Bipartisan Group of Senators Say They Reached Agreement on Infrastructure PlanFive Democrats and five Republicans announced a plan that would be fully paid for, though they did not offer details. Many lawmakers remained skeptical that it would be approved. …
… Ever since Reagan Republicans have been committed to the view that government is always the problem, never the solution — and, of course, that taxes must always be cut, never increased. They’re not going to make an exception for infrastructure. Indeed, the very fact that infrastructure spending would be popular counts against it; they fear that it might help legitimize a broader role for government in general.Finally, the modern Republican Party seems deeply allergic to any kind of public program that doesn’t give profit-making private players a big role, even if it’s hard to see what purpose those private players serve. For example, unlike the rest of Medicare, drug coverage, introduced under George W. Bush, can be accessed only through private insurance companies.When Trump’s advisers unveiled their infrastructure “plan” (it was little more than a vague sketch), I immediately noticed that it carefully avoided suggesting that we might just, you know, build infrastructure the way Eisenhower did. Instead, it proposed a complex and surely unworkable system of tax credits to private investors who would, it was hoped, build the infrastructure we needed.If Trump’s people had ever gotten around to an infrastructure plan, it would probably have looked like the one investment program the administration did put into effect, the creation of “opportunity zones” that were supposed to help Americans living in low-income areas. What that program actually ended up doing was provide a bonanza to wealthy investors, who used the tax break to build things like luxury housing.Put it this way: The modern G.O.P. just won’t do public programs unless they offer vast opportunities for profiteering. …
Why Won’t Republicans Rebuild America? NYT – Paul Krugman – June 10
(Any ‘infrastructure spending plan’ – or as Joe Biden says – ‘Jobs Program’ is understood to be largely beneficial to the Dem base – and must be resisted to the bitter end by the GOP.)
“Five Democrats and five Republicans announced a plan that would be fully paid for, though they did not offer details. Many lawmakers remained skeptical that it would be approved.”
Sinema & Manchin are already in the infrastructure group, so instead of doubling the size, it might be more feasible to just add 5 more senators from the GOP.
NEW VOTING RIGHTS TWIST Interesting article in The Bulwark exposes the need to amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887, as part of the whole voting rights effort. This is the Act that calls for the January 6th meeting and the supposed perfunctory Congressional approval which precipitated the insurrection.
Link: https://thebulwark.com/dont-cry-for-h-r-1/ The Act is a literal joke and a nightmare of legal mumbo-jumbo which is discussed in this article. It is in serious need of amendments and clarifications. Frankly I had just assumed that this was addressed in HR1/S1. It is actually Democratic malpractice that amendments to this Act were not included.
So now I would suggest the following steps to passing voting rights legislation.
1. Strip down S1 and focus on just making it easy, convenient and fair for people to vote and to override Republican voter suppression efforts. Get rid of the other stuff for now which needs further discussion and consideration.
2. Amend the Lewis bill to apply preclearance to all states. Manchin & Murkowski have suggested this bipartisan amendment.
3. Amend & clarify the Electoral Count Act to exclude any Congressional override of certified state elections.
4. Combine 1,2, & 3 into one new Voting Rights bill.
5. Put the bill to a vote of the Senate.
6. If Republicans filibuster the bill which they undoubtedly will; carve out a “voting rights exception” to the filibuster.
7. Convince Manchin and other doubters there is no other way to save our democracy and free and fair elections. Pass the bill with 50 votes + VP.
Jp, Good ideas, but not worth the time it took to write them. 1. Manchin has been firm in saying that he will not go along with reducing the filibuster by carving out exceptions. In his time in the Senate there have been two such votes. He voted against both of them, one of them from his own party.2. The Lewis bill is DOA in the Supreme Court if it even happens. They will use the same “logic” to kill it as they did in killing the Voting Rights Act. 3, 4, 5 and 6 will not happen unless, by some miracle 7 happens.
