You wrote: "DeSantis must stand for re-election in 2022. Democrats and Independents in Florida must do everything in their power to defeat DeSantis in 2022—so that he enters the 2024 presidential primaries as damaged goods.
My Comment: We are working very hard to defeat him, and will continue to do so.
I agree, Robert. The current mess is entirely the fault of Sinema's loyalty to her Big Pharma donors. I am mighty tired of her antics—she gives teaching a bad name. I am also weary of bad press for Biden, who is trying to undo the mimicry of forty years of neoliberal fawning to corporate interests. I am so grateful that I quit Facebook three years ago—I don’t know how I found the time! Aside from missing friends’ birthdays, there is no downside to being without Zuckerberg, Inc. except resisting the roller coaster ride of panicked news headlines. Thank you.
Hi, Jim. Interesting to hear about your experience with Facebook. I had been using Instagram for occasional posts, but deleted the app after the WSJ expose about the effects of Instagram on teenagers.
Because they have 50 Senators, Democrats are forced into a position of achieving consensus among themselves - agreement of every member. Advocates of consensus decision-making argue for its value in requiring compromise. As we see in the Democrats effort to come to agreement, consensus allows for the tyranny of a tiny minority. Even so -- there are two great things to come out of this. 1. a substantial bill designed to make life better and improve the economy ($1.5 or $1.75Trillion is not chopped liver). 2. Maybe. Just maybe. Manchin's support (and I suppose Sinema's) for a carve out elimination of the filibuster or a live, actual debate filibuster that can be broken.
Republicans never cared about how things are paid for - cutting taxes without reducing spending. Why are Democrats becoming so "responsible" about funding new programs? I suggest that they could just pass the BBB and Infrastructure bill now. Tackle a total tax reform package later.
I know, I know. That will give the GQP ammunition to call us big spenders. So what? The programs are very popular. And Republicans will create criticisms no matter what Democrats do. Just get this thing done. Then launch a massive push and campaign to reform our tax code and fund enforcement by the IRS. We have the wind at our backs on this issue. People are sick of the rich getting richer while gas and milk prices are escalating.
HI, Bill. I am going out on a limb here because i have not researched this issue diligently, but I believe that the rules relating to the use of reconciliation require that the overall effect of the reconciliation bill be deficit neutral. See https://budget.house.gov/publications/fact-sheet/budget-reconciliation-basics : "The Byrd rule prohibits the inclusion of “extraneous” measures in reconciliation, defining “extraneous” as follows: measures that worsen the deficit when a committee has not achieved its reconciliation target and measures that increase deficits for any fiscal year outside the reconciliation window"
Good info, thanks. Well, that shoots my idea down. Truth be told, I have always been more of "financial conservative" (remember when conservative as a word had integrity?). Therefore, despite my democratic socialistic tendencies, paying for things like this do seem appropriate. And there is a LOT of money in them thar hills. It's just in the wrong pockets. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos might be brilliant entrepreneurs but they are also selfish power hungry arrogant SOBs.
“….John Eastman, the founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and a member of the powerful Federalist Society, wrote a six-point plan for overturning the will of the voters in the 2020 election. Although he went to the reputable National Review to cover his tracks by saying his plan was just a thought experiment, just tonight a video appeared in which he told an apparent supporter that his ideas were right, and that it was Pence’s establishment biases that made him unwilling to implement them. His plan to overturn the election barely failed.
The 33 new election laws in 19 states will not fail. They are designed to replace the idea of democracy with a hierarchy in which a minority will determine our fate.” Heather Cox Richardson
I understand about not getting our news from Facebook, and I don’t, but when reading this today in Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter which I know to be well sourced, I do fear that it is not just a “Get-Out-The-Vote” effort we are up against, but a systematic way to effectively dismantle democracy through laws that our current Supreme Court will uphold.
I don't agree with HCR when she says that the 33 election laws in 19 states will not fail. First, several of them are subject to court challenges. Second, they are intended to suppress the vote. If we can motivate people to turn out in spite of (or because of) efforts to suppress the vote, then the laws will have failed in achieving their intended purpose. We must not give in to defeatist thinking.
I know you have given lots of time to this issue in the last few newsletters, and I appreciate and respect your opinion. I also respect HCR, and so when she writes, “The 33 new election laws in 19 states will not fail,” I do a bit of an emotional tail spin. Still, I do agree that action is the antithesis of fear, so getting out the vote is what we can do and I will continue on that path.
