As Bernie said the American people want it, the Dems want it and the President wants it. How these 2 morons can hold these bills hostage is beyond me - except what is the hidden payoff for them?
You're right. It should be called "the military." The word "defense" makes it seem like these gargantuan sums are necessary -- which, of course, they're not.
Interestingly, in today's Times there is an article how the US is so out of step with many European nations on child care.
What I don't understand is, why the Democrats are not explaining the individual parts of the Reconciliation better??? Sorry, they must accept the majority of the blame here!
Explain the financial gains of having child care.
For instance, if a single mom, or a two parent household for that matter, no longer have to pay over $1,000 for child care, they can then go out and get a job. Explain the math in simple terms. If someone is earning $15. per hour working 40 hours a week, the pay is: 15x40=$600.
Its not worth it for them to work just to pay for child care.
Democrats in Washington tend to talk "policy" and think the public understands how they'll benefit from it. Republicans talk "message," using fear and resentment. We've seen which strategy is the more powerful.
I said to Joseph Crowley years ago, the Democratic party has no one delivering a "message", similar to the Republican's message machine. One thing you can give Republicans credit for, they "stay on message". The Democrats don't do that.
I'm sorry but Pelosi and Schumer aren't enough. We need the Democrats to create a "sound bite" for the week on the point they want to get across and all of them repeating it every chance they get.
Idk, it seems more like this: The Republicans have no moral base or integrity. They stick with conserving money for the rich that's it. And, that's why they're solid. Like a bulldozer going over everything in its path.
You bring up a valid point. When my children were very young, half may pay would go to taxes. I could barely afford food and rent. And, it was getting worse and worse for people like me who couldn't afford the best care. Often wondering what was happening while kids were in care. I wanted very much to stay home out of love and concern. My provider made 5 times over what I brought home. Everything was so organized for the love of money. You couldn't get a neigh to do it like in the old days, when you would them a few dollars and make a meal or two for them out of appreciation and being neighborly. Everything is oriented in money these days. Off the subject, but even human life... for example abortion. If you one should struggle to make ends meet, boom abortion. Does anyone feel how cringeworthy and vile that is? To take human life as less important than money? Somewhere something is seriously wrong, but that what happens when one intellectualizes and brings money into everything. Hey, hello! Human life is more important than money. We lost the valuation of human rights and human beings. Not swaying abortion either way here, just why doesn't the baby have any human rights? That brings an important point here: Money matters above all to most people and that's why it's such an issue in politics. Rather then value each person and give sway to "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, no longer applies. And, that is the most basic problem of it all. Manchin and Sinema prove it. Johnny stole the handle and the train keeps running, but it's going to crash.
Absolutely spot on. Mainstream media seems too eager to highlight or even invent controversy because that’s what sells. It’s a rare thing (except in opinion pieces) to see a fair and proper analysis of the subject matter. Objective journalism, especially at the once gold standard NYT the last few years, seems to be MIA.
Reporting the news has become an entertainment industry. People won't watch news unless it "entertains" them like a soap opera, keeping them coming back for next piece of juicy "information".
The NYT has been pretty weak as far as I can tell for many decades. The simple mechanics of copy editing have deteriorated remarkably in the last decade or two. The political slant has been disconnected from actual reality for a L-O-N-G time (more apparent, perhaps, to those of us whose acquaintance with the paper goes back to the 60's).
I was just a kid in the 60s, and though I grew up in NY, I really didn't read the NYT very much, if at all, especially with parents who were far right even back then. As an adult, I've seen a very vigorous decline in the Trump era. Again, it's all about selling papers, even harder in today's world. At the end of the day, it's profits over facts or journalistic responsibility to the truth.
Absolutely right on! I've been especially critical of calling Manchin & Sinema "moderates" - sorry, they're very olde school Dems. who reap big $$$ from corporate donors. That's why I'll never donate to the Dems. only individual candidates, true progressives.
I just don’t understand how people with that much power would not take the opportunity to do a LOT of really good stuff, in exchange for money? Don’t they have more than enough? I’d feel guilty, especially knowing the data they know about everyday Americans and the environment. When I hear Manchin talk, he really seems to care at least about poor people…most people I know would be way more conscientious. Or he believes he’s right! I don’t understand Sinema at all.