EMichael, ¶Hope I didn’t waste my time. #7 above is possible. Actually, it has to be possible if we want to save the U.S. democracy. ¶Manchin and Murkowski also said in a letter to Congressional Members, “Protecting Americans’ access to democracy has not been a partisan issue for the past 56 years, and we must not allow it to become one now. . . Inaction is not an option. Congress must come together — just as we have done time and again — to reaffirm our longstanding bipartisan commitment to free, accessible, and secure elections for all… We can do this. We must do this.” ¶So with pressure from his friends, Manchin must resolve his self-inflicted conundrum; if Congress won’t come together, is inaction an option? ¶S.4263, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and proposed amendments, with 47 cosponsors, is designed to address the SCOTUS concerns (2013 Shelby County v Holder decision) of preclearance based on old data (i.e. decades-old misdeeds, rather than current discriminatory practices) and discrimination against certain states (i.e. unequal burdens on certain states) by requiring preclearance for all 50 states.
Murkowski. When you get to 9 other Reps I’ll get interested. And nowhere do I see a single Rep Senator or Sinema and Manchin stating they will vote to stop the filibuster on voting rights legislation. Your quote of their statement is pure rhetorical bs. The part about “Congress must come together — just as we have done time and again” is almost unbelievable. In what century do they think they are?
We’ve reached the point in Joe Biden’s presidency and the Democratic party’s ascension when reality sets in. The honeymoon is over. We’re living in a cramped studio apartment, not the suite overlooking the beach. The kids are screaming, the toilet needs plunging, and my paycheck is stretched thin. You’re not dropping those ten pounds and I’m never going to get around to writing a great American novel. This is the real world, baby, and not the MTV version. That’s OK. The question is, how do we deal with it?The honeymoon was Biden winning the presidency, Democrats winning both run-offs in Georgia, and living up to his promise not to be a mess like Trump, as he quickly steamrolled Republicans, passed a $1.9 trillion COVID relief package, and restored a sense of normalcy. Bada bing, bada boom. He was on a roll, raising the public’s expectations even higher as he spent his first 100 days talking about major legislative accomplishments and putting points on the board a la FDR and LBJ. This conceit was fed by the surprising Democratic victories in Georgia, confirmed by historians he met with, and premised on the always-flimsy hope that nuking the filibuster and exploiting reconciliation rules might allow him to pull off miracles.Now, reality is crashing down. Democrats are fighting with each other, including Jewish House Dems and Ilhan Omar (over her equating Israel and the U.S. with Hamas and the Taliban), as well as progressives who are angry at Sen. Joe Manchin (for refusing to nuke the filibuster). Democrats face a challenging mid-term environment next year, and between now and then, it’s not clear that they can even pass an infrastructure bill or criminal justice reform. Even if they do, it won’t be easy; it’s difficult to conceive of much more “landmark” legislation passing during Biden’s first term. Biden can certainly tryto woo Joe Manchin, or just keep pretending that everything is fine.Or—and here’s what I would recommend—he can flip the script. He can redefine success. He can be the hero of his own story. He can quit trying to be FDR or LBJ, and he can just be Joe Biden. He can reinvent himself and rewrite his own narrative. It could be as simple as that. He can stop pretending that having the tiebreak in a split Senate means he has a mandate for sweeping changes, and start acknowledging that he was elected to steady the ship—not rebuild it.The trend for modern presidents is to get one or two big things done. For Trump, it was the tax cuts and the Supreme Court Justices (luck being a big factor in the latter). For Obama, it was Obamacare (after which, he was mostly relegated to using “a pen and a phone”).Biden has already passed a huge COVID-relief bill, but arguably, the biggest problem confronting the nation is more of a spiritual or attitudinal problem: the sense that the center will not hold and that American democracy will spiral apart. The good news is that this is a problem Biden is well-equipped to tackle. When he phones a critic like Larry Summers, tells soldiers to be at easeas he speaks, or jokes about cicadas—he is restoring our hope and living up to the promise. Biden has already made great strides in restoring our global image. If he can do the same thing at home he will be, in my book, a successful