At a CNN town meeting tonight, President Biden confirmed some of the rumors about the BBB legislation:
- Paid family leave has been reduced from 12 weeks to 4 weeks.
- Medicare expansion (vision, hearing, dental) has been cut.
- Negotiation of drug prices has been cut.
- Free community college has been cut.
- Kyrsten Sinema does indeed refuse to raise taxes on corporations or wealthy Americans.
Still in the mix: Clean Energy, Obamacare subsidies, child tax credit, long-term care, and child care/universal pre-K.
Incorrect on Sinema. She won't raise taxes compared pre-Trump tax cuts excluding corporate taxes. But the Trump Tax cuts are toast in general.
It's 3.1 trillion. It will be passed by December
It certainly didn't sound that way from what Biden said. The only way it might be close to 3.1 trillion is if you include the amount from the Senate-passed infrastructure bill. And I think Biden wants everything passed sooner than December.
In general, you make a lot of claims that need some support from other sources, which you do not name. Some pertinent links would be helpful.
Everything here other than family leave sounds like it would be helpful to old folks in West Virginia and Arizona. Wonder if they know or care.
J.D. Vance's third cousins in the Hollar & the Oathkeepers Local 1488 of Mesa, AZ, just don't want to see any of that socialist largesse that is being expropriated from the business sector end up in the hands of Darquan Thompson-Barnes or Manuela Cecilia Tomas Salvador.
So, what Timothy Snyder calls "sadopopulism".
I’m pretty sure they know. I’m absolutely certain they don’t care.
Progressive groups need to start running ads in local communities making it clear that they need to vote in more Democrats next year if they specific proposals that would benefit those communities. For example in states with a large number of retirees emphasize that Republicans refused to expand Medicare benefits and lower prescription drug costs by allowing the government to negotiate prices the way insurance companies do. If their representatives opposed those benefits then make that fact clear.
+1
I agree with you on this but it also creates a sort of cognitive dissonance in which it’s acknowledged that some Democrats (including, evidently, the filibuster and the senate’s courtly traditions) than they are to the party’s substantive agenda. It seems to discourage identifying as a strong Democrat (something that I think is very important). I still think the way forward for 2022 and 2024 begins with private ultimatums to Manchin and Sinema.
We really need editing. Or, at least I need editing.
No need for cognitive dissonance. The message should be, “ Give us 60 votes and the Republicans can’t block all these good things we want to do for you and your children and grandchildren!” Might as well be aspirational.
Except that the Republicans aren’t the ones blocking all that good stuff. The Democrats are in control of the presidency and the Congress. They have consistently promised all kinds of good things and consistently failed to deliver.
In 2018 they ran on accountability. Still never got Trump’s tax returns. Still crucial evidence of Trump’s misconduct and criminality dribbling out now instead of during impeachment hearings when it might have mattered.
To borrow from Napoleon Bonaparte, if you say you’re going to gets Trump’s tax returns, get his tax returns. That’s what matters, not the reasons why you cannot deliver on your promises.
Another point that seems relevant is that even 60 votes doesn't do the Democrats any good and, in fact, doesn't change the present situation in which these two assholes are basically able to dictate the Democratic Party's agenda and drive Biden's presidency into a ditch. If you need all 60 Democrats to pass filibuster-proof legislation that means you still need both Manchin and Sinema.
Either the Democrats get rid of the filibuster and the senate's absurd but courtly traditions or the standoff will continue until the they lose the Congress in 2022, the presidency in 2024, and become permanently irrelevant to our politics. That's a choice for the Democrats to make but it's also a choice for the voters, too.
One of the worst problems democrats in particular face is a press corp that has largely gotten lazy in it's attempts at truth telling.
Progressive Dems are a small portion of the democratic party. Yes, polling shows that progressive policies are popular with DEMs, but where? It's certainly not nation wide. Then you have the problem of identity. When polled, people like progressive policy but when asked if they consider themselves conservative moderate or progressive Dems most folks say moderate Dems. There is some level of hesitancy to identify as progressive within the democrat supporters
On the republican side the conservative republican USED to be called the Tea Party but that has morphed into Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. These groups are PROUD to be called that.
So why do we let the press off the hook for the labeling? Why don't they report how many people would be affected by legislation?
When we say that this or that particular bill polls well, I have to ask - with who? The DEMs in the cities? Or those few in the rural areas.? We have been hoodwinked by the press into thinking the progressives represent the majority of the DEM party. They do not. We also believe the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Tea Party represent the majority of the republican party, Thats wrong too IMHO.
Why are the minorities in the news given such glorification? Not racial minorities. Think on this a minute
Ronald Reagan believed in welfare queens and wanted us to believe they were the Majority of welfare recipients yet, data tells us this is wrong.
Food stamps recipients buying "lobster" so all of them do
One guy votes in the wrong district so its fraud and its widespread
WE have gone so far overboard with our "pigeon holing", "stereotyping" group think type reporting that we have lost track of the fact that the majority of Americans are decent, caring human beings capable of large amounts of empathy. But the press paints us as something different. We are too quick to lump large quantities of people into groups that we either LOVE, or HATE.
