Friday Talking Points -- Hurry Up And Wait

[ChrisWeigant]

Reconciliation is a truly warm and forgiving word. It means coming back together after a period of being apart or at odds. Couples reconcile after time spent apart (for whatever reason). Friends achieve reconciliation by burying hatchets and shrugging off long-carried grudges. It means coming back together, no matter what the circumstances.

The fact that it means something more technical in the parliamentarian terminology of the U.S. Senate is mere coincidence. A budget reconciliation bill is one that amends the original budget for that year with new realities. The two bills are reconciled to each other, merged into becoming the actual budget for that year.

But if the current budget reconciliation bill under negotiation is ever written and passed into law, it will come about because of the reconciliation of two factions of the Democratic Party with each other. The first faction consists of Senators Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and a very small handful of House Democrats. They are often misleadingly called "centrists" or (even worse) "moderates," but they are in fact corporatists, plain and simple. They used to be called a few other misleading labels back in the Clinton era (as we discussed earlier this week, and as Paul Krugman also later pointed out), but at heart they are just pro-big-business -- especially big business that they personally profit from (either directly or indirectly in the form of mountains of campaign cash). The second faction in the Democratic Party is, essentially, the entire rest of the party. This consists of all the progressives and moderates and centrists (the real ones, not the bought-and-paid-for corporate shills). Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer are all in this group, as are Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The second group consists of 95-plus percent of the party. This is not an equal reconciliation; it will be the reconciliation of a tiny handful of corporatists with all the other Democrats. But, due to the almost-non-existent majority in the Senate, this reconciliation must happen if Joe Biden is going to get anything at all done as president.

Which leaves us where we've been all week: waiting for something to happen -- perpetually checking our watches during a performance of Waiting For Godot, wondering when the whole thing is going to be over. Political journalists have been essentially writing the same story all week: "Negotiations Continue, No Breakthrough Yet."

One thing has changed, however. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blew through the self-imposed deadline (twice!) that her own corporatists had forced her into agreeing to a month ago. This is good news, because this deadline was always artificial to begin with. Now we are back to where we all were before the House corporatists took this hostage -- on two tracks to (hopefully) ultimate success for both bills which comprise the lion's share of President Joe Biden's economic agenda.

There are two bills, with acronyms that admittedly not everyone uses. The first is the bipartisan infrastructure bill which already passed the Senate and has been awaiting action in the House ever since. This is known (by some) as the "Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework," or "BIF." At first this worked, but is now somewhat of a misnomer (it's no longer just a framework, it is an actual fleshed-out bill). The second part, which has yet to pass either house in any form, is the budget reconciliation bill whose original price tag was going to average $350 billion a year over ten years. This is becoming known by Biden's preferred term: "Build Back Better," or just "B.B.B."

The BIF is a done deal. The House cannot change a word of it, or else it would have to survive another Senate vote. It is also a done deal in the sense that once the B.B.B. has passed the Senate, every House Democrat (and possibly even dozens of House Republicans) will then vote for the BIF and put it on President Biden's desk for his signature. The progressive faction in the Democratic Party was never actually opposed to anything contained within it; their only complaint was that it was far too small (less than $600 billion, when Biden had asked for closer to $2 trillion). This complaint is the heart of the standoff, in fact, because when the BIF was being put together, progressives were told that all the things that the BIF left out would be included in the B.B.B. Which is precisely what they are now demanding -- that that promise be kept.

The biggest two sticking points for the B.B.B. are named Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (Note: we refuse to use either portmanteau mashup of their two names, but we have to admit we do like "Sinemin" better...). It's tough to say which one is going to be the bigger hurdle in the end. Manchin has drawn a line in the sand at $1.5 trillion, which is less than half of the $3.5 trillion Biden wants. But he has also expressed willingness to raise many of the taxes Democrats are proposing to raise (in Manchin's memo to Schumer, he agreed to: a corporate tax rate of 25 percent -- a number he announced months ago, in fact; a new corporate domestic minimum tax at 15 percent; revoking the Trump tax cut to the earners in the highest bracket, moving it back up to 39.6 percent; and a raise in the capital gains tax rate to 28 percent). Manchin did also state that: "Any revenue exceeding $1.5 [trillion] shall be used for deficit reduction," but that's likely to be a nonstarter with all the other Democrats (who would much prefer to use all the money raised for the new programs in the bill). But at least Manchin finally is making his "asks" known. These should all really be seen as his opening bid, and not the final compromise he's going to have to eventually agree to (if the B.B.B. bill has any chance of passage).