Many share you opinion. But it is an *axiom* of market capitalism that there is never enough. They call it "non-satiation of preferences" -- it applies not only to money. It's even more true of the appetite for power. If you've never been in a position of exercising power over people's lives, it may be hard to appreciate just how intoxicating power can be. Always done with a pure heart and good intentions, naturally. ;-)
I'm hoping "Chompsky" was an intentional typo ;-) Combine Chomsky's analysis with Upton Sinclair's observation and you pretty much have it: "t is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
The establishment is the establishment is the establishment... This is a very important point that you have stressed out, M. Reich. No established form of political power wants to see things going a way it cannot grasp or control. It will then justify the status quo to the point of absurdity. This is probably why someone said that we need a revolution at every generation. But wait. This would be Democracy. Can we afford that?
We don't need a revolution in every generation but we do need a recommitment in each generation to the ideals of democracy, equal political rights, and a broad sharing of prosperity.
I think you are correct. And let me add: the mainstream media loves to single out Senator Sanders as the top kook among the progressives, when all he's done for his entire adult life is fight to make our society better for working people...
Absolutely right. Bernie's courageous 2016 primary campaign encouraged a new generation of young progressives to become activist and made it possible for the Democratic Party to adopt a slew of progressive ideas.
Thank you, Robert, especially for pointing out the Orwellian use of language (calling Manchin and Sinema "moderates" instead of using the descriptive phrase "corporate-beholden>"
Agree 100%. Add PBS NewsHour and NBC Nightly News, which persistently refer to the legislation as a "spending bill," implying that the only intent of the legislation is to spend taxpayer money. That plays right in to the Republicans' rhetoric of "Democrats' reckless tax and spend agenda." It sometimes seems the mainstream news media are merely parroting Republican talking points. I attribute this to laziness on the part of the news media, a failure to come up with adjectives that more accurately describe the intent of the legislation.
Rachel Maddow interviewed Sen. Bernie Sanders last night about the legislation. Although he didn't use the specific wording, he basically characterized Manchin and Sinema as stubborn obstructionists, who seemingly don't stand for anything. They just say no, and don't explain what they want, or what they would eliminate to lower the price tag.
They are indeed stubborn obstructionists. But as I've said elsewhere on these pages, I think Sinema is motivated by all the attention she's getting, while Manchin has financial stakes in keeping things as they are. Both are reaping huge amounts of campaign cash from big corporations and their lobbying groups.
Agree with that. To play armchair psychologist (I am not in any way a mental health professional), it seems that Sinema fancies herself a righteous rebel, the little guy fighting courageously against the powerful establishment. I think the wealthy and powerful people who hold fundraisers for her enhance this self-image by flattering her, affirming that she is courageously fighting for the people, even as they deviously persuade her that their self-serving policy demands (nix raising the minimum wage, oppose Medicare negotiating prescription drug prices, etc.) will accomplish that end, and that she should stand strong and unyielding.
Maybe other Democrats, in their meetings, could casually ask Sinema about how her fundraisers went, along with some comments along the lines of, "I'm sure the hosts support allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices to lower their cost for your constituents, and also support a carbon tax on polluters to mitigate climate change." It might at least cause her to feel some discomfort, and think about what she is doing. One can hope.
For Manchin, I agree that money seems the most likely motivation for his unwillingness to be a team player.
This is it exactly. Robert knows this already. If you google who owns the media in America you will see it's 15 billionaires and their are 6 companies who own local news stations. All these news stations push conservative news points. Sinclair Broadcasting is second to Next Star. Both companies will continue to benefit from political ad spending growth offsetting slower broadcast ad growth. The 1990s saw a wave of consolidation in the local station marketplace that has continued to this day as the Federal Communications Commission has weakened its stance on media ownership concentration. Another boost to advertising revenue for local stations was the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down spending restrictions on political parties and campaigning. Most to point, is that Sinclair is still a big supporter of Trump and his GOP fans. This is a bigger problems than most people realize. The free press is not so free. Individuals can easily be replaced if they don't do what the upper ups want. So stop attacking Rachel Maddow and others like her. She is doing the best she can within the guidelines of MSNBC. All the local stations these days are blander than white bread and spiel the same things over and over again. Most pushing forth GOP propaganda.
