please, folks. It's here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-tear-role-amazon-deal