Sinema, on the other hand, is almost impossible to read. She insists on "not negotiating in the press," which to her means "refusing to seriously answer any question from any reporter, period." So nobody has any clue what Sinema really wants out of the negotiations. Which, obviously, is frustrating. The only hint as to Sinema's "asks" is another nonstarter: no tax hikes on either corporations or high-income earners, period. Since those are the cornerstones of how the B.B.B. will raise enough money to be revenue-neutral (and not add anything to the deficit or national debt), Democrats are not going to give in to this demand. If they did, either there wouldn't be a bill at all, or much of it would be deficit spending. Sinema also seems to be opposed to saving hundreds of billions of dollars by allowing the federal government to negotiate the price of prescription drugs (but more on that later in the talking points).

Here's a succinct rundown of where we are all at right now (from one of the flood of process stories from the past week):

By refusing to help pass the infrastructure bill, progressives helped secure more space for negotiations on the reconciliation framework. The reconciliation bill is the Biden and Democratic Party agenda: It's made up of all the climate provisions, economic infrastructure and tax reforms designed to secure our decarbonized future and rebalance our political economy after decades of upward skew.

The centrists are the ones who oppose passing this agenda. For that framework, Manchin seems to be insisting on a top line of $1.5 trillion -- less than half the $3.5 trillion target Biden wants -- as well as making its welfare benefits less universal via means testing and its climate change provisions more friendly to fossil fuel interests. And it's still unclear what Sinema wants.

Progressives have been pointing out that Joe Manchin, a few days before President Biden was sworn into office, said the following in response to a local journalist's question: "The most important thing? Do infrastructure. Spend $2, $3, $4 trillion over a 10-year period on infrastructure. A lot of people have lost their jobs and those jobs aren't coming back. They need a place to work." The BIF and the B.B.B. together would equal about $4 trillion -- but now Manchin is against what he was calling for back then.

Manchin has turned a deaf ear to all of the progressive complaints. He released a statement midweek that called the $3.5 trillion amount "fiscal insanity," even though he himself had called for precisely that amount back in January. And when asked directly about liberal complaints, he had this to say: "I've never been a liberal in any way, shape or form. I don't fault any of them who believe that they're much more progressive and much more liberal. God bless 'em.... For them to get theirs -- elect more liberals."

Sinema, meanwhile, seems to be in a contest with Ted Cruz for the "Most Hated Senator" prize. In the middle of the week, here's what she was doing, just to rub everyone's face in how bought-and-sold she truly is:

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., is scheduled to hold a fundraiser with business lobbying groups that [are] eager to defeat President Joe Biden's $3.5 trillion spending bill, according to a leaked invitation published by The New York Times.

Sinema, a corporate-friendly first-termer who has rejected the bill's price tag and reportedly opposes drug pricing reform and tax increases on the wealthy and corporations that would help pay for the Biden package, will meet with business groups that have criticized the proposed tax increases. In an invitation emblazoned with Sinema's campaign logo, the groups invited members to an "undisclosed location" for 45 minutes on Tuesday to write checks between $1,000 and $5,800 to Sinema's campaign.

This has led to patience among other congressional Democrats growing very thin. Here is Representative Katie Porter, from an MSNBC interview this week:

"I was elected to create a strong and stable and globally competitive economy," Porter continued, adding that if Sinema and Manchin "really believe" the infrastructure bill alone will accomplish this, "they owe it to the American people to say that."

Stressing that it's impossible to negotiate until centrists say what they want, Porter added:

"I was not elected to read the mind of Kyrsten Sinema. Thank goodness, because I have no idea what she's thinking."

That last barb got a bit of buzz. But it's more important that Porter brought this debate back to what it's really all about: people.

The reconciliation bill is the heart of the Biden and Democratic Party agenda. It would invest in our people in all kinds of ways, providing social and economic infrastructure -- child care, health care, education, paid leave -- that would help and empower millions struggling to reach or remain in the middle class. As Jonathan Cohn puts it, all this would "alter everyday life in the same way that the core pieces of the New Deal and Great Society did."

. . .

But ultimately, all of this remains as vague as it is distressing. And Sinema, if anything, has been even vaguer.