Along with Covid-19 we seem to have another virus working it's way through America (and the rest of the world): atavism as the result of entrenched greed, tribal behavior, and a superstitious yearning for a past that never really existed. The Republican party seems to be thoroughly infected along with so-called "Democrats" Manchin and Sinema. Fortunately the majority of Americans according to the polls need and want progress not regress. The slogan from the 60's "Change it or lose it" seems particularly apropos now. And I completely agree with you about the mainstream media who should be reporting the truth. In my opinion and conviction THAT truth, in the words of Finley Peter Dunne, should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." An equitable distribution of wealth and benefits is long, long overdue!
How can you blame the media person by person, because it's not the individual so much as it is that most of the Media is owned by 15 billionaires who all support conservative views which are pushed by the Republican Party. Everything is skewed to their way of looking at things and support of their candidates? The news anchors are no longer allowed to give their own views. The messages which they give are prescripted in advance.
You make a good point about not blaming each newsperson! I was agreeing with professor Reich about the manipulation of the mainstream media for not reporting sufficient details about this very important legislation. For example he notes that the legislative package of 3.5 trillion is spread out over 10 years , making it 350 billion a year or about half of the defense budget. The point to emphasize here is that the USA can easily afford this and it will come back in the form of greater productivity, taxes, etc. I did a little research a while back on the net worth of the whole country and I came up with a figure of over 200 trillion dollars. (This is a rough estimate. I'm a former professor of English not Economics!) We need to invest in our people and our country. We desperately need to have national health care and, in my opinion, a universal basic income as well. The latter has been and is being tested in America and other places in the world and has produced very encouraging results. A happy and secure people are far more productive than those who are not. What I commented on above was meant to establish an overarching sense of morality as a necessary goal and the fact that the majority of people support this (80% of Joe Manchin's people in West Virginia want the Democratic legislation!) is gratifying and cause for optimism!
Thank you! We all try to lead by example. It's you, me, Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris--many other famous or not so famous people, and everyone who's reading this newsletter that are the people of the future! We will not allow ourselves to retreat into a past that, as I said above, never really existed. The good parts from days gone by are fine--the music, art, discoveries, and happy times we bring with us. We learned from the bad parts--the wars, slavery, various sorrows--those we leave behind. Why should we repeat them? Victor Hugo said "No force on earth can stop an idea whose time has come." We choose progress and move confidently into the future! And it will be as wonderful as we can make it!
The problem is not only print media. Turn on the radio to what used to be independent stations -now owned by a few huge companies of most commercial AM stations. The 2 minutes of news per hour all report the same democratic chaos. Never details.
The nightly news on TV is all the same. Repubs all together on every issue the dems disorganized and unable to deliver a message the citizens of the country can understand.
You brought up an excellent point I hadn't even thought of. We need to do something about the media? Protest it? Stop listening to it? Write letters in the billions objecting to their views and disinformation? What Robert, what is the answer?
Thank you for the clarity you have given me. I was getting increasingly upset by the size of the bill, thinking it would be more difficult to oppose it if the pieces were clear.
The issue, as you’ve made clear to me now, is the media characterization of the bill.
I’m angry at the NYT, always my go-to, along with NPR. You’ve reaffirmed what I was taught in polysci in 1967: it’s important to read critically and widely, and never depend on one source.
Thank you. I’ll be writing to editors this weekend to complain
Eileen, the NYT has always been my go-to as well (along with NPR), but ever since its coverage of the Iraqi War (you remember Susan Miller), I've had to draw my information and analyses from several other sources in addition to the NYT. (I'd be interested to know where you get your news other than from the NYT.)
I recommend the BBC available online 24 hours. They have correspondents everywhere and seem to report impartially which would, in itself, constitute the truth. Extremely diverse and cosmopolitan with a bit of inimitable British humor thrown in! Of all the news sources they seem to have the spirit of what Thomas Paine said: "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethen, and to do good is my religion." Give it a go!