president.In less than a week, Biden is slated to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This will be another test. When it comes to dealing with adversaries like Russia (and China), the ability to project a strong image and reassert American leadership is vital (and—last time I checked—no congressional approval is required). If he survives these tests he will be putting points on the scoreboard.Now, it is understandable that progressives want to pass progressive legislation, like the fatally flawed H.R. 1, and that they will be frustrated if and when Biden doesn’t deliver. But Biden shouldn’t allow their ambitions to cloud his thinking too much. As Tom Nichols recently observed on The Bulwark podcast, just as Republicans are deathly afraid of their base, Democrats are afraid of failing to deliver for theirs. They should get over this. In recent years, progressives have conveniently found a way to frame accomplishing their legislative goals as being necessary for the preservation of democracy.While it’s true that an impotent and anemic elite class invites radicalism, a successful presidency is not contingent on passing progressive legislation. What invites provocation is the perception of weakness and failure. And this can be the result of actual empirical evidence or merely the perception of unmet expectations. What I’m suggesting is that Biden now redefine success in a way that is not only more realistically achievable, but also more responsive to things that most Americans actually care about—things like restoring optimism, reviving the economy with an injection of $1.9 trillion, guarding against rising inflation and crime, and ensuring that—with the continued rollout of vaccines—COVID stays defeated.Of course, these things could slip away if Biden focuses too much on the elusive—too much on pleasing the progressive base and on trying to herd the cats in the Congress. He should clearly define the few important things he can accomplish legislatively, and not lose sight of the many things he can accomplish outside those bounds. In short, he should pivot. He should reinvent himself just like he did in 2008 (Obama’s loyal deputy) and 2020 (the elder statesman). He should keep the main things the main things. He should focus on accomplishing one or two really big, overarching goals. And then, he should declare victory.Biden Can be a Good President or Transform America, Not Both
… it is understandable that progressives want to pass progressive legislation, like the fatally flawed H.R. 1, and that they will be frustrated if and when Biden doesn’t deliver. But Biden shouldn’t allow their ambitions to cloud his thinking too much. As Tom Nichols recently observed on The Bulwark podcast, just as Republicans are deathly afraid of their base, Democrats are afraid of failing to deliver for theirs. They should get over this. In recent years, progressives have conveniently found a way to frame accomplishing their legislative goals as being necessary for the preservation of democracy.While it’s true that an impotent and anemic elite class invites radicalism, a successful presidency is not contingent on passing progressive legislation. What invites provocation is the perception of weakness and failure. And this can be the result of actual empirical evidence or merely the perception of unmet expectations. What I’m suggesting is that Biden now redefine success in a way that is not only more realistically achievable, but also more responsive to things that most Americans actually care about—things like restoring optimism, reviving the economy with an injection of $1.9 trillion, guarding against rising inflation and crime, and ensuring that—with the continued rollout of vaccines—COVID stays defeated.Of course, these things could slip away if Biden focuses too much on the elusive—too much on pleasing the progressive base and on trying to herd the cats in the Congress. He should clearly define the few important things he can accomplish legislatively, and not lose sight of the many things he can accomplish outside those bounds. In short, he should pivot. He should reinvent himself just like he did in 2008 (Obama’s loyal deputy) and 2020 (the elder statesman). He should keep the main things the main things. He should focus on accomplishing one or two really big, overarching goals. And then, he should declare victory.
Private Inequity: How a Powerful Industry Conquered the Tax System Private equity firms are almost never audited, despite tax-avoidance strategies that have prompted whistle-blowers to file claims alleging illegal tactics. The $4.5 trillion industry’s ability to vanquish the I.R.S. and Congress goes a long way toward explaining the deep inequities in the U.S. tax system.
… Private equity has conquered the American tax system.