At the end of the day, what's at issue is whether Democrats will rise to all of these monumental challenges. So Porter is right: If Sinema and Manchin truly believe the infrastructure bill alone -- or that bill paired with a reconciliation bill that's been effectively gutted -- is enough to meet those challenges, then they should damn well tell their voters and the American people that they think this.

And then they should feel compelled to justify it.

So far, they have avoided having to do this. And while the negotiations continue, it's doubtful that they will ever come out and try to justify their positions. But they really do owe it to their constituents (and the rest of us) to make their case.

One positive thing in all this horse-trading is that President Biden is getting much more involved in the process. He even paid a visit to the Capitol today, to encourage progress. But what he isn't really doing is leaning on either faction, or (as Ronald Reagan used to say) "taking them out to the woodshed" for some attitude adjustment. Biden has a different style, and a whole lot of patience. And Biden is specifically not leaning on the progressives, because his goals and theirs align almost perfectly. Why should he lean on them when they are doing exactly what he wants?

Of course the media was much more interested in two other political stories this week, because they both came with built-in media catnip. They had drama! And brinksmanship! And conflict! Impending disaster! Saved at the last minute!

In the end, however, the federal government did not shut down as a continuing resolution to keep funding everything was passed in the final hours of the last day of September. The debt ceiling will likely also be a mere footnote when all the dust settles, but the media at least knows how to cover these stories (since they have happened so frequently over the past few decades). We personally can say we didn't ever get distracted by this sideshow, since the main event has always been the BIF and the B.B.B. bills.

Two other amusing footnotes and then we can move on to this week's awards: Matthew Dowd has announced that he is running for lieutenant governor in Texas... as a Democrat. He's always been pretty moderate for a Republican, but it still was rather jarring to read.

And finally, one for the "GOP Idiots" file (which is bulging at the seams). Lauren Boebert proved once again what a mental midget she truly is this week, by announcing she was introducing some articles to the House. She put out a media-friendly image with her announcement. The only problem was, it read (you just cannot make stuff like this up, folks): "IMEACH BIDEN." Um... "imeach"? Sure, Lauren... you go right ahead and imeach him to your heart's content, OK?





We have two Honorable Mention awards to hand out before we get to the big one. First, a collective award to all the progressives who held firm and did exactly what they promised they would all along: refuse to vote for the BIF before the B.B.B. had passed the Senate. Led by Representative Pramila Jayapal, they held together and resisted the pressure brought to bear against them.

Senator Dianne Feinstein actually did something we heartily approve of (a rare event, as regular readers will know), but we're going to cover it in the talking points segment, so we'll just move along for now.

We have three winners of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award this week, who all told their own heart-wrenching tales in public, for a very good reason:

Three members of Congress on Thursday shared their personal and, at times, painful stories of abortion, in an emotional hearing that came amid an intensifying battle over a Texas law that is the most restrictive in the nation.

Two of the lawmakers said they were teenagers when they decided to terminate their pregnancies. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) described her decision in the mid-1960s to have a "back-alley abortion" in Mexico at age 16, describing herself as "one of the lucky ones" because many other women and girls at the time died of unsafe abortions.

Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) said she decided to have an abortion after she was raped at age 17 by a man she met on a church trip. Bush said that while the staff at the abortion clinic treated the White girls with respect, they spoke "like trash" to her and another young Black girl.

"To all the Black women and girls who have had abortions and will have abortions, we have nothing to be ashamed of," Bush said. "We live in a society that has failed to legislate love and justice for us. So we deserve better. We demand better. We are worthy of better. That's why I'm here to tell my story."

And Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said she decided to have an abortion knowing that she could not go through another high-risk pregnancy after having her first child, who weighed less than two pounds at birth.

Also speaking at Thursday's hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform on abortion rights was longtime feminist activist Gloria Steinem. She spoke about her own abortion and warned that if other states follow Texas's lead, "we will be very close to turning back the clock to the days of the 1950s, when one in three women had an illegal and a dangerous abortion."

Abortion-rights supporters fear the greatest threat to Roe v. Wade since the 1973 decision guaranteeing a woman's right to an abortion, as the conservative Supreme Court is poised to decide on some of the most restrictive laws in the nation. The court begins its new term Monday.

In other words, a very appropriate time to tell such stories. But it must take just a near-unimaginable amount of courage to do so, especially knowing that your words are being broadcast nationwide as you speak them.