No one cares what I think, but me. I know it sounds crazy, but I used to comb Twitter in the wee early hours. In that I found, one or two tweets that were informational, new, and alarming. I'll give you an example: 6 months before we ever heard about Covid-19, a researcher and doctor from China put it out there that there was a new virus out there that was killing people quickly by scores. He said that the government was keeping it under wraps and that he was in trouble. Then, there was one more tweet a couple days later. Much, much later it was reported this researcher/doctor had died of the new virus. He didn't call it Covid at the time. Such bleeps are few and far between. I haven't seen any in awhile, but they do show up now and then. The problem it takes too much time to go through all of twitter everyday because much of it is crap. I tend to like Rachel Maddow, Vershi, Lawrence... I read the NYT, but am disappointed. I look for leaks. The angry staffer on twitter used to give a juicy tidbit of info now and then, but they've clammed up quite a bit since. I like Judy Woodard from PBS... I love Roberts insightful views... I know I wasn't asked, but I wanted to jump right in there nonetheless. lol
I am old enough to remember when news divisions of major networks were NOT profit centers, when maintaining a reputable, measured, and comprehensive newsroom was considered a public service as well as a source of pride. The Gingrich abomination that slimed into the FCC in the 1980s wrecked it all (that and Cronkite retiring), then the media world splintered, and now it's all about maintaining perpetual conflict (even if it has to be manufactured) to hold eyeballs and score ratings. That and, sadly, we have a new generation of reporters who don't write all that well, topped off with a 24/7 news cycle that demands knee-jerk responses and creates lots of phony drama. My solution has been to target a select group of information sources that have not lied to me in the past and who I trust to get the story straight (you are one, Dr. Reich), and dispense with the others.
My personal shorthand for the Republican take-over of government in the 1980s is to identify it with the poisonous Mr Gingrich, but you are correct, there were many to blame.
I am so happy you are calling the press out. Where is the unbiased treatment of important matters? If we as a country are going to get past Trumpism the press must do a better job. Here’s hoping their past high ideals will surface again..
As Bernie said the American people want it, the Dems want it and the President wants it. How these 2 morons can hold these bills hostage is beyond me - except what is the hidden payoff for them?
Manchin owns stock in a coal company, for one.
Even the word DEFENSE for that monster budget is wrong. It sounds as if we were being attacked. Who on earth is attacking us?
Marie-Theres
You're right. It should be called "the military." The word "defense" makes it seem like these gargantuan sums are necessary -- which, of course, they're not.
Controversy, dread & doom sell papers. When most people don't vote it's an uphill battle also to educate. Thanks Robert for your perserverence
Interestingly, in today's Times there is an article how the US is so out of step with many European nations on child care.
What I don't understand is, why the Democrats are not explaining the individual parts of the Reconciliation better??? Sorry, they must accept the majority of the blame here!
Explain the financial gains of having child care.
For instance, if a single mom, or a two parent household for that matter, no longer have to pay over $1,000 for child care, they can then go out and get a job. Explain the math in simple terms. If someone is earning $15. per hour working 40 hours a week, the pay is: 15x40=$600.
Its not worth it for them to work just to pay for child care.
Is that so hard???
Democrats in Washington tend to talk "policy" and think the public understands how they'll benefit from it. Republicans talk "message," using fear and resentment. We've seen which strategy is the more powerful.
I said to Joseph Crowley years ago, the Democratic party has no one delivering a "message", similar to the Republican's message machine. One thing you can give Republicans credit for, they "stay on message". The Democrats don't do that.
I'm sorry but Pelosi and Schumer aren't enough. We need the Democrats to create a "sound bite" for the week on the point they want to get across and all of them repeating it every chance they get.
Idk, it seems more like this: The Republicans have no moral base or integrity. They stick with conserving money for the rich that's it. And, that's why they're solid. Like a bulldozer going over everything in its path.
It's called Zero Incentive.
You bring up a valid point. When my children were very young, half may pay would go to taxes. I could barely afford food and rent. And, it was getting worse and worse for people like me who couldn't afford the best care. Often wondering what was happening while kids were in care. I wanted very much to stay home out of love and concern. My provider made 5 times over what I brought home. Everything was so organized for the love of money. You couldn't get a neigh to do it like in the old days, when you would them a few dollars and make a meal or two for them out of appreciation and being neighborly. Everything is oriented in money these days. Off the subject, but even human life... for example abortion. If you one should struggle to make ends meet, boom abortion. Does anyone feel how cringeworthy and vile that is? To take human life as less important than money? Somewhere something is seriously wrong, but that what happens when one intellectualizes and brings money into everything. Hey, hello! Human life is more important than money. We lost the valuation of human rights and human beings. Not swaying abortion either way here, just why doesn't the baby have any human rights? That brings an important point here: Money matters above all to most people and that's why it's such an issue in politics. Rather then value each person and give sway to "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, no longer applies. And, that is the most basic problem of it all. Manchin and Sinema prove it. Johnny stole the handle and the train keeps running, but it's going to crash.
