President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

[lpetrich]

fagottini on Twitter: "Kyrsten Sinema avoiding her constituents (vid link)" / Twitter
Cute, but I call bullpoop on that. KS is athletic, yes, and she does Ironman races. But the "KS" in that video is unusually athletic, able to do pull-ups with ease. She is also dressed in a black shirt and black pants, very plain by KS standards.

Good catch!

He's obviously been watching a lot of Columbo.

Who? Me?

 

[Derec]

Back in 2010 Sep 18: Kyrsten Sinema on Twitter: "Phoenix hit 109 today. It's September 18. P.S. Climate change is real." / Twitter

Kyrsten Sinema Wants to Cut $100 Billion in Proposed Climate Funds, Sources Say - The New York Times

It really depends on what is supposed to be in the $100G. "Climate funds" is too vague. Things like expanding the charging network or urban transit rail are sensible, but I still don't know what the "civilian climate corps" are supposed to be doing. It does sound vaguely Orwellian though.

 

[Derec]

I had never heard of them before. Hmmm....

The university is pretty much only known for the polls they do, and as a polling outfit they are both well known and well respected.

 

[Derec]

Arizona is a blue state. They voted for Biden and have two D senators.

It is not. It is a purple state. It has a Republican governor (Doug Ducey) who won by 14 percentage points. Sure, both Senators are Dems, but they both won narrow victories against Martha McSally. Biden won in 2020, but barely. Before that, Republicans had been winning since Bill Clinton.
So, a purple state.

The fact that Sinema's poll ratings are dropping like a block of blue ice from an airplane due to her recent actions should tell you all you need to know.

Doing the right thing is sometimes not popular. Standing by her guns shows more character than to continuously check which way the polls are leaning.

 

[Derec]

Should be an interesting Christmas. Maybe instead of the usual fighting is stores over product, Mr. & Mrs. Walmart will be pirating container ships sitting at anchor.
It looks like a perfect storm is brewing. My economic outlook: Christmagedon.

Like so often, Frank Costanza has the solution.

RIP Jerry Stiller

 

[lpetrich]

I found where that video came from, courtesy of Nic on Twitter: "@ocelome (link)" / Twitter
noting
Taylor Momsen Escapes the Paparazzi in Nike Commercial | HYPEBEAST - datelined January 2009

The full commercial: Taylor Momsen escapes paparazzi - YouTube

 

[lpetrich]

Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "Progressives are fighting for working people, for families, and for our communities.

We’re fighting to deliver the entire Build Back Better agenda, and leave nobody behind. This is too urgent to slow down or back down now. (link)" / Twitter
noting
How Rep. Pramila Jayapal Turned The Progressive Caucus Into A Powerful Force | HuffPost Latest News

House progressives are driving a tough bargain on Capitol Hill. It took years of preparation for them to reach this moment.

Last week, something unusual happened: The Congressional Progressive Caucus won a clear, if temporary, victory against the more conservative members of the House Democratic Caucus.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) conceded to pressure from the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) on Sept. 30 when she delayed a promised vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill favored by conservative Democrats.

...
“It’s just been an amazing show of collective force,” CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the architect of progressives’ power play, told HuffPost. “I think people are really feeling the power of working as a collective and seeing the pride that comes in putting the Build Back Better bill back on the table where otherwise it would have been dead.”

Let's see if they can sustain their victory.

 

[lpetrich]

“When I came to Congress, I just felt that the CPC was more of a social club ― even though [former Rep.] Keith Ellison and [Rep.] Raúl [Grijalva] and Mark had all been working to start to change it,” Jayapal recalled.

“There just were a lot of pieces that were not there if you are going to try and have an organizing strategy on the inside,” she added. “It’s just not enough to have a couple people and say, ‘OK, we’re going to hold our position.’”

Drawing on her experience with activism, PJ decided to reform the CPC, to make it more disciplined and more cohesive.

“We were the only caucus that had two chairs, which meant we could always be played off [each other] or slowed down,” Jayapal said.

Jayapal readied a slate of reforms, including the consolidation of power in the hands of a sole chair, an increase in dues designed to boost hiring, and a new rule requiring CPC members to vote with the caucus a minimum of times.

Every member must vote with 2/3 of the CPC's members at least 2/3 of the time.

Instead of symbolic rebellions that go nowhere, "Jayapal instead set out to make sure that the CPC would choose battles it could win, both because of favorable external dynamics and a cause sympathetic enough for members to rally behind."

Like this: CPC Calls for 5 Key Priorities to Be Included in the American Jobs Plan | Press Releases | Congressional Progressive Caucus

• Strengthen the Care Economy
• Bold Investments in Affordable Housing
• Dramatically Lower Drug Prices; Use Savings to Pay for Public Health Expansion
• Bold Investments in Climate Jobs and Impacted Communities
• Roadmap for Citizenship and Inclusion for Immigrant Communities

“That’s how you build collective consensus: If people feel like they’re part of a process,” she said.

Then the strategy of voting for the $1T bipartisan bill only if the Senate passes the $3.5T reconciliation bill.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Back in 2010 Sep 18: Kyrsten Sinema on Twitter: "Phoenix hit 109 today. It's September 18. P.S. Climate change is real." / Twitter

Kyrsten Sinema Wants to Cut $100 Billion in Proposed Climate Funds, Sources Say - The New York Times

It really depends on what is supposed to be in the $100G. "Climate funds" is too vague. Things like expanding the charging network or urban transit rail are sensible, but I still don't know what the "civilian climate corps" are supposed to be doing. It does sound vaguely Orwellian though.