The industry has perfected sleight-of-hand tax-avoidance strategies so aggressive that at least three private equity officials have alerted the Internal Revenue Service to potentially illegal tactics, according to people with direct knowledge of the claims and documents reviewed by The New York Times. The previously unreported whistle-blower claims involved tax dodges at dozens of private equity firms.But the I.R.S., its staff hollowed out after years of budget cuts, has thrown up its hands when it comes to policing the politically powerful industry.While intensive examinations of large multinational companies are common, the I.R.S. rarely conducts detailed audits of private equity firms, according to current and former agency officials.Such audits are “almost nonexistent,” said Michael Desmond, who stepped down this year as the I.R.S.’s chief counsel. The agency “just doesn’t have the resources and expertise.”One reason they rarely face audits is that private equity firms have deployed vast webs of partnerships to collect their profits. Partnerships do not owe income taxes. Instead, they pass those obligations on to their partners, who can number in the thousands at a large private equity firm. That makes the structures notoriously complicated for auditors to untangle. …
simply horrible in so many waysIt is worrisome. The US electorate is in three parts divided.Right-wingers, centrists, and progressives. That may be an (over) simplification, but it’s enough to make meaningful improvements very unlikely.
anyone else notice that new cases of Covid have been falling much faster than the US Covid death rate? i’ve been figuring it was just a matter of time that lower cases would lead to lower deaths, so i was surprised this week to find that US deaths attributed to Covid-19 this week (ending June 12) were down just 0.7% from the prior week…since new cases continue to fall (albeit slower), deaths as a percentage of new cases has been rising (ie, it was 2.81% for the week ending yesterday vs 1.34% for the last week of April).…i don’t know why and haven’t seen an explanation as to why that is so…
Ron (RC) Weakley (A.K.A., Darryl For A While At EV) says:
@Rjs, That question has come up at AB before. The entirely reasonable answer is that deaths lag new cases by a few weeks; i.e., this week’s deaths were new cases 3 to 6 weeks ago.
How funny would it be if the new bipartisan infrastructure bill gets filibustered?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/us/politics/infrastructure-biden-senate.html?smid=tw-share (Obviously, a better chance of passage if the ‘bi-partisan committee’ was doubled in size, with 10 Dem members & 10 GOP. That might assure a 60 vote majority in the Senate.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/opinion/why-wont-republicans-rebuild-america.html?smid=tw-share
(Any ‘infrastructure spending plan’ – or as Joe Biden says – ‘Jobs Program’ is understood to be largely beneficial to the Dem base – and must be resisted to the bitter end by the GOP.)
Price increases of 25-30% in Plane Tickets & Used Cars. Other items, not so much.
“Five Democrats and five Republicans announced a plan that would be fully paid for, though they did not offer details. Many lawmakers remained skeptical that it would be approved.”
Sinema & Manchin are already in the infrastructure group, so instead of doubling the size, it might be more feasible to just add 5 more senators from the GOP.
NEW VOTING RIGHTS TWIST Interesting article in The Bulwark exposes the need to amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887, as part of the whole voting rights effort. This is the Act that calls for the January 6th meeting and the supposed perfunctory Congressional approval which precipitated the insurrection.
Link: https://thebulwark.com/dont-cry-for-h-r-1/ The Act is a literal joke and a nightmare of legal mumbo-jumbo which is discussed in this article. It is in serious need of amendments and clarifications. Frankly I had just assumed that this was addressed in HR1/S1. It is actually Democratic malpractice that amendments to this Act were not included.
So now I would suggest the following steps to passing voting rights legislation.
1. Strip down S1 and focus on just making it easy, convenient and fair for people to vote and to override Republican voter suppression efforts. Get rid of the other stuff for now which needs further discussion and consideration.
2. Amend the Lewis bill to apply preclearance to all states. Manchin & Murkowski have suggested this bipartisan amendment.