This gets into what I've been saying, "They care about the unborn child, but once you have that baby, you're on your own!"
Absolutely spot on. Mainstream media seems too eager to highlight or even invent controversy because that’s what sells. It’s a rare thing (except in opinion pieces) to see a fair and proper analysis of the subject matter. Objective journalism, especially at the once gold standard NYT the last few years, seems to be MIA.
Reporting the news has become an entertainment industry. People won't watch news unless it "entertains" them like a soap opera, keeping them coming back for next piece of juicy "information".
The NYT has been pretty weak as far as I can tell for many decades. The simple mechanics of copy editing have deteriorated remarkably in the last decade or two. The political slant has been disconnected from actual reality for a L-O-N-G time (more apparent, perhaps, to those of us whose acquaintance with the paper goes back to the 60's).
I was just a kid in the 60s, and though I grew up in NY, I really didn't read the NYT very much, if at all, especially with parents who were far right even back then. As an adult, I've seen a very vigorous decline in the Trump era. Again, it's all about selling papers, even harder in today's world. At the end of the day, it's profits over facts or journalistic responsibility to the truth.
I should say "especially in the Trump era."
Absolutely right on! I've been especially critical of calling Manchin & Sinema "moderates" - sorry, they're very olde school Dems. who reap big $$$ from corporate donors. That's why I'll never donate to the Dems. only individual candidates, true progressives.
Same here.
I just don’t understand how people with that much power would not take the opportunity to do a LOT of really good stuff, in exchange for money? Don’t they have more than enough? I’d feel guilty, especially knowing the data they know about everyday Americans and the environment. When I hear Manchin talk, he really seems to care at least about poor people…most people I know would be way more conscientious. Or he believes he’s right! I don’t understand Sinema at all.
It’s always ALL about the Benjamins.
I just can’t get it. They already have more than plenty! I think it’s about more than that for Manchin. Maybe I’m just a softy.
Many share you opinion. But it is an *axiom* of market capitalism that there is never enough. They call it "non-satiation of preferences" -- it applies not only to money. It's even more true of the appetite for power. If you've never been in a position of exercising power over people's lives, it may be hard to appreciate just how intoxicating power can be. Always done with a pure heart and good intentions, naturally. ;-)
Corporations control the media and control the narrative just like Noem Chompsky says.
I'm hoping "Chompsky" was an intentional typo ;-) Combine Chomsky's analysis with Upton Sinclair's observation and you pretty much have it: "t is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
The establishment is the establishment is the establishment... This is a very important point that you have stressed out, M. Reich. No established form of political power wants to see things going a way it cannot grasp or control. It will then justify the status quo to the point of absurdity. This is probably why someone said that we need a revolution at every generation. But wait. This would be Democracy. Can we afford that?
We don't need a revolution in every generation but we do need a recommitment in each generation to the ideals of democracy, equal political rights, and a broad sharing of prosperity.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident" would seem to be the correct quote here! I believe the majority of us would agree.
I think you are correct. And let me add: the mainstream media loves to single out Senator Sanders as the top kook among the progressives, when all he's done for his entire adult life is fight to make our society better for working people...
Absolutely right. Bernie's courageous 2016 primary campaign encouraged a new generation of young progressives to become activist and made it possible for the Democratic Party to adopt a slew of progressive ideas.
I am proud to count myself as one of the many Senator Sanders enlightened and influenced...and I'm old to boot!
To me Bernie and his views are in line with what might save our Democracy.
Thank you, Robert, especially for pointing out the Orwellian use of language (calling Manchin and Sinema "moderates" instead of using the descriptive phrase "corporate-beholden>"
Agree 100%. Add PBS NewsHour and NBC Nightly News, which persistently refer to the legislation as a "spending bill," implying that the only intent of the legislation is to spend taxpayer money. That plays right in to the Republicans' rhetoric of "Democrats' reckless tax and spend agenda." It sometimes seems the mainstream news media are merely parroting Republican talking points. I attribute this to laziness on the part of the news media, a failure to come up with adjectives that more accurately describe the intent of the legislation.
Rachel Maddow interviewed Sen. Bernie Sanders last night about the legislation. Although he didn't use the specific wording, he basically characterized Manchin and Sinema as stubborn obstructionists, who seemingly don't stand for anything. They just say no, and don't explain what they want, or what they would eliminate to lower the price tag.
