210 Comments

I believe that the Dems should divide up the Build Back Better bill. Turn it into seperate bills. Then you are making the R vote against adding hearing aids and dental to Medicare. You are making them vote against child care, etc. Yes, some items will not pass, BUT you will have their votes to advertise against them in 2022 and 2024. This will still get a lot of our Progressive agenda through, while giving voters valid reasons to vote BLUE! IF we can get a larger number of Dems in the Senate and House, we can pass the rest of the Progressive agenda. VOTE BLUE!

Expand full comment

Biden and his fellow lawmakers have no choice but to ram Biden’s entire legislative agenda into one bill that only can be passed, through a complex, and, in my view, mighty ridiculous reconciliation procedure because the Republicans refuse to allow regular order. I imagine most would agree that our politics will remain disfunctional unless or until Senate Democrats reform the Senate filibuster rule, an issue riddled with its own set of complications.

Expand full comment

Between the filibuster rule, gerrymandering, and restrictions on voting, we have produced a situation in which the voters do not select the candidates for office; the candidates for office select the voters, moving them from one district to another by changing boundaries; setting up unconstitutional barriers to free and fair voting in other cases; demanding that there be super-majorities for certain really crucial legislation to pass. Right now, the ball seems to be in the Republicans' court since they fiddle with district boundaries to increase their support in key areas; cling on to the filibuster when it serves their needs; restrict voting to constituencies they do not favor or even want to accord equal voting rights. If you add the deleterious factor of Citizens United into the election process, allowing corporations (and fat-cat ceos to enter into the campaigning/election process, you have the present recipe for chaos and disaster and you ensure that another and even more horrendous candidate than former president 45 is waiting in the wings, all set to convert himself into a celebrity and the election (and his term) into a scary carnival of chaos and disaster. If the Congress were to eliminate the filibuster/gerrymandering/illegal voting restriction measures/Citizens United and the Electoral College and move to a national popular vote for a national office, we might be able to do something positive with our cracked and broken system.

Expand full comment

FreedomPleaseOrg (Google Maps) San Diego , #7footApartHikes ,daniel

peace is found in nature...

Expand full comment

This ad for freedompleaseorg should be flagged and deleted.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, it looks like bought up Democrats will oppose that effort.

Expand full comment

Not necessarily. Not if leadership pressed for a filibuster rule change that replaced the 60-vote threshold to end debate with a 41-vote threshold to continue debate, thus shifting the burden from the majority to the minority. Imagine the impact of a rule change that required 41 Senators to be present, speaking nonstop solely about the issue at hand, to sustain a filibuster. Additionally, try and imagine any Senator (we only need 50) mounting a credible opposition in defiance of this rule change.

Expand full comment

It would be exciting, but daunting. Imagine getting that much commitment from 41 senators, with the holidays coming on? I would get up there and put in my 2 cents if it would help. It's sad that our senators have so sold our country. When I think about the people who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country, and those who serve today that are willing to go into harm's way, it makes me sick.

Expand full comment

It would be great if we could get leadership to press for a filibuster rule change. I have tried to imagine that happening. Government would be much more efficient actually representing the real, human people.

Expand full comment

Cornel West once wrote, “We can be prisoners of hope even as we call optimism into question.” Hence, I persist by writing my Senators, my House Rep, President Biden, the Senate rules committee, and so forth.

Expand full comment

I wonder what I would say in the letter? It would be great to see what you would write. Who is on the Senate rules committee?

Expand full comment

While this is an interesting idea, they also have to consider time, and the fact that they only allow so many reconciliation processes available to themselves because Senate Dems are relying on the Parliamentarian, who is not an elected member (Schumer chose) nor a Constitutional requirement, to drive much of this process. It's stupid; get rid of the Parliamentarian. Also, we must elect Progressive Dems in, not any Dem, or we get more Sinemas, Manchins, etc.

Expand full comment

Interesting. Most people do not read a big bill, even if they can get hands on it. But if there are smaller bills with a 'sound bite' shortness, people can react and pinpoint pressure on their Congress and Senate 'representatives' more strongly. Sad truth is time is limited. that is probably why bills are large so they get passed all in one 'package' as they call them. Then they can enjoy all their time off, safely away from their offices on more holiday breaks than most of us get! Similar to the Supreme Court with all their 'junkets' and breaks.

Expand full comment

Interesting perspective. Sounds decent enough. Need to think on it more.

Expand full comment

Congrats . Pres. Biden..keep charging.

You are right get something done "for the people"!

I am reading the novel "1984" again..two phrases remind me of the Republican party.

"THOUGHT POLICE" and "LOYALTY TO THE PARTY" George Orwell was way ahead of his time!

So sad for us!

Expand full comment

We need to shame EVERY politician taking corporate bribery!