So for their bravery and for their commitment to women's healthcare for all, we have to hand them each a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate Representative Cori Bush on her House contact page, Representative Pramila Jayapal on her House contact page, and Representative Barbara Lee on her House contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]





Sigh. Here we go again.

In fact, we don't even feel the need to reiterate. So, short and sweet: Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are once again the winners of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. The reason? "See above."

[Contact Senator Joe Manchin on his Senate contact page, and Senator Kyrsten Sinema on her Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]




Volume 636 (10/1/21)

Another mixed bag this week. And yet again, we've included a somewhat-longer-than-a-talking-point excerpt from an article, because what it has to say is so important. So without further ado, let's get to this week's talking points.



GOP setting the country on fire

This is an extended excerpt from an excellent article in the Washington Post written by Paul Waldman. It lays out the case against the Republican death-cult-of-personality better than anything we've read in a while. This stuff needs to be said, folks. Because we have truly entered uncharted waters (emphasis in original).

Senate Republicans just filibustered a bill to keep the government running and suspend the debt ceiling so the United States does not default on its obligations. Judging them by their actions, there's every reason to believe they'd be perfectly happy to allow either or both outcomes, plunging the country into crisis and potential economic catastrophe.

Their entire party seems determined to make sure that a pandemic that has killed nearly 700,000 Americans will go on as long as possible.

In the states and the courts, they've set the stage to overturn Roe v. Wade, a spectacularly unpopular outcome that will snatch reproductive rights from tens of millions of American women. They've embraced lunatic conspiracy theories and are determined to overturn any election result that doesn't go their way.

And in their immensely influential media outfits, naked white supremacism is now nightly fare.

In 2017, it was a scandal when then-President Donald Trump said there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville rally where neo-Nazis chanted "You will not replace us!" But in 2021, "Great Replacement" theory -- which posits a conspiracy to replace White people with dark-skinned immigrants -- has become standard conservative rhetoric.

Let there be no misunderstanding: The Great Replacement is an idea created by white supremacists and promoted for years by white supremacists. Today you can hear it invoked on Fox News.

Eastman memo? What Eastman memo?

Astoundingly, broadcast television news media is so jaded and numb to anything to do with Donald Trump that this story disappeared entirely even though it was proof of an attempt at stealing the presidential election for Trump -- not through a mob of insurrectionists, mind you, but through nakedly political maneuvers. Thankfully, it didn't take place as outlined, but the fact that it existed should shock every American loyal to the Constitution. That is, if they ever hear about it.

"There was a bombshell revelation from a recent book on the final days of the Trump administration, that one of his legal advisors -- John Eastman -- wrote up a memo outlining 'how to run a coup in six easy steps.' It was a detailed plan for how Vice President Mike Pence was supposed to subvert the Constitution and install Donald Trump by hook or by crook. This outline, if it had become reality, would have been the most naked power grab in all of American history. So you'd think television news would have covered it extensively. You'd be wrong about that. According to a media-watchdog study, there was precisely zero mention of the memo on the three major broadcast networks, either on their evening news program or their 'news-lite' morning news shows. Zero! Not one mention of a complex plot to steal a presidential election! Only one of the Sunday political long-form talk shows even bothered to mention it (NBC's Meet The Press, to their credit). Have we really become this numb and jaded to a sitting president actively plotting a coup? Is that really how far the news media has fallen? That's almost as shocking as the memo itself."



Corporate Democrats attempting to kill the number one idea people want

This was interesting, and needs to be pointed out.

"A handful of Democrats in both the House and the Senate who have been bought by big Pharma money have been stridently working to kill off the idea of bringing the cost of prescription drugs down the way every other civilized country on Earth does it -- by using the purchasing power of the federal government to set acceptable prices for prescription drugs. A recent poll asked respondents about 20 of the Democrats' new policy ideas contained within the two bills they are trying to pass. You know what scored number one out of all of these ideas? 'Have the federal government directly negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to lower the prices of prescription drugs for seniors on Medicare.' Healthcare issues swept the top four issues, as a matter of fact. The next three were: increase spending to prepare for future epidemics and pandemics; increase spending on long-term healthcare for seniors, and expand home healthcare services; and add dental, vision, and hearing benefits to Medicare. Those were the top four out of 20 choices. And yet there are a tiny fraction of Democrats in Congress who are deaf to the calls from their own constituents to lower prescription drug prices and who are working very hard to make sure that this -- the most popular item on the list -- doesn't make it into the final bill. We need to increase the pressure on these drug company shills to do the right thing even if it does mean all that lovely campaign cash dries up. Because the people have spoken, quite clearly."