They are indeed stubborn obstructionists. But as I've said elsewhere on these pages, I think Sinema is motivated by all the attention she's getting, while Manchin has financial stakes in keeping things as they are. Both are reaping huge amounts of campaign cash from big corporations and their lobbying groups.
Agree with that. To play armchair psychologist (I am not in any way a mental health professional), it seems that Sinema fancies herself a righteous rebel, the little guy fighting courageously against the powerful establishment. I think the wealthy and powerful people who hold fundraisers for her enhance this self-image by flattering her, affirming that she is courageously fighting for the people, even as they deviously persuade her that their self-serving policy demands (nix raising the minimum wage, oppose Medicare negotiating prescription drug prices, etc.) will accomplish that end, and that she should stand strong and unyielding.
Maybe other Democrats, in their meetings, could casually ask Sinema about how her fundraisers went, along with some comments along the lines of, "I'm sure the hosts support allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices to lower their cost for your constituents, and also support a carbon tax on polluters to mitigate climate change." It might at least cause her to feel some discomfort, and think about what she is doing. One can hope.
For Manchin, I agree that money seems the most likely motivation for his unwillingness to be a team player.
This is it exactly. Robert knows this already. If you google who owns the media in America you will see it's 15 billionaires and their are 6 companies who own local news stations. All these news stations push conservative news points. Sinclair Broadcasting is second to Next Star. Both companies will continue to benefit from political ad spending growth offsetting slower broadcast ad growth. The 1990s saw a wave of consolidation in the local station marketplace that has continued to this day as the Federal Communications Commission has weakened its stance on media ownership concentration. Another boost to advertising revenue for local stations was the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down spending restrictions on political parties and campaigning. Most to point, is that Sinclair is still a big supporter of Trump and his GOP fans. This is a bigger problems than most people realize. The free press is not so free. Individuals can easily be replaced if they don't do what the upper ups want. So stop attacking Rachel Maddow and others like her. She is doing the best she can within the guidelines of MSNBC. All the local stations these days are blander than white bread and spiel the same things over and over again. Most pushing forth GOP propaganda.
Meant to write *there not their. May be a glitch.
Along with Covid-19 we seem to have another virus working it's way through America (and the rest of the world): atavism as the result of entrenched greed, tribal behavior, and a superstitious yearning for a past that never really existed. The Republican party seems to be thoroughly infected along with so-called "Democrats" Manchin and Sinema. Fortunately the majority of Americans according to the polls need and want progress not regress. The slogan from the 60's "Change it or lose it" seems particularly apropos now. And I completely agree with you about the mainstream media who should be reporting the truth. In my opinion and conviction THAT truth, in the words of Finley Peter Dunne, should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." An equitable distribution of wealth and benefits is long, long overdue!
How can you blame the media person by person, because it's not the individual so much as it is that most of the Media is owned by 15 billionaires who all support conservative views which are pushed by the Republican Party. Everything is skewed to their way of looking at things and support of their candidates? The news anchors are no longer allowed to give their own views. The messages which they give are prescripted in advance.
You make a good point about not blaming each newsperson! I was agreeing with professor Reich about the manipulation of the mainstream media for not reporting sufficient details about this very important legislation. For example he notes that the legislative package of 3.5 trillion is spread out over 10 years , making it 350 billion a year or about half of the defense budget. The point to emphasize here is that the USA can easily afford this and it will come back in the form of greater productivity, taxes, etc. I did a little research a while back on the net worth of the whole country and I came up with a figure of over 200 trillion dollars. (This is a rough estimate. I'm a former professor of English not Economics!) We need to invest in our people and our country. We desperately need to have national health care and, in my opinion, a universal basic income as well. The latter has been and is being tested in America and other places in the world and has produced very encouraging results. A happy and secure people are far more productive than those who are not. What I commented on above was meant to establish an overarching sense of morality as a necessary goal and the fact that the majority of people support this (80% of Joe Manchin's people in West Virginia want the Democratic legislation!) is gratifying and cause for optimism!
Everything you said, I agree with. But, there are such callous people out there. Not a large percentage even. I hope everyone thought more like you.
