Fuck This Gerontocracy Crap

This is why Schumer and pretty much all the senior citizens on the Democrats' "leadership" roster have to go.

Here's Mr Milquetoast reading another scathingly sheepish whisper into the record.

Who the fuck does he think is going to hear this?

It's a brick fight, Chuck

Throw some fuckin' bricks

Texas Dems

I hadn't heard the part that she asserts as a needed defense that Texas founders built into their Constitution.

Maybe it's a real thing, and maybe not. But at least there are some Democrats getting up on the hind legs - doing something other than sending harshly-worded letters that mean practically nothing, and never see the light of day.

The Slotkin Plan

A Rising Star

Melanie Stansbury (D - NM01) belongs in a leadership role.

Like This, Democrats

Some Ws

A few short posts:

BREAKING: Fox News host Jessica Tarlov just announced she is already hearing from college students who voted for Trump who are now regretting their vote. Trump lied his way through the campaign and Americans are now recognizing his failures. pic.twitter.com/kZwIHnjPu5

— Democratic Wins Media (@DemocraticWins) February 12, 2025

BREAKING: In a stunning moment, Fox News just acknowledged that rising prices of eggs and groceries are troubling signs for Donald Trump’s efforts to fight inflation. Trump is failing badly. pic.twitter.com/4mVPs87XpD

— Democratic Wins Media (@DemocraticWins) February 12, 2025

BREAKING: In a stunning moment, Rep. Dan Goldman just demolished Elon Musk for claiming all Democrats are corrupt when Musk has taken in billions from government contracts. Democrats are starting to fiercely push back against Musk. pic.twitter.com/BAeYkczrnY

— Democratic Wins Media (@DemocraticWins) February 11, 2025 

BREAKING: In a stunning moment, Rep. Dan Goldman just demolished Elon Musk for claiming all Democrats are corrupt when Musk has taken in billions from government contracts. Democrats are starting to fiercely push back against Musk. pic.twitter.com/BAeYkczrnY

— Democratic Wins Media (@DemocraticWins) February 11, 2025

Today's Clapback

Democrats doing the work. Looks like MAGA thinks they can heckle and disrupt their way thru - the way "The Tea Party" did in 2010 - but a well-prepared Representative can change the outcome.

That's US Rep Janna Hayes (D - CT05) stompin' that guy's ass. He brought nothing but ego, and a butt-hurt DumFux News talking point, and she did exactly what needs to be done every time. Outstanding.

The Fight

Democrats are not "doing nothing". Drop that shit from your repertoire right fucking now.

Ansari: Never in my life did I think that within one week we would see an all-out assault on USAID, on the Treasury, on the EPA, on the Department of Education, and now the agency that is literally designed to support and protect working people from fraud and abuse and predatory… pic.twitter.com/Vj6syh5ctt

— Acyn (@Acyn) February 11, 2025

Raskin: You know, I realized a rally a day keeps the fascists away. So we've got to keep meeting like this, right? pic.twitter.com/66ZrHIweOR

— Acyn (@Acyn) February 11, 2025

Rep. Jared Moskowitz says that despite being a member of DOGE caucus, Elon Musk doesn't give them DOGE findings and they have to rely on the media to get reports of the findings.

DOGE is a scam pic.twitter.com/XH255Er0C6

— Ron Smith (@Ronxyz00) February 11, 2025

All the lawsuits Colorado has filed against the Trump administration so far

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser joined a multistate suit Monday over the Trump administration’s cuts to National Institutes of Health funding

The lawsuit is the fourth that Colorado has joined against policies enacted by the Trump administration. The state has also intervened in at least three other cases.

The latest lawsuit focuses on grant funds from the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s main funder of biomedical research. Historically when awarding grants to research, the NIH has funded not just the direct cost of research but also the indirect costs that make the research possible — money needed to maintain facilities or perform administrative tasks.

The Trump administration last week announced that it would cap how much grantees receive in indirect costs. The move would save $4 billion, the administration said.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Massachusetts, argues that the decision violates federal administrative law as well as Congress’ appropriations authority.

