Possibly the best line of the night.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Aug 20, 2024
Jul 21, 2024
It's Over When We Say It's Over
... and not before that.
Opinion
Democrats need to get to a Harris nomination through a process the whole party will see as fair.
Seriously, do despondent Democrats think they can’t beat that guy who droned on for an hour and 33 minutes on Thursday and drove even ardent loyalists to weariness and exhaustion?
Donald Trump’s lack of discipline and his vaudevillian affection for his old act led him to botch the opportunity of a political lifetime. After he survived an assassination attempt, natural sympathy flowed his way from even longtime detractors. He should have done what his advisers said he’d do: tell his moving personal story and call for national unity.
But the New Trump was a momentary invention that could not survive contact with his natural instincts. Shockingly, he wasn’t even entertaining. His rant-as-acceptance speech revived every doubt and every fear about a Trump presidency with its slew of false attack lines and his penchant for self-involved victimhood.
By the time it was over, Democrats were back in business. Yet rather than seize the moment, they find themselves agonizing, waiting — and stuck. They have to stop dithering. New leases on life are not granted often.
For the more than three weeks since President Biden’s June 27 debate disaster, Democratic leaders have tried to be as gracious as they could be. Truth is, as my own reporting has found, most lawmakers who now see his effort as unsustainable were happy to support the pre-debate Biden. Despite Biden’s suspicions to the contrary, they really do appreciate him. They admire the extraordinary record he and they built together. They thought he could handle the campaign and the next four years.
The debate extinguished that faith, and it’s worth noting that holding an unusually early encounter was not the idea of anyone outside of Biden’s campaign. The debate reflected a desire to shake up the race by moving the focus to Trump. The fact that his advisers were eager for it suggested they knew the race did need to be shaken up. Unfortunately for Biden, he shook the contest in an entirely unintended way.
So OK, Democrats - do your little navel-gazing thing and then try taking a giant shit on Trump's head, instead of each other.
What bothers me most - what scares the fuck outa me right now is that Dems seem to be leaning pretty heavily on polling data to drive the decision, when everybody and his fuckin' uncle knows there's something wrong with the goddamned polling - hellloooh.
Paraphrasing:
We can always count on the Democrats to do the right thing - once they've tried everything else.
Buck up, Democrats. Don’t talk yourselves into losing to Trump.
Democrats need to get to a Harris nomination through a process the whole party will see as fair.
Seriously, do despondent Democrats think they can’t beat that guy who droned on for an hour and 33 minutes on Thursday and drove even ardent loyalists to weariness and exhaustion?
Donald Trump’s lack of discipline and his vaudevillian affection for his old act led him to botch the opportunity of a political lifetime. After he survived an assassination attempt, natural sympathy flowed his way from even longtime detractors. He should have done what his advisers said he’d do: tell his moving personal story and call for national unity.
But the New Trump was a momentary invention that could not survive contact with his natural instincts. Shockingly, he wasn’t even entertaining. His rant-as-acceptance speech revived every doubt and every fear about a Trump presidency with its slew of false attack lines and his penchant for self-involved victimhood.
By the time it was over, Democrats were back in business. Yet rather than seize the moment, they find themselves agonizing, waiting — and stuck. They have to stop dithering. New leases on life are not granted often.
For the more than three weeks since President Biden’s June 27 debate disaster, Democratic leaders have tried to be as gracious as they could be. Truth is, as my own reporting has found, most lawmakers who now see his effort as unsustainable were happy to support the pre-debate Biden. Despite Biden’s suspicions to the contrary, they really do appreciate him. They admire the extraordinary record he and they built together. They thought he could handle the campaign and the next four years.
The debate extinguished that faith, and it’s worth noting that holding an unusually early encounter was not the idea of anyone outside of Biden’s campaign. The debate reflected a desire to shake up the race by moving the focus to Trump. The fact that his advisers were eager for it suggested they knew the race did need to be shaken up. Unfortunately for Biden, he shook the contest in an entirely unintended way.