Expand full comment

It should be illegal since it is tantamount to paying representatives to ignore their oaths of office! Their focus should be on their constituents, not to people who pay them to do otherwise. Citizens United is a farce unleashed on the populace by an immoral Supreme Court! It is not justice at all! Down with the Supreme Court!

Expand full comment
founding

I think we need to investigate their donors as congress began to do last week by grilling fossil fuel execs over the coals. Some Senators cannot be shamed.

Expand full comment

But isn't it legal for the donors to give them 'support'? Does this come under Citizens United? If not why are they getting away with wholesale bribery?

Expand full comment

And everyone who call themself a journalist who tells lies.

Expand full comment

"I also worry that even if the social and climate package is enacted, Democrats may lose the opportunity and political will to pass voting rights — which is even more important in the longer term."

I worry most about this. If we do not have a federal mandate for fair elections, namely the New Jim Crow laws in those backward states, we may not have a majority in the House or parity in the Senate after 2022, and by 2024 GAME OVER. Our oligarchy will lose even the facade of democracy.

Expand full comment
founding

The republicans will force us to revisit ending or amending the filibuster on the debt ceiling before year's end. We can leverage this to do many good things to protect democracy and strengthen our union. Maybe that's what some senators fear. Voting rights, women's rights & more

Expand full comment

There was a column last week in the “Daily Kos” where the author called on all of us to quit sulking and perpetuating the gloom and doom. That attitude is self defeating and suppresses voter turnout due to “what’s the point? mentality. This article gives voice to that sentiment and moves us in that direction. I appreciate Dr. Reich’s commitment to correcting the false claims and naming the names of the politicians who are bought and paid for, keeping the old saw truth “those with gold rule.” They are a detriment to the people and their party. Shame on them!

Expand full comment

I agree with both Roberts. Responsible citizens who are paying attention must actively support the Build Back Better Act. The only rational objection to its passage is that it is too small. If Manchin or Sinema object on deficit grounds, then include the Warren Buffett Rule for minimum individual taxes. Once both acts pass, it is time to protect the right to vote. This game plan will provide a social safety net, fight GOP fascism, & protect our democratic republic. Patriots can be proud.

Expand full comment

I believe it was about 10 years ago that the US Army Corps of Engineers estimated that $4T was needed to fix up the USA's physical infrastructure. People from abroad are surprised at our state of physical decay.

Expand full comment

Society of Civil Engineers rate our infrastructure as a Dt. Yet Trump did nothing.

Expand full comment

If Manchin or Sinema object, just raise taxes on the rich & powerful so they too, pay their fair share.

Expand full comment

You are a stalwart leader in the Army of the Good.

Thanks ever so much for your knowledgeable, thoughtful and humane analysis and commentary.

Please "Be not weary in good works". Many depend on you.

Expand full comment

Calling the Democrat’s social and climate package “a vast overreach” is obviously deflection. Pitting the care of working class and poor families against raising taxes on the wealthy is immoral - and a clear view of the values of capitalism, especially neoliberalism. Weigh the budget of the military against social services and you will see overreach in action.

Expand full comment
author

You got it, Susan.

Expand full comment

It’s a win.! A step in the right direction finally for the American People.Thank God for that! If only we can keep that momentum going, perhaps not all is lost to these Political scum that sold our Country, her Democracy, her people and her humanity out to the highest bidders. Hopefully the tide is changing and America and her People can finally start to rebuild and regain her dignity back.

Expand full comment

It is indeed “refreshing” to hear a different point of view than most of the media’s.

I keep going back to why Manchin and Sinema are holding out, and I wish there were more media reports looking into the corporations/ lobbyists who are responsible for this (besides the senators themselves), and what the needs of their constituents are. Are they really representing their constituents’ best interests, or their own personal re-election interests?

I agree with the posts about getting money out of the election process, and would like to see Citizens United overturned eventually (biggest misnomer - call it Corporations United) (additional Supreme Court justices needed for this?).

Regards, Candida Silva

Expand full comment

Agree. And #Mansinema are actively criminal thugs claiming being moderate. The bill they put forward is $250million deficit yet they claim fiscal responsibility. They both have been bought in just the way you describe. The #ForThePeopleAct addressed everything you mentioned in your post. My wish is the criminal acts they engaged in surface SOON. They are personally engaging in self-enrichment. It should be criminal negligence to represent themselves and not their constituents. Listening to Manchin lie and believe he’s persuading anybody of his handmaid's tale Gilead Prehistoric positions is ludicrous while driving a Maserati and living on a yacht. Please miss US with his spin

Expand full comment

Thank you. We need to overcome the false descriptions of Democrats constantly coming from the Right. Also “FoxNews” is an incorrect term. There is no real news coming from that propaganda channel.

