Breathing deep, feeling better. I am in an optimistic mood. I found the battle over an opaque $3.5 trillion bill to be a waste of precious time. Now that they are in the process of assigning priority to and costing out the line items, meaningful negotiations can proceed. IMO, if the hard infrastructure bill can pass with any sort of "social remedies" bill - whatever the size - it will be an epic success.
Social progress doesn't happen with just one bill or even just one new administration. It takes time to move a huge nation in the right direction. I would have loved to see a $6 trillion package. But the most important concept here is, without a doubt, that these bills demonstrate to "independents" that Democrats truly do have their best interests at heart. If it helps us solidify a strong majority in Congress, I will like it.
I took that break for four days. I’m catching up on newsletters this morning. So here is my comment for October 1. Great newsletter. As I read more and more history and watch all the wonderful historical stories on PBS and so on, I see this repetitive pattern all around us. I saw the one on Hearst last night. He started as good, generous, and ended up greedy and power hungry. In every historical case and example, there are mental and emotional health issues in the background. I think the most important fairly recent historical distinction was the GI Bill. It lifted a generation into the middle class. The potential for “taking care of themselves” had always been there. The free education made it possible. Blacks who served were denied the GI Bill benefits. Robert, you are doing a great job of adding to the discussions, adding to the thought links about what is, how we got here, and how we will survive by hook or by crook. Thank you!
Let's all calm down. The "bi-partisan" infrastructure bill and the reconciliation will both pass. My estimate for the latter is $1.8-$2.2 trillion. What's happening now is theater. It's made worse by the fact that Democrats cannot shut up. (Got to remember that Will Rogers was right, all those years ago.) A much bigger question is the voting rights bill, which is more important. Suggest you all call your senators about that last--even if you know they will be for it. Urge them to be active to get it passed.
Many thanks for a sober recap of Democratic week-end dramatics. Your analysis of the reader reaction to Manchin/Sinema is hilariously accurate. I wonder how much effect the Pandora Papers will have on politics so long as Citizens United stays in effect. On the other hand, it could abate the worst of the criminal laundering of money and some of the more unsavory uses of wealth we have seen in cases like Epstein/Maxwell or Jordan or Putin. As always, thanks for your unflappability.
From The Hill: "Having a debt ceiling, which does nothing to accomplish its original goal of limiting government borrowing but which regularly causes American politicians to flirt with economic catastrophe, is dumb." Since the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says "The validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned." I wonder if the debt ceiling is even constitutional.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is a good thing that the vote on the reconciliation and infrastructure packages have been delayed. Whatever Democrats come up with will be a LOT better than they had before them two days ago. The list that you published in your October 1st newsletter containing 15 bullet points is a very mixed bag. Some of the items enjoy widespread support and will be political winners in the 2022 elections (like continuing the Child Tax Credit for lower income Americans). But others are half-baked ideas. For example--and one that I know about from my years running a community health center--the first item on your list includes expanding Medicare to include dental care. Is dental care rightfully a part of overall health care? Absolutely! And it is obscene that so many low-income seniors have awful oral health. But this is an example of an issue that will take much more time for policy-makers--and the American people--to absorb. There are two big reasons why adding dental benefits to Medicare as a part of the reconciliation package is a mistake. First, this would put Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services squarely in the middle of setting dental fees and administering benefits, something they have no experience doing. And it is inherently politically fraught. Just the thought of Medicare getting involved will have legions of dentists (and there are more than 200,000 of them, most in private practices that won't accept Medicaid now) howling. Second, there is a gigantic backlog of untreated dental disease in the low to moderate income Medicare population. If the design of a Medicare dental benefit was adequate to address the true need it would likely be a near bottomless money pit (and really tough to estimate today). If the benefit was too skimpy it would prompt a lot of "this is all I get?" reactions from seniors. A third reason for holding back on this is Joe Manchin's point that Medicare, with its current benefits, will be in financial trouble in the not too distant future and we need to address that, especially if we want to see Medicare For All down the road. My hope is that Democrats will pare their list down to a few really solid, progressive and popular items, run on those successes next year and expand their majorities in House and Senate.