“This illegal action cutting NIH funding — taken abruptly, recklessly, without reflecting on its painful impact, and with no justification for a dramatic change — will harm Colorado universities, undermine important research efforts, and damage our economy,” Weiser, who has announced he is running for governor in 2026, said in a statement. “Government agencies are required to act fairly and reasonably, ensuring that affected parties have notice of potentially dramatic changes and an opportunity to be heard.”

Here are all the lawsuits and other legal challenges Colorado has joined to the Trump administration.

This list is up-to-date as of Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025.

Fight over NIH funding cuts

The lawsuit: As described above, this lawsuit focuses on cuts at the National Institutes of Health to funding for the indirect costs of research. Colorado institutions received a little over $560 million in NIH funding in the last fiscal year, with much of that going to the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, with big chunks also going to the University of Colorado Boulder and Colorado State University. Weiser’s office said the proposed funding cuts would eliminate nearly $90 million in funding across the three campuses.

Date filed: Feb. 10, 2025

Other states involved: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin

Latest action: A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the funding cuts from taking effect for now.

Debate over DOGE access

The lawsuit: This case seeks to block the new Department of Government Efficiency — headed by Elon Musk — from accessing the U.S. Treasury Department’s central payment system. The system contains, among other things, personal information about many millions of Americans. The suit contends that giving “special government employees” like Musk access to the system violates federal law and policy. It was filed in New York.

Date filed: Feb. 7, 2025

Other states involved: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin

Latest action: A judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking access, though the Trump administration has since pushed back on the order.

Putting heat on the funding freeze

The lawsuit: This suit seeks to block the federal funding freeze that affected as much as $3 trillion of budget government spending. The suit argues that the freeze unconstitutionally usurped Congress’ power of the purse. Colorado U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said the freeze would have impacted “tens of billions of dollars in payments” to the state. The suit was filed in Rhode Island.

Date filed: Jan. 28, 2025

Other states involved: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia

Latest action: A judge blocked the freeze, and the Trump administration later announced that it had rescinded the order. But the plaintiff states, including Colorado, argued that federal funds were still being held up. Hickenlooper, fellow Colorado U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, and Gov. Jared Polis wrote in a letter Monday to White House budget director Russell Vought that “more than $570 million in obligated funding remains inaccessible” to Colorado agencies and organizations. A federal judge in Rhode Island issued an order Monday finding that, despite the restraining order, the Trump administration has continued “to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds.”

Pushing back against birthright citizenship ban

The lawsuit: Shortly after taking office Trump issued an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship — which grants citizenship to children born in the United States. This lawsuit challenges that order, saying it explicitly violates the U.S. Constitution. The case was filed in Massachusetts.

Date filed: Jan. 21, 2025

Other states involved: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin

Latest action: A federal judge in Boston heard arguments on the lawsuit Friday but did not issue an immediate ruling. Three other federal judges across the country have already issued rulings blocking the executive order.

Other actions

Weiser’s office moved to intervene in two ongoing cases before Trump was inaugurated for his second term. In both cases — which involve challenges to regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives — Weiser said he was concerned that the Trump administration, once in power, might abandon the defense of those regulations.In other action, Weiser’s office joined with the attorneys general in 21 other states and the District of Columbia to support a suit seeking a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration’s proposed buyout program for federal workers. A federal judge granted the restraining order request, issuing one that extends until at least next week.

A Highlight

Possibly the best line of the night.

It's Over When We Say It's Over

... and not before that.

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.

Opinion

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.

"Ideally Both"

I think I love this woman.

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?

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.

Quoting Joe Biden

... but from about 12 years ago: "This is a big fucking deal"

Don't ever let me hear you say the Dems can't get some shit done.

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

The bill includes policies lowering the prices of prescription drugs; increasing the generosity of Medicare benefits; and encouraging the development of renewable energy and reducing the impact of climate change.