“Going into the debate, Trump was seen as the risk to the country, and that’s still true,” Peter Welch (D-VT), the first senator to call on Biden to withdraw, told me. “But coming out of the debate, many voters started seeing Biden’s health as a risk to the country.”
And for all the arguments about what the polls since the debate do or don’t show, it’s clear that Biden — who won five of the key swing states very narrowly in 2020 — is well behind where he stood at this point four years ago. No wonder so many vulnerable Democratic senators and House members are petrified and begging Biden to “pass the torch.” This instant cliché, by the way, was a carefully chosen phrase, one House member told me, aimed precisely at conveying respect. It stresses that the president’s withdrawal would not be a passive act of surrender but an active decision by a man who could burnish his legacy by moving on.
It’s possible to feel sad and empathetic toward Biden about where he now finds himself, yet also frustrated. His candidacy, once a unifying force among Democrats, now badly divides his party. His refusal to budge led two more senators and 10 more House members on Friday to call for him to withdraw. As the days pass, such statements will multiply. Those closest to Biden should avoid stoking his resentments, even if some may be understandable. Instead, they should move him toward the path that promises gratitude, admiration and respect.
Once Biden ends his candidacy, as now seems inevitable, Democrats need to settle swiftly on a new nominee — and a process to bring the party together. Being Democrats, they are split on both these questions.
Many in the party, particularly Black leaders but also other Biden loyalists, will be outraged if there is not a quick move to replace Biden with Vice President Harris. But others say that an open, democratic process is required to build confidence in the party and its ultimate choice.
They both have a point. Choosing someone other than Harris, who has already been well vetted, would invite turmoil the party can’t afford. Dumping your entire ticket three months before an election is not a good look. But Democrats need to get to a Harris nomination through a process the whole party will see as fair.
Doing so would only strengthen Harris’s candidacy. So would a strong running mate. Govs. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania are among the many good options she would have.
It’s not a matter of psychology but of politics that the president must find a way of being at peace with this outcome. None of this is about the past and the many moments when others underestimated him. None of it reflects badly on his record as president. He didn’t fail in that debate. His age failed him.
Saving his legacy of achievement requires beating Trump. The Republican nominee has shown that this outcome is well within reach. It’s not the way Biden hoped to do it, but it’s within his power to stop Trump a second time.
And for all the arguments about what the polls since the debate do or don’t show, it’s clear that Biden — who won five of the key swing states very narrowly in 2020 — is well behind where he stood at this point four years ago. No wonder so many vulnerable Democratic senators and House members are petrified and begging Biden to “pass the torch.” This instant cliché, by the way, was a carefully chosen phrase, one House member told me, aimed precisely at conveying respect. It stresses that the president’s withdrawal would not be a passive act of surrender but an active decision by a man who could burnish his legacy by moving on.
It’s possible to feel sad and empathetic toward Biden about where he now finds himself, yet also frustrated. His candidacy, once a unifying force among Democrats, now badly divides his party. His refusal to budge led two more senators and 10 more House members on Friday to call for him to withdraw. As the days pass, such statements will multiply. Those closest to Biden should avoid stoking his resentments, even if some may be understandable. Instead, they should move him toward the path that promises gratitude, admiration and respect.
Once Biden ends his candidacy, as now seems inevitable, Democrats need to settle swiftly on a new nominee — and a process to bring the party together. Being Democrats, they are split on both these questions.
Many in the party, particularly Black leaders but also other Biden loyalists, will be outraged if there is not a quick move to replace Biden with Vice President Harris. But others say that an open, democratic process is required to build confidence in the party and its ultimate choice.
They both have a point. Choosing someone other than Harris, who has already been well vetted, would invite turmoil the party can’t afford. Dumping your entire ticket three months before an election is not a good look. But Democrats need to get to a Harris nomination through a process the whole party will see as fair.