It's understandable that voter turnout is critical. But once the votes are cast, I'm increasingly concerned that state voter suppression laws will make it easier for them to cheat. Thoughts?
Okay. If I accept your proposition that it will be easier for Republicans to cheat, what conclusion should we draw from that? What should we be doing differently? If the answer is, "We are doing everything we can," then we should not invest emotional energy in fretting over an outcome that we are working to prevent.
Robert, even though they cheat, lie, and twist the rules, we push forward to uphold our democracy on all fronts. No question. My fretting centers around that which may be beyond our control: vote counts, verification, and certification. Thus, I heed your steadying words and thoughtful questions to convert worry to action.
I read just this morning that a deal among the Democrats is not close. Which means it must be only hours away. (These things always come together quickly in the end--like all negotiations.
As for taxes, I was going to opine that the estate tax is on wealth, but is it? It allows unrealized gains to escape income tax, so does that man that one could reason that that makes it really a tax allowable under the 16th Amendment? I don't think so. But, then, how is the estate tax to be justified? Well, perhaps it's because all wealth comes from income.
As I noted in last night's newsletter, using realization to determine income is simply a measuring convention--it does not mean that unrealized gains are not income. Or at least that is what the Supreme Court has said, twice. This whole mess began in 1895 when the Supreme Court concluded that rental income from land was not separate from the land itself--and therefore required proportionality under Article I, Sections 2 and 8. Of course, today the Court SHOULD say that income from land is income, not land. But leave it to Gorsuch, Thomas et al. to find some way to invalidate taxes that do not conform to the colonial notion of land ownership.
Pardon my language but as old adage goes "Throw enough shit against the wall, some of it might stick." I agree completely with your title, Robert: This IS "no way to make sausage." Rather than united, Manchin and Sinema have forced Democrats to appear desperate. In the meantime, McConnell and the Trumplicans sit back, smirk and watch the Democrats defeat themselves.
You wrote: "DeSantis must stand for re-election in 2022. Democrats and Independents in Florida must do everything in their power to defeat DeSantis in 2022—so that he enters the 2024 presidential primaries as damaged goods.
My Comment: We are working very hard to defeat him, and will continue to do so.
Judith--thanks for doing your part. Please write to me and let me know what readers of the newsletter can do to help your efforts!
I agree, Robert. The current mess is entirely the fault of Sinema's loyalty to her Big Pharma donors. I am mighty tired of her antics—she gives teaching a bad name. I am also weary of bad press for Biden, who is trying to undo the mimicry of forty years of neoliberal fawning to corporate interests. I am so grateful that I quit Facebook three years ago—I don’t know how I found the time! Aside from missing friends’ birthdays, there is no downside to being without Zuckerberg, Inc. except resisting the roller coaster ride of panicked news headlines. Thank you.
Hi, Jim. Interesting to hear about your experience with Facebook. I had been using Instagram for occasional posts, but deleted the app after the WSJ expose about the effects of Instagram on teenagers.
Facebook is evil on purpose, not by accident.
Because they have 50 Senators, Democrats are forced into a position of achieving consensus among themselves - agreement of every member. Advocates of consensus decision-making argue for its value in requiring compromise. As we see in the Democrats effort to come to agreement, consensus allows for the tyranny of a tiny minority. Even so -- there are two great things to come out of this. 1. a substantial bill designed to make life better and improve the economy ($1.5 or $1.75Trillion is not chopped liver). 2. Maybe. Just maybe. Manchin's support (and I suppose Sinema's) for a carve out elimination of the filibuster or a live, actual debate filibuster that can be broken.
I hope you are right, Len!
Me, too.
Republicans never cared about how things are paid for - cutting taxes without reducing spending. Why are Democrats becoming so "responsible" about funding new programs? I suggest that they could just pass the BBB and Infrastructure bill now. Tackle a total tax reform package later.
I know, I know. That will give the GQP ammunition to call us big spenders. So what? The programs are very popular. And Republicans will create criticisms no matter what Democrats do. Just get this thing done. Then launch a massive push and campaign to reform our tax code and fund enforcement by the IRS. We have the wind at our backs on this issue. People are sick of the rich getting richer while gas and milk prices are escalating.