3. Amend & clarify the Electoral Count Act to exclude any Congressional override of certified state elections.
4. Combine 1,2, & 3 into one new Voting Rights bill.
5. Put the bill to a vote of the Senate.
6. If Republicans filibuster the bill which they undoubtedly will; carve out a “voting rights exception” to the filibuster.
7. Convince Manchin and other doubters there is no other way to save our democracy and free and fair elections. Pass the bill with 50 votes + VP.
I had no problem with this! 🙂
(Sorry, NO PARAGRAPH BREAKS. Frustrating.)
JP
As of yesterday, I showed them it was not working for subscribers. They are working on it.
Jp, Good ideas, but not worth the time it took to write them. 1. Manchin has been firm in saying that he will not go along with reducing the filibuster by carving out exceptions. In his time in the Senate there have been two such votes. He voted against both of them, one of them from his own party.2. The Lewis bill is DOA in the Supreme Court if it even happens. They will use the same “logic” to kill it as they did in killing the Voting Rights Act. 3, 4, 5 and 6 will not happen unless, by some miracle 7 happens.
line 1 line 2 which result do we get on this thread?
EMichael, ¶Hope I didn’t waste my time. #7 above is possible. Actually, it has to be possible if we want to save the U.S. democracy. ¶Manchin and Murkowski also said in a letter to Congressional Members, “Protecting Americans’ access to democracy has not been a partisan issue for the past 56 years, and we must not allow it to become one now. . . Inaction is not an option. Congress must come together — just as we have done time and again — to reaffirm our longstanding bipartisan commitment to free, accessible, and secure elections for all… We can do this. We must do this.” ¶So with pressure from his friends, Manchin must resolve his self-inflicted conundrum; if Congress won’t come together, is inaction an option? ¶S.4263, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and proposed amendments, with 47 cosponsors, is designed to address the SCOTUS concerns (2013 Shelby County v Holder decision) of preclearance based on old data (i.e. decades-old misdeeds, rather than current discriminatory practices) and discrimination against certain states (i.e. unequal burdens on certain states) by requiring preclearance for all 50 states.
Still no paragraph breaks. Tried double returns, but still did not work. Inserted paragraph symbols.
When it is done, you will be the first to know . . .
Murkowski. When you get to 9 other Reps I’ll get interested. And nowhere do I see a single Rep Senator or Sinema and Manchin stating they will vote to stop the filibuster on voting rights legislation. Your quote of their statement is pure rhetorical bs. The part about “Congress must come together — just as we have done time and again” is almost unbelievable. In what century do they think they are?
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-good-president-transform-america-132046321.html
Fred, That article is simply horrible in so many ways. Not the least of which is “guarding against rising inflation.”
Private Inequity: How a Powerful Industry Conquered the Tax System
… Private equity has conquered the American tax system.
anyone else notice that new cases of Covid have been falling much faster than the US Covid death rate? i’ve been figuring it was just a matter of time that lower cases would lead to lower deaths, so i was surprised this week to find that US deaths attributed to Covid-19 this week (ending June 12) were down just 0.7% from the prior week…since new cases continue to fall (albeit slower), deaths as a percentage of new cases has been rising (ie, it was 2.81% for the week ending yesterday vs 1.34% for the last week of April).…i don’t know why and haven’t seen an explanation as to why that is so…
@Rjs, That question has come up at AB before. The entirely reasonable answer is that deaths lag new cases by a few weeks; i.e., this week’s deaths were new cases 3 to 6 weeks ago.
this thread had previous problems – line 0
line 1
line 2
line 3
no problem with newlines today
single spaced
double spaced
back to single
Thank you. I am assuming the single and dbl spacing is working properly now.
Yes?
Run,
Yes. I got what I expected.
Arne:
I am going to delete the comments in a bit. Let me see if we can allow some editing also. Maybe a time limit like NC has.
You are saying I could edit my own tiepose?
I don’t see an interface for that.