Expand full comment

Moderate and progressive dems are functioning the way Dems and republicans functioned 50 years ago. Republicans are no longer conservative, they are the right wing, Dixie-crat style extremists that George Wallace represented, people who left the Democratic Party when Kennedy and LBJ backed civil rights.

Expand full comment

I think you got that absolutely right. (Or correct)

Expand full comment

When I have responded to this column before and now again, I acknowledge that it is (and most probably always will be) as an idealist, as someone who imagines rather than sees a better future for myself and for many others. Some of you may be thinking that I am all Pipe-Dreams with no solid grounding in The Facts. But I am not alone. The framers of our very Constitution, the writers of the Bill of Rights, the supporters of Anti-Slavery/Civil Rights/Women's Rights, the sponsors of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, current sponsors of Income Equality and the Abolition of Citizens United and the Electoral College, all such legislation, all of these people were idealists. They were not content with the status quo which favored them but wanted to extend the resources of a powerful, well-endowed country to those who needed such resources. They were looking at a more distant star and wondering and imagining how they might touch that star and bring its light to others. We live in an age of narrow self-interest, when prosperity for oneself is paramount, when the needs of others are swept under the nationwide rug of disregard and ignorance. I do not think that it hurts one bit if a few of us decide to focus on what might be possible for others as well as ourselves and turn away from the immediate focus on greater wealth to the wealthy and already self-endowed. I don't think it's overly idealistic to expect our elected public servants to give their full time and serious attention to the folks who chose to support them with a vote.

Expand full comment

Lanae Isaacson...you are spot on ! Here is support from another so called "idealist". Brava !

Expand full comment

Hi Cindi and Thank you for your remarks. One of the most shocking developments of the past 5-6 years occurred when the new president 45 proudly and gleefully marched into the appropriate election office the day after his inauguration and declared himself a Candidate for the 2020 national election for president. At that point, red lights should have been flashing in Republican National Committee offices, among Republicans on the Hill, among Republican voters and office-holders everywhere. What Donald J Trump was really saying was that it didn't matter what he did (or that he did anything at all)), that people would vote for him to hold what he has recently described as a ceremonial irresponsible office, that "liking Trump" was all that matter. Trump had quickly converted the most serious, most demanding, most dutiful position in the country (and the world) into a figure-head, celebrity position and that is what it turned out to be, to the detriment of people who could least afford or abide such a change. Unbelievably, the Republicans were completely satisfied with the change, they didn't raise a single red flag, I guess because they thought they would gain stature and power and wealth. They refused to stand up for the rule of law and the Constitution as that got into the way of their complete abdication of all legislative power to Trump. There were those of us who were shocked that the country--led by the Republicans--let Trump off the hook, left him to golf and watch tv and, ultimately, incite those of his cult to violence and a coup d'etat. But the Democrats also refused to call Trump's abdication of responsibility and his gleeful search for a continuation of his reign out for what it was. No one anywhere in Congress chose to raise a tiny finger or a little red flag when the president announced he planned to run for a second term at the very start of his first. Talk about hubris on the part of the president but also talk about hubris from all in Congress. Who paid for that hubris and shunning of responsibility by Trump and the COngress? We all did.

Expand full comment

The money to be spent should not go to states unless tight restrictions are in place. States like Texas would try to divert it to other things. Or worse yet, like the federal rent relief, wouldn't pass it out at all. Tens of thousands of Texans are being evicted while a billion dollars in federal money sits in the coffers.

Expand full comment

That's a really important point - there needs to be strict monitoring so no money goes astray in crooked contracts and feds rather than states need to be involved directly in giving the money to particular areas.

Expand full comment

When the next climate- induced catastrophe hits us with costs in the $billions I hope readers of the N.Y.Times will remind the editorial board that they considered the BBB bill as "vast overreach".

Expand full comment

Why, why, why is the corporate Media so intent in turning this into a showdown between progressives and moderates? Should we be canceling our NYTIMES subscriptions in protest?

Expand full comment

Done ✅

Expand full comment

Actually they love to see each other at each other's throats! This distracts people from thinking about taxing the rich! Corporate media are Corporations! They don't want to have increased taxes, and must do their part to keep us from 'overreach'!

Expand full comment

We can consider it! They think we need disinformation? Can't live without them?

Expand full comment

Professor, thank you so much for popping the bubbles of incorrect and untruthful media generalities about the Democrats and the Biden administration. You really have to wonder at the decline in quality, impartial journalism at the New York Times, in particular, and attendant media who look to the Times and the Washington Post to frame the attendant issues of the day. Who needs Murdock and Sinclair when our own band of quislings have joined in the attacks? Disgusting and disgraceful

Expand full comment