Mandates work!

This is another one where the media's actions are just bizarre and confusing for most.

"Vaccine mandates work. They have worked great in the past, they are beginning to work just as designed for the COVID pandemic, and they will work in the future when all schoolchildren will be required to be vaccinated against COVID the same way they are now required to be vaccinated against mumps and the measles. The media has for some reason been fixated on the tiny proportion of workers who have been fired -- at places like hospitals, no less! -- for refusing to get vaccinated. But well over 95 percent of workers have complied -- thousands of them at the last minute, due to the mandate. The predicted staffing crisis at hospitals just did not materialize. A few hundred people got fired, while tens of thousands did not -- because they got vaccinated. This is precisely the way it is supposed to work, and I for one look forward to more and more businesses mandating vaccines and more and more public gatherings doing the same. I am beyond caring about the sensibilities of those whose refusal to get their shots is impacting everyone's ability to get back to normal. You know what I say? Let's beat COVID once and for all! And vaccine mandates are a big part of making that happen."



Vax or test to fly

As previously mentioned, Senator Dianne Feinstein is actually doing something good.

"Dianne Feinstein has introduced a bill that every Democrat should immediately get behind. She has introduced a bill that would require proof of vaccination, proof of a recent negative COVID-19 test, or proof of recovery from COVID-19 for every person getting on a commercial airplane. As she points out, this really needs to be instituted before the holiday travel season is upon us. This doesn't even go as far as some would like, with the testing and recovery loopholes, but it sure would be a big step in the right direction. I don't know about you, but I want to feel safe on an airplane again. Before Thanksgiving rolls around, too."



Owning the libs from the graveyard

The data have been crunched. The proof is undeniable.

"There is one real indication of how hard COVID is hitting any one particular area in this country: did they vote for Donald Trump or did they vote for Joe Biden? This divide transcends and dwarfs all other demographic divides on the pandemic, in fact. Want some facts and figures? Here you go: since the beginning of July, the bluest counties (from how they voted in the 2020 election) have a rate of 9 COVID deaths per 100,000 people. The reddest counties have a per-capita death rate of 47 deaths -- more than five times higher. You can measure the same divide by looking at urban (Democratic) versus rural (Republican) populations as well. Since the start of the pandemic, 1 in 434 rural Americans died from COVID. Urban areas are doing much better, at only 1 death in 513 people. In mid-September, urban areas had a seven-day average death rate of 0.41 people per 100,000 residents. In rural areas, that rate was 0.85 -- more than twice as high. The head of the National Rural Health Association was blunt about what is happening out in the hinterlands: 'There is a national disconnect between perception and reality when it comes to COVID in rural America. We've turned many rural communities into kill boxes. And there's no movement towards addressing what we're seeing in many of these communities, either among the public or among governing officials.' That's because, to them, the whole thing is political, not a medical emergency. So I guess more and more rural Republicans will get to 'own the libs'... from the graveyard."



Corey gets cancelled

Too, too appropriate.

"It seems that high-ranking Trump confidante Corey Lewandowski became Corey Stewed-and-tipsy at a recent fundraiser. After consuming copious amounts of alcohol, he allegedly sexually assaulted the woman he was seated next to. She fled from his grabby hands, only to have Lewandowski hunt her down later in another room. In a statement the woman accused the top Trump toady of assault: 'He repeatedly touched me inappropriately, said vile and disgusting things to me, stalked me, and made me feel violated and fearful.' In other words, all things Donald Trump himself has been accused of doing by multiple women. A further statement from her lawyer gave details: Lewandowski, repeatedly using expletives, 'remarked on the size of his genitalia, described his sexual performance and showed [her] his hotel room key.' Now that the story is out, Republicans who had been using Lewandowski as a campaign consultant have dropped him like a hot potato. Funny thing, though, absolutely none of the people who have kicked Corey to the curb have uttered a peep about Trump doing the same thing over and over again. I guess consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, or something. It also makes me wonder -- where are all the Republican voices bemoaning the cancelling of Corey Lewandowski?"




Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

[flying rabbit]

1. K&R. nt