We are being dumbed down, and we don't even realize it yet
Sorry, dude, but your "opinion" doesn't sound very "humble". Just drop the pretense of the "H".
I am not a dude, just an old man
If there is 60% support for progressive policy why are there not 60% progressive dems in the house and senate?
Because of gerrymandering in the House and equal representation by state in the Senate. Progressives pretty much all live in like maybe 10 states and the other 40 go out of their way to ensure that progressives in those states are packed into as few house districts as possible.
I'm beginning to wish that we didn't hold primaries, since that is when the fanatic ideologues have an advantage. It is as also where primaries can be influenced by the opposition party, where crossover voting is allowed.
Eliminating primaries would save money for local & state governments & possibly make for a less excruciatingly long election "season."
It might not eliminate the most objectionable stuff & may never happen - but I would welcome that one change.
If there were 60% support for progressive Dems in every state and district the House and Senate would be 100% progressive. Of course the actual representation is more complex and progressive areas are not equally represented.
"(60% in population) implies (60% in Congress)" is a fallacy. You don't even need to bring gerrymandering into it.
If policy A is really supremely important and wanted by 60 percent of the population in every district, it will be supported by 100% of members, not 60%. In reality, though, support for some particular policy won't be uniformly distributed, and there's no simple formula to get from a policy's overall popular support level to the fraction of districts will have majority support for it.
Surprised negotiation of drug prices has been cut. Doesn't cost anything, which the other cut items do.
Costs profits to the manufacturers. And big pharma bought themselves a DINO senator from Arizona to defend those profits.
No surprise there - not since Big Pharma Mama from Arizona has been filling her coffers from the industry & isn't one bit ashamed of her resulting opposition to anything that they want.
About 15 years ago I asked a republican why they were opposed to a market mechanism. The ONLY response was "The government should not negotiate drug prices!"
That's it. We went around for 45 minutes.
Medicare Advantage is the prize here.
If you're a senator who gets donations from Big Pharma it would cost *you* plenty.
If I have read the news correctly, the final part of the strategy is to give Sinema a take it or leave it deal: just ignore her red lines and dare her to vote no. I THINK this leaves Sinema with some complicated options (note she is only 45 years old):
- If she votes yes on the 'deal' polling, and left leaning activists, indicate a tough road ahead if she wants to run for re-election.
- If she votes yes on the 'deal' her broader political stance may preclude her from working at traditional Democratic leaning thinktanks (Brookings etc).
- If she votes yes on the 'deal' her career as a lobbyist is unclear: would she be respected enough by sitting Democrats to gain meeting and influence? That seems unlikely to me....
- If she votes yes on the 'deal' could she become a University Professor? Yes, that seems possible but, so many University's have a strong left lean, but not certain.
- If she votes no on the 'deal' then I THINK she could work at some moderate libertarian, center right think tanks: they would welcome a 'free thinking' Democrat.
My point, the strategy of giving Sinema a take it or leave it deal is possibly more dangerous to the Democrats than it might appear
This article is a different take on my broader point: steam rolling Sinema (and Manchin) may not yield the desired outcome.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/10/19/message-to-progressives-dragging-manchin-and-sinema-isnt-working/
This is very similar to what Kevin argued the other day. But it proceeds from the premise that the party isn’t willing to ostracize Manchin and Sinema (and they are confidently obstructing the party’s agenda because they know it too). I agree that if the party maintains its current posture it’s a standoff that progressives can’t win.
But my argument is for changing that dynamic. If they can only win, naturally Manchin and Sinema will stay the course. What might sway them is understanding that there will be consequences that a seriously angry and vengeful president and congressional leadership can impose.
Mitch Guthman - you raise an interesting point but I wonder on the details.
- On Sinema, who will likely not run for re-election and holds no seniority, what exactly could Biden do?
- On Manchin, how hard do you push before he becomes an Independent? From there, how real is the risk that he joins the GOP gang of fools?
If Sinema doesn't run for reelection it's hard to see what she's going to do with her life after the Senate. She's not popular or interesting as an individual; all of her value to anyone is wrapped up on her being a renegade Democrat when can derail Biden's agenda because of the filibuster; if she neither a Democrat nor in the Senate, Sinema is basically a nobody.
I think Sinema will run for reelection using the strategy I've detailed here previously (essentially, Democratic establishment wrangles enough support to get her through the primary and the Republican establishment wrangles enough GOP support to combine with reluctant Democrats to get her over the finish line in the general election. But to do that, she can't afford to be ostracized, so I believe that she will fold under pressure.
Manchin is probably much easier. He gets from between $500K to $1 million annually from being a coal Barron. And there's no war on coal precisely because the Democrats need his vote; purely through executive action, the EPA could easily take away most or all of that money and Schumer can take away the spot on the energy committee which is the source of most of Manchin's non-filibuster power and wealth.
They've both got lots of points of vulnerability if Biden and the party leadership are willing to hurt them. We've tried flattery and it's gotten us nowhere. Time to try something else.
As that great American philosopher Al Capone once observed, you can get more done with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.