Thank you! We all try to lead by example. It's you, me, Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris--many other famous or not so famous people, and everyone who's reading this newsletter that are the people of the future! We will not allow ourselves to retreat into a past that, as I said above, never really existed. The good parts from days gone by are fine--the music, art, discoveries, and happy times we bring with us. We learned from the bad parts--the wars, slavery, various sorrows--those we leave behind. Why should we repeat them? Victor Hugo said "No force on earth can stop an idea whose time has come." We choose progress and move confidently into the future! And it will be as wonderful as we can make it!
This is truly great and inspirational, upbeat even! Thank you.
The problem is not only print media. Turn on the radio to what used to be independent stations -now owned by a few huge companies of most commercial AM stations. The 2 minutes of news per hour all report the same democratic chaos. Never details.
The nightly news on TV is all the same. Repubs all together on every issue the dems disorganized and unable to deliver a message the citizens of the country can understand.
I agree. It often feels like Repubs are playing chess, while the Dems are playing checkers.
It's why I vote democrats but don't call myself a democrat. Not even a progressive.
Worse still, several Dems consistently try to straddle the fence, politically - as if they are so clever.
You brought up an excellent point I hadn't even thought of. We need to do something about the media? Protest it? Stop listening to it? Write letters in the billions objecting to their views and disinformation? What Robert, what is the answer?
Thank you for the clarity you have given me. I was getting increasingly upset by the size of the bill, thinking it would be more difficult to oppose it if the pieces were clear.
The issue, as you’ve made clear to me now, is the media characterization of the bill.
I’m angry at the NYT, always my go-to, along with NPR. You’ve reaffirmed what I was taught in polysci in 1967: it’s important to read critically and widely, and never depend on one source.
Thank you. I’ll be writing to editors this weekend to complain
Eileen, the NYT has always been my go-to as well (along with NPR), but ever since its coverage of the Iraqi War (you remember Susan Miller), I've had to draw my information and analyses from several other sources in addition to the NYT. (I'd be interested to know where you get your news other than from the NYT.)
I recommend the BBC available online 24 hours. They have correspondents everywhere and seem to report impartially which would, in itself, constitute the truth. Extremely diverse and cosmopolitan with a bit of inimitable British humor thrown in! Of all the news sources they seem to have the spirit of what Thomas Paine said: "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethen, and to do good is my religion." Give it a go!
No one cares what I think, but me. I know it sounds crazy, but I used to comb Twitter in the wee early hours. In that I found, one or two tweets that were informational, new, and alarming. I'll give you an example: 6 months before we ever heard about Covid-19, a researcher and doctor from China put it out there that there was a new virus out there that was killing people quickly by scores. He said that the government was keeping it under wraps and that he was in trouble. Then, there was one more tweet a couple days later. Much, much later it was reported this researcher/doctor had died of the new virus. He didn't call it Covid at the time. Such bleeps are few and far between. I haven't seen any in awhile, but they do show up now and then. The problem it takes too much time to go through all of twitter everyday because much of it is crap. I tend to like Rachel Maddow, Vershi, Lawrence... I read the NYT, but am disappointed. I look for leaks. The angry staffer on twitter used to give a juicy tidbit of info now and then, but they've clammed up quite a bit since. I like Judy Woodard from PBS... I love Roberts insightful views... I know I wasn't asked, but I wanted to jump right in there nonetheless. lol
Except, case in point: 90% of all media is owned by the conservative bent. And, it's not getting better.
I am old enough to remember when news divisions of major networks were NOT profit centers, when maintaining a reputable, measured, and comprehensive newsroom was considered a public service as well as a source of pride. The Gingrich abomination that slimed into the FCC in the 1980s wrecked it all (that and Cronkite retiring), then the media world splintered, and now it's all about maintaining perpetual conflict (even if it has to be manufactured) to hold eyeballs and score ratings. That and, sadly, we have a new generation of reporters who don't write all that well, topped off with a 24/7 news cycle that demands knee-jerk responses and creates lots of phony drama. My solution has been to target a select group of information sources that have not lied to me in the past and who I trust to get the story straight (you are one, Dr. Reich), and dispense with the others.
My personal shorthand for the Republican take-over of government in the 1980s is to identify it with the poisonous Mr Gingrich, but you are correct, there were many to blame.
I am so happy you are calling the press out. Where is the unbiased treatment of important matters? If we as a country are going to get past Trumpism the press must do a better job. Here’s hoping their past high ideals will surface again..