Doing so would only strengthen Harris’s candidacy. So would a strong running mate. Govs. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania are among the many good options she would have.
It’s not a matter of psychology but of politics that the president must find a way of being at peace with this outcome. None of this is about the past and the many moments when others underestimated him. None of it reflects badly on his record as president. He didn’t fail in that debate. His age failed him.
Saving his legacy of achievement requires beating Trump. The Republican nominee has shown that this outcome is well within reach. It’s not the way Biden hoped to do it, but it’s within his power to stop Trump a second time.
Jul 18, 2024
Cut The Crap
... and speak the truth.
Why am I being expected simply to go along with whatever the fuck the party elites tell me?
I reckon I'm still going to vote for Democrats - BLUE NO MATTER WHO and all that - but it's not a sure thing unless I'm satisfied that they're telling me what's actually going on here.
Because feeling like I'm stuck - that I have to vote their way - and that they're sittin' there all smug and shit, having maneuvered in a way that hems me in. That's about the the shittiest thing anybody can do. And if that's the case, I'm going to resent that for a right long time - and I'm really good at nursing a grudge.
So:
Why is my vote for Biden & Harris in the primary being dismissed and discarded?
What is it about Biden's work as POTUS that you don't like?
How is this not rerunning the kinda shit that cost Hillary the election in 2016?
Is anybody ever going to stand up and tell me the fucking truth?
Mar 3, 2023
Democrats Bring It
I've backed off my criticism of the Dems in recent years, and I think Jamie Raskin (D-MD08) puts my reasoning into words in pretty good shape (at about 5:50, 8:01, and especially 20:53).
"We are the democracy". We're the party in favor of getting everybody out to vote. We're the party of freedom - the freedoms of self-determination - choice and opportunity - as well as FDR's four freedoms. We're the party that wants everybody to have a real shot at making their lives what they they need their lives to be.
Aug 13, 2022
Quoting Joe Biden
... but from about 12 years ago: "This is a big fucking deal"
It would also raise taxes on some corporations and bolster the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on wealthy tax evaders. It would lower the federal deficit, though modestly.
The bill includes last-minute changes requested by Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat of Arizona, the final holdout among her party’s 50 senators. Democratic leaders agreed to remove a tax on some wealthy hedge fund managers and private equity executives, and to include $4 billion in drought funding for her state.
But if the current bill includes a lot — in spending, new taxes and policies — it also omits a lot of the Democrats’ original ambitions. Missing is an entire set of family policies that were in a bill passed by the House last year, like a generous child tax credit and paid family leave.
Certain health policies, such as an expansion of Medicaid to give more low-income adults health insurance, have been removed to pare down the bill’s cost. And though the climate policies are the most expansive passed by any Congress, they are more modest than those included in earlier versions of the legislation.
The current bill includes clean electricity incentives that are comparable in size to those in a version passed by the House last year. But it scales back spending in almost every other category, from transportation to climate resilience. Some proposed investments from earlier versions — like those for lead remediation, work force development such as a Civilian Climate Corps, and electric bicycle tax credits — did not make it into the new text. The one major exception is manufacturing: Compared with previous versions of the bill, this legislation marks a significant increase in grants, loans and tax credits to manufacture clean energy technology domestically.
But it also pairs new climate spending with several major concessions to the fossil fuel industry at the request of Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, whose support was necessary to advance the bill.
Here’s how the legislation compares with the much larger social safety net and climate bill passed by the House in November, often referred to as Build Back Better.
The Inflation Reduction Act is projected to reduce deficits by roughly $275 billion over 10 years, while the Build Back Better plan passed by the House would have added about $160 billion to deficits.
Democrats have said the new bill’s deficit reduction, as well as the provisions aimed at lowering energy and prescription drug costs, will help address the rapid inflation over the past year. Many economists, including supporters of the bill, have said that while it may reduce price pressures, the overall effect is likely to be modest, and over the long term.