Interesting insights and thank you for sharing. Clearly I don't know the future. Here is my guess:
Sinema will not run for re-election. She is too young, and not wealthy enough, to be done. She will angle for a libertarian like this https://www.niskanencenter.org/ or a similar university (think George Mason U). IF I am correct, than unfortunately her tactics of obstruction make perfect sense.
Manchin - will run for re-election. Perhaps the EPA could 'close down coal,' I am unclear if that would be wise. First, swing state Pennsylvania is a coal state. Second, drastic EPA regulation would allow the GOP to claim every energy cost increase as a direct result of Biden...that is politically dangerous.
Then again, what do I know!
Sinema is nothing if she's not in the Senate. She's not a particularly interesting or well connected person. I doubt if the rich people and lobbyists will give her even a crust of bread once she's a nobody. And even a libertarian or conservative think tank will give her a lower income than she's making as a senator.
As for Manchin, life is risk. Pennsylvania gets very little economic benefit from coal and if we don't get Manchin's attention and bring him to heel pretty quickly we're going to lose Pennsylvania and pretty much every place else anyway.
As for the risk of GOP attacks, they're going to say whatever they want even if Biden continues to prop-up coal so, that being the case, why worry?
Mitch, your strategy is a seriously flawed and dangerous one. With 50 Senate votes, anything would be better than nothing. And your proposed strategy greatly risks getting nothing.
Without knowing what Sinema (in particular) wants, how can you know if the consequences you envision would have any force at all? They might just make her mad and even more intransigent. I think they already have. There are psychological factors (egotism) at play as well as political ones.
As Biden said yesterday, in a 50-50 Senate, every Senator is effectively President of the US. The only strategy that makes sense, substantively and politically, is to determine what they want as much as is possible. Biden has met with Sinema, so he presumably has done this. Then, shape the legislation in that direction as much as possible. Even with that done, there may still be some unavoidable doubt whether Sinema single-handedly might block the effort. That lower level of risk must be taken.
You and Kevin seem to be making the assumption that Manchin and Sinema basically have a set of parameters for a deal and the holdup is unrealistic liberals making unreasonable demands. So far, however, there’s no deal and no real understanding of what either of those two assholes want except more time to prance and preen themselves. Biden and the party’s leadership keeps agreeing with themselves to ask for less but there’s still no deal and no indication that’s there anything on the table to which liberals could say “yes” and walk away with something.
Second, the Democrats are nominally in control of the presidency and the Congress. It’s up to them to deliver. And it seems to me that if all that they deliver is the highway bill and a couple of other things (but not the really popular ones) then there’s really very little point in being a Democrat.
The problem with “anything is better than nothing” is that it’s a very poor, extremely unappealing political platform. It’s extremely likely that the only real achievement of the Democratic Party in this Congress will be the preservation of the filibuster and the courtly traditions of the Senate. If that’s what ends up happening, the Democrats are going to be crushed in 2022 and in 2024 and will probably be out of power pretty much forever.
It seems to me that if the Democrats want to avoid utter destruction in the next two elections they really need to change their thinking about both the filibuster and voting rights.
Paragraph1: I didn't say that liberal demands were unreasonable. Just that they are unacceptable to some key Senators. (All Senators are key)
P2,3: By way of contrast with Republicans, those two bills would be quite a lot. They would be effective points for middle of the road Americans (most Americans) especially swing voters.
P4: If Democrats want to avoid utter destruction, they can't come up empty on this legislation. I agree with you that they also have to change the filibuster and approve voting rights.
1. You have a point. I think my comment was responding more to Kevin's post than to you. But the problem remains that there simply is no deal on the table. The Democrats keep whittling away at the BBB bill but apparently without much input from the assholes. So Kevin's very much wrong to say that the problem is that the liberals are unwilling to compromise.
2. I'm not sure that another 60 years of just staving off the Republicans (as they move from being conservative to authoritarianism and making Trump dictator life) is going to be enough for most voters and certainly not for liberals. If what turns out to be the Biden presidency is an annual highway bill, more military spending, and a few more table scraps for social spending, I think maybe we need to look elsewhere for a better political party in the future.
3. Yes, on this we are in complete agreement. But I would again stress that if the Democratic Party cannot advance any progressive goals (social safety net, childcare, education, environment, climate) I think maybe the thing to do would be to just burn the party down to the ground and start over,
She may have a part-time university gig now, but I doubt that she wants a relatively low-paying professor's position in the future. And her unpredictable behavior & general flamboyance might not be appreciated in many university settings.
I work at a university. Unpredictability and general flamboyance are actually quite appreciated in most university settings. Former U.S. Senators with a PhD are a rare enough breed that I don't think she'd have much trouble getting a gig in a permanent public policy academic position.
Still in the mix: Clean Energy, Obamacare subsidies, child tax credit...
Not gonna lie: those were my top three. So, good?
Yes, good. If Ossof had not won in Georgia, any one of them would be pipe drems.
So it's nothingburger.
Yes, but with these, insist on ponderous rules so they are hard to implement...
The only thing Biden campaigned on was free community college. His concession(and a dicey unpopular program it is as the Warrenistas found out). The corporate tax rate will be 25/15. Senema will be whistling along the way.
Sanders really wants 5/7 of the initiatives.