Breathing deep, feeling better. I am in an optimistic mood. I found the battle over an opaque $3.5 trillion bill to be a waste of precious time. Now that they are in the process of assigning priority to and costing out the line items, meaningful negotiations can proceed. IMO, if the hard infrastructure bill can pass with any sort of "social remedies" bill - whatever the size - it will be an epic success.
Social progress doesn't happen with just one bill or even just one new administration. It takes time to move a huge nation in the right direction. I would have loved to see a $6 trillion package. But the most important concept here is, without a doubt, that these bills demonstrate to "independents" that Democrats truly do have their best interests at heart. If it helps us solidify a strong majority in Congress, I will like it.
I took that break for four days. I’m catching up on newsletters this morning. So here is my comment for October 1. Great newsletter. As I read more and more history and watch all the wonderful historical stories on PBS and so on, I see this repetitive pattern all around us. I saw the one on Hearst last night. He started as good, generous, and ended up greedy and power hungry. In every historical case and example, there are mental and emotional health issues in the background. I think the most important fairly recent historical distinction was the GI Bill. It lifted a generation into the middle class. The potential for “taking care of themselves” had always been there. The free education made it possible. Blacks who served were denied the GI Bill benefits. Robert, you are doing a great job of adding to the discussions, adding to the thought links about what is, how we got here, and how we will survive by hook or by crook. Thank you!
Let's all calm down. The "bi-partisan" infrastructure bill and the reconciliation will both pass. My estimate for the latter is $1.8-$2.2 trillion. What's happening now is theater. It's made worse by the fact that Democrats cannot shut up. (Got to remember that Will Rogers was right, all those years ago.) A much bigger question is the voting rights bill, which is more important. Suggest you all call your senators about that last--even if you know they will be for it. Urge them to be active to get it passed.
Many thanks for a sober recap of Democratic week-end dramatics. Your analysis of the reader reaction to Manchin/Sinema is hilariously accurate. I wonder how much effect the Pandora Papers will have on politics so long as Citizens United stays in effect. On the other hand, it could abate the worst of the criminal laundering of money and some of the more unsavory uses of wealth we have seen in cases like Epstein/Maxwell or Jordan or Putin. As always, thanks for your unflappability.
From The Hill: "Having a debt ceiling, which does nothing to accomplish its original goal of limiting government borrowing but which regularly causes American politicians to flirt with economic catastrophe, is dumb." Since the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says "The validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned." I wonder if the debt ceiling is even constitutional.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is a good thing that the vote on the reconciliation and infrastructure packages have been delayed. Whatever Democrats come up with will be a LOT better than they had before them two days ago. The list that you published in your October 1st newsletter containing 15 bullet points is a very mixed bag. Some of the items enjoy widespread support and will be political winners in the 2022 elections (like continuing the Child Tax Credit for lower income Americans). But others are half-baked ideas. For example--and one that I know about from my years running a community health center--the first item on your list includes expanding Medicare to include dental care. Is dental care rightfully a part of overall health care? Absolutely! And it is obscene that so many low-income seniors have awful oral health. But this is an example of an issue that will take much more time for policy-makers--and the American people--to absorb. There are two big reasons why adding dental benefits to Medicare as a part of the reconciliation package is a mistake. First, this would put Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services squarely in the middle of setting dental fees and administering benefits, something they have no experience doing. And it is inherently politically fraught. Just the thought of Medicare getting involved will have legions of dentists (and there are more than 200,000 of them, most in private practices that won't accept Medicaid now) howling. Second, there is a gigantic backlog of untreated dental disease in the low to moderate income Medicare population. If the design of a Medicare dental benefit was adequate to address the true need it would likely be a near bottomless money pit (and really tough to estimate today). If the benefit was too skimpy it would prompt a lot of "this is all I get?" reactions from seniors. A third reason for holding back on this is Joe Manchin's point that Medicare, with its current benefits, will be in financial trouble in the not too distant future and we need to address that, especially if we want to see Medicare For All down the road. My hope is that Democrats will pare their list down to a few really solid, progressive and popular items, run on those successes next year and expand their majorities in House and Senate.