The promise of taming inflation helped bring Mr. Manchin on board, who cited concerns about rising prices when he pulled his support from the bill passed by the House last year.
In a statement last month after an agreement on a new bill had been made with Democratic leadership, Mr. Manchin announced, “Build Back Better is dead, and instead we have the opportunity to make our country stronger by bringing Americans together.”
Don't ever let me hear you say the Dems can't get some shit done.
Democrats in Congress have had to scale back their legislative ambitions since last year, but the Inflation Reduction Act, passed by the House on Friday and sent to President Joseph R. Biden Jr. for his signature, is still a substantial piece of legislation, which will make big investments in the environment and health care, and increase taxes on some key groups.
NYT: (pay wall)
Democrats in Congress have had to scale back their legislative ambitions since last year, but the Inflation Reduction Act, passed by the House on Friday and sent to President Joseph R. Biden Jr. for his signature, is still a substantial piece of legislation, which will make big investments in the environment and health care, and increase taxes on some key groups.
Spending & Tax Cuts: $490 billion
Savings & New Revenue: $764 billion
- Medicare prescription drug benefit $34.2 million
- Affordable Care Act subsidies $64.1 billion
- Wind and solar tax credits $51.1 million
- Nuclear energy credit $30 million
- Indiv. green energy credits $36.9 million
- Clean manufacturing $37.4 million
- Clean electricity credits $62.7 million
- Agricultural conservation $16.7 million
- “Green bank” $20 million
- 15% corporate minimum tax $222.2 million
- I.R.S. enforcement $124.1 million
- Repeal regulation on drug rebates $122.2 million
- Drug price negotiation* $99 million
- Stock buyback tax $73.7 million
- Limits on drug price increases* $62.3 million
- Extend active loss tax limitation $52.8 million
- Medicare prescription drug benefit $34.2 million
- Affordable Care Act subsidies $64.1 billion
- Wind and solar tax credits $51.1 billion
- Nuclear energy credit $30 million
- Indiv. green energy credits $36.9million
- Clean manufacturing $37.4million
- Clean electricity credits $62.7million
- Agricultural conservation $16.7million
- “Green bank” $20million
- 15% corporate minimum tax $222.2 billion
- I.R.S. enforcement $124.1 million
- Repeal regulation on drug rebates $122.2million
- Drug price negotiation* $99million
- Stock buyback tax $73.7 million
- Limits on drug price increases* $62.3million
- Extend active loss tax limitation $52.8 million
It would also raise taxes on some corporations and bolster the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on wealthy tax evaders. It would lower the federal deficit, though modestly.
The bill includes last-minute changes requested by Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat of Arizona, the final holdout among her party’s 50 senators. Democratic leaders agreed to remove a tax on some wealthy hedge fund managers and private equity executives, and to include $4 billion in drought funding for her state.
What’s in the Inflation Reduction Act
Figures are in billions and over 10 years.
Spending and tax cuts: $490 billion
Savings and new revenue: $764 billion
*These are rough estimates because of changes to the drug price provisions in the bill after cost and savings estimates were released. Savings from the drug price negotiation policy may end up being lower, and the savings from limits on drug price increases are unofficial estimates based on an analysis by Don Schneider, a former chief economist of the House Ways and Means Committee.
But if the current bill includes a lot — in spending, new taxes and policies — it also omits a lot of the Democrats’ original ambitions. Missing is an entire set of family policies that were in a bill passed by the House last year, like a generous child tax credit and paid family leave.
Certain health policies, such as an expansion of Medicaid to give more low-income adults health insurance, have been removed to pare down the bill’s cost. And though the climate policies are the most expansive passed by any Congress, they are more modest than those included in earlier versions of the legislation.
The current bill includes clean electricity incentives that are comparable in size to those in a version passed by the House last year. But it scales back spending in almost every other category, from transportation to climate resilience. Some proposed investments from earlier versions — like those for lead remediation, work force development such as a Civilian Climate Corps, and electric bicycle tax credits — did not make it into the new text. The one major exception is manufacturing: Compared with previous versions of the bill, this legislation marks a significant increase in grants, loans and tax credits to manufacture clean energy technology domestically.