HI, Bill. I am going out on a limb here because i have not researched this issue diligently, but I believe that the rules relating to the use of reconciliation require that the overall effect of the reconciliation bill be deficit neutral. See https://budget.house.gov/publications/fact-sheet/budget-reconciliation-basics : "The Byrd rule prohibits the inclusion of “extraneous” measures in reconciliation, defining “extraneous” as follows: measures that worsen the deficit when a committee has not achieved its reconciliation target and measures that increase deficits for any fiscal year outside the reconciliation window"
Good info, thanks. Well, that shoots my idea down. Truth be told, I have always been more of "financial conservative" (remember when conservative as a word had integrity?). Therefore, despite my democratic socialistic tendencies, paying for things like this do seem appropriate. And there is a LOT of money in them thar hills. It's just in the wrong pockets. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos might be brilliant entrepreneurs but they are also selfish power hungry arrogant SOBs.
“….John Eastman, the founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and a member of the powerful Federalist Society, wrote a six-point plan for overturning the will of the voters in the 2020 election. Although he went to the reputable National Review to cover his tracks by saying his plan was just a thought experiment, just tonight a video appeared in which he told an apparent supporter that his ideas were right, and that it was Pence’s establishment biases that made him unwilling to implement them. His plan to overturn the election barely failed.
The 33 new election laws in 19 states will not fail. They are designed to replace the idea of democracy with a hierarchy in which a minority will determine our fate.” Heather Cox Richardson
I understand about not getting our news from Facebook, and I don’t, but when reading this today in Heather Cox Richardson’s newsletter which I know to be well sourced, I do fear that it is not just a “Get-Out-The-Vote” effort we are up against, but a systematic way to effectively dismantle democracy through laws that our current Supreme Court will uphold.
I don't agree with HCR when she says that the 33 election laws in 19 states will not fail. First, several of them are subject to court challenges. Second, they are intended to suppress the vote. If we can motivate people to turn out in spite of (or because of) efforts to suppress the vote, then the laws will have failed in achieving their intended purpose. We must not give in to defeatist thinking.
I know you have given lots of time to this issue in the last few newsletters, and I appreciate and respect your opinion. I also respect HCR, and so when she writes, “The 33 new election laws in 19 states will not fail,” I do a bit of an emotional tail spin. Still, I do agree that action is the antithesis of fear, so getting out the vote is what we can do and I will continue on that path.
You are doing the right thing, Donna. Of course we face challenges; doing something to prevent bad outcomes is the answer.
It's understandable that voter turnout is critical. But once the votes are cast, I'm increasingly concerned that state voter suppression laws will make it easier for them to cheat. Thoughts?
Okay. If I accept your proposition that it will be easier for Republicans to cheat, what conclusion should we draw from that? What should we be doing differently? If the answer is, "We are doing everything we can," then we should not invest emotional energy in fretting over an outcome that we are working to prevent.
Robert, even though they cheat, lie, and twist the rules, we push forward to uphold our democracy on all fronts. No question. My fretting centers around that which may be beyond our control: vote counts, verification, and certification. Thus, I heed your steadying words and thoughtful questions to convert worry to action.
I read just this morning that a deal among the Democrats is not close. Which means it must be only hours away. (These things always come together quickly in the end--like all negotiations.
As for taxes, I was going to opine that the estate tax is on wealth, but is it? It allows unrealized gains to escape income tax, so does that man that one could reason that that makes it really a tax allowable under the 16th Amendment? I don't think so. But, then, how is the estate tax to be justified? Well, perhaps it's because all wealth comes from income.
As I noted in last night's newsletter, using realization to determine income is simply a measuring convention--it does not mean that unrealized gains are not income. Or at least that is what the Supreme Court has said, twice. This whole mess began in 1895 when the Supreme Court concluded that rental income from land was not separate from the land itself--and therefore required proportionality under Article I, Sections 2 and 8. Of course, today the Court SHOULD say that income from land is income, not land. But leave it to Gorsuch, Thomas et al. to find some way to invalidate taxes that do not conform to the colonial notion of land ownership.
Pardon my language but as old adage goes "Throw enough shit against the wall, some of it might stick." I agree completely with your title, Robert: This IS "no way to make sausage." Rather than united, Manchin and Sinema have forced Democrats to appear desperate. In the meantime, McConnell and the Trumplicans sit back, smirk and watch the Democrats defeat themselves.
Please discuss HCR comments today on the democracy assault.