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

Health care	Cost in billions
Affordable Care Act subsidies Expanded subsidies for three years	$64.1
Medicare prescription drug benefit Increased generosity through Part D redesign and a $35 cap on co-payments for insulin	$34.2

Clean electricity	Cost in billions
New tax credits for emissions-free electricity sources and storage Including wind, solar, geothermal, advanced nuclear, etc.	$62.7
Extending existing tax credits for wind and solar power	$51.1
Tax credit for existing nuclear reactors To prevent them from closing	$30.0
Extend energy credit Through 2024	$14.0
Clean energy rebates and grants for residential buildings Rebates for installing heat pumps and retrofitting homes	$9.0
Financing for energy infrastructure Updates and expands lending programs to make energy generation and transmission more efficient	$6.8
Tax credit for carbon capture and storage	$3.2

Manufacturing	Cost in billions
Clean manufacturing incentives Incentives for companies to manufacture clean energy technologies in the U.S. rather than abroad, through tax credits and the Defense Production Act	$37.4
Reduce emissions from energy-intensive industries Such as concrete production	$5.3

Individual clean energy incentives	Cost in billions
Green energy credits for individuals Extends and increases tax credits for energy-efficient properties	$36.9

Clean fuel and vehicles	Cost in billions
Tax credits for new and used electric cars Incentives for purchasing emissions-free vehicles, with income limits, and for installing alternative fueling equipment.	$14.2
Clean hydrogen production	$13.2
Fuel tax credits Creates new credits for low-carbon car and airplane fuels, and extends credits for biodiesel and other renewable fuels	$8.6
Financing for clean energy vehicles Loans and grants for the production of hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell cars	$2.9

Air pollution	Cost in billions
“Green bank” for energy investments For investments in clean energy projects, particularly in poor communities	$20.0
Other air pollution reduction Includes funding for monitoring and reducing pollution, and grants for disadvantaged neighborhoods	$14.8

Conservation, rural development and forestry	Cost in billions
Agricultural conservation Funding for agricultural practices that improve soil carbon, reduce nitrogen losses and decrease emissions	$16.7
Rural development Investments in clean energy technology in rural areas	$13.2
Forest conservation and restoration Includes funding to reduce risk of wildfires	$4.8

Transportation and infrastructure	Cost in billions
Improvements to federal buildings and highways	$5.2
Electric transmission Loans and grants to finance electricity transmission, including for offshore wind energy generation	$2.3

Other climate spending	Cost in billions
Drought resilience	$4.6
Weather and climate resilience Includes investments in coastal areas and weather forecasting resources	$4.6
Other federal research, projects and oversight Includes funding for FEMA, D.H.S. and D.O.E.	$4.2
Zero-emissions U.S.P.S. trucks	$3.0
National Park Service funding Includes funds for climate resilience and habitat preservation	$1.0
Data collection and environmental reviews	$0.8
Other	$0.7
Tribal funding Clean energy, electrification, drought relief and climate resilience for federally recognized tribes.	$0.5
Wildlife recovery and habitat climate resilience	$0.3

Savings and new revenue: $764 billion

Taxes	Revenue in billions
15% corporate minimum tax	$222.2
I.R.S. enforcement Projected net revenue raised from $80 billion in compliance and enforcement funding.	$124.1
Stock buyback tax	$73.7
Extend active loss tax limitation two years	$52.8

Health care	Revenue in billions
Repeal a regulation on prescription drug rebates This regulation has never gone into effect, so the savings are mostly just on paper	$122.2
Drug price negotiation* Medicare negotiation on prices for certain drugs	$99.0
Limits on drug price increases*	$62.3

Energy and climate	Revenue in billions
Methane reduction incentives Sets methane waste emissions thresholds and charges facilities that exceed them. (Increased revenue net of new spending.)	$4.8
Reinstatement of Superfund Increased revenue net of new spending.	$1.2
Tax to fund the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund Permanent extension	$1.2
New oil and gas leases On federal land and in the Gulf of Mexico	$0.5
Other tax adjustments	$0.3
Wind lease sales	$0.2

*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.