But it also pairs new climate spending with several major concessions to the fossil fuel industry at the request of Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, whose support was necessary to advance the bill.
Here’s how the legislation compares with the much larger social safety net and climate bill passed by the House in November, often referred to as Build Back Better.
How the Bill Compares With Build Back Better
Figures are in billions and over 10 years
| Energy and climate | ||
|---|---|---|
| Tax credits and new spending | $392 | $570 |
| Health care | ||
|---|---|---|
| Home health care through Medicaid | — | $150 |
| Expanded subsidies for Affordable Care Act health insurance | $64 | $130 |
| New Medicare hearing benefit | — | $35 |
| Increased generosity in Medicare's prescription drug benefit | $34 | — |
| Health care work force spending | — | $25 |
| Family benefits | ||
|---|---|---|
| New child care program (6 years) | — | $270 |
| Four weeks of annual federal paid family and medical leave | — | $205 |
| Universal preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds (6 years) | — | $110 |
| Individual tax cuts | ||
|---|---|---|
| Child tax credit increase for one year; fully refundable after 2022 | — | $190 |
| Expanded earned-income tax credit extended for one year | — | $15 |
| Other tax changes | — | $10 |
| Other | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build and support affordable housing | — | $175 |
| Immigration reform | — | $110 |
| Other spending | — | $115 |
| Higher education and work force | — | $40 |
| Total | $490 billion | $2.15 trillion |
|---|
| Health care | ||
|---|---|---|
| Negotiation of certain drug prices and limit price increases* | $162 | $160 |
| Repeal a regulation on prescription drug rebates | $122 | $145 |
| Adjustments to uncompensated care pools | — | $20 |
| Corporate taxes | ||
|---|---|---|
| 15% corporate minimum tax | $222 | $320 |
| Stock buyback tax | $74 | $125 |
| 15 percent global minimum tax and international taxation reforms | — | $280 |
| Other | — | $105 |
| Individual taxes | ||
|---|---|---|
| Expand the net investment income tax | — | $250 |
| Surtax on income above $10 million | — | $230 |
| Extension of limits on excess losses of noncorporate taxpayers | $53 | $160 |
| Increase state and local tax deduction cap through 2025 | — | $15 |
| Other revenue | ||
|---|---|---|
| I.R.S. enforcement | $124 | $130 |
| Methane fee, Superfund fee and other revenue | $18 | $50 |
| Total | $775 billion | $2 trillion |
|---|
*The figure for the Inflation Reduction Act is a rough estimate because of changes to the drug price provisions in the bill after cost and savings estimates were released. Savings from the drug price negotiation policy may end up being lower, and the savings from limits on drug price increases are unofficial estimates based on an analysis by Don Schneider, a former chief economist of the House Ways and Means Committee.
The Inflation Reduction Act is projected to reduce deficits by roughly $275 billion over 10 years, while the Build Back Better plan passed by the House would have added about $160 billion to deficits.
Democrats have said the new bill’s deficit reduction, as well as the provisions aimed at lowering energy and prescription drug costs, will help address the rapid inflation over the past year. Many economists, including supporters of the bill, have said that while it may reduce price pressures, the overall effect is likely to be modest, and over the long term.
The promise of taming inflation helped bring Mr. Manchin on board, who cited concerns about rising prices when he pulled his support from the bill passed by the House last year.
In a statement last month after an agreement on a new bill had been made with Democratic leadership, Mr. Manchin announced, “Build Back Better is dead, and instead we have the opportunity to make our country stronger by bringing Americans together.”
The fact that we had to carve off an awful lot of meat that could help an awful lot of people should tell us we have to send more Dems to Washington to help Biden & Co get the rest of what we need.
If we do that, we could be flyin' this time next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)