Modeled after FDR’s program of similar title, it would come along in fits and starts if it attempts to employ too many. This is not FDR’s America. If it is as it sounds, this is hard manual labor often in remote areas. It takes conditioning to perform this level of labor as a full time job. You can’t just take away someone’s keyboard and put a shovel in their hands and expect all will go well. They’ll be quitting in droves.
But it could be another avenue to paying for or paying off higher education.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The fact that Sinema's poll ratings are dropping like a block of blue ice from an airplane due to her recent actions should tell you all you need to know.

Doing the right thing is sometimes not popular. Standing by her guns shows more character than to continuously check which way the polls are leaning.

What are her guns? What is she shooting for? The lobbyist with the biggest check? Is this what you mean by “character”?

 

[lpetrich]

GOTTHEIMER STATEMENT ON INFRASTRUCTURE | U.S. Representative Josh Gottheimer

“They were very clear that we had the votes. They did not doubt that,” Jayapal said. “I’m not somebody who says, ‘We have the votes,’ [without meaning it].”

Despite his own penchant for playing hardball, Gottheimer was apoplectic.

“We cannot let this small faction on the far left — who employ Freedom Caucus tactics ... destroy the President’s agenda,” he fumed in a statement.

That statement: GOTTHEIMER STATEMENT ON INFRASTRUCTURE | U.S. Representative Josh Gottheimer

Jayapal passionately rejects the comparison to the right-wing faction notorious for tying House Republican leadership in knots during the first two years of Donald Trump’s presidency.

“The progressive caucus is a caucus of ‘yes’; the Freedom Caucus is a caucus of ‘no,’” said Jayapal, noting the Freedom Caucus’ refusal to acknowledge the severity of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6. “It’s just such a crazy comparison.”

 

[thebeave]

The fact that Sinema's poll ratings are dropping like a block of blue ice from an airplane due to her recent actions should tell you all you need to know.

Doing the right thing is sometimes not popular. Standing by her guns shows more character than to continuously check which way the polls are leaning.

What are her guns? What is she shooting for? The lobbyist with the biggest check? Is this what you mean by “character”?

There is something to be said for "standing by your guns". Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D) did just this back in 2001 regarding the AUMF. From her Wikipedia page:

Lee gained national attention in 2001 as the only member of congress to vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), stating that she voted no not because she opposed military action but because she believed the AUMF, as written, granted the president overly broad powers to wage war at a time when the facts regarding the situation were not yet clear. She "warned her colleagues to be 'careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target'".[20] Lee has said:

It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the September 11 events—anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk. The president has the constitutional authority to protect the nation from further attack, and he has mobilized the armed forces to do just that. The Congress should have waited for the facts to be presented and then acted with fuller knowledge of the consequences of our action.[21]

Her vote made national news and a large and extremely polarized response, with the volume of calls gridlocking the switchboard of her Capitol Hill office. Although it appears to have reflected the beliefs of the majority of her constituents, the majority of responses from elsewhere in the nation were angry and hostile, some calling her "communist" and a "traitor". Many of the responses included death threats against her or her family to the point that the Capitol Police provided round-the-clock plainclothes bodyguards.[21] Lee was also criticized by politicians and in editorial pages of conservative-leaning newspapers, e.g. John Fund's column in The Wall Street Journal.[22] In 2002, she received the Seán MacBride Peace Prize from the International Peace Bureau for her vote.

Sadly, had others done the same we might not have had the clusterfucks we had in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was pretty ballsy what she did, defying the group-think at the time, and I commend her for that.

 

[TV and credit cards]

What are her guns? What is she shooting for? The lobbyist with the biggest check? Is this what you mean by “character”?

There is something to be said for "standing by your guns". Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D) did just this back in 2001 regarding the AUMF. From her Wikipedia page:

Lee gained national attention in 2001 as the only member of congress to vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), stating that she voted no not because she opposed military action but because she believed the AUMF, as written, granted the president overly broad powers to wage war at a time when the facts regarding the situation were not yet clear. She "warned her colleagues to be 'careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target'".[20] Lee has said:

It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the September 11 events—anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk. The president has the constitutional authority to protect the nation from further attack, and he has mobilized the armed forces to do just that. The Congress should have waited for the facts to be presented and then acted with fuller knowledge of the consequences of our action.[21]

Her vote made national news and a large and extremely polarized response, with the volume of calls gridlocking the switchboard of her Capitol Hill office. Although it appears to have reflected the beliefs of the majority of her constituents, the majority of responses from elsewhere in the nation were angry and hostile, some calling her "communist" and a "traitor". Many of the responses included death threats against her or her family to the point that the Capitol Police provided round-the-clock plainclothes bodyguards.[21] Lee was also criticized by politicians and in editorial pages of conservative-leaning newspapers, e.g. John Fund's column in The Wall Street Journal.[22] In 2002, she received the Seán MacBride Peace Prize from the International Peace Bureau for her vote.

Sadly, had others done the same we might not have had the clusterfucks we had in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was pretty ballsy what she did, defying the group-think at the time, and I commend her for that.

BZ Barbara Lee.

Any take on Kyrsten Sinema's vacillations?

 

[lpetrich]

Kyrsten Sinema Wants to Cut $100 Billion in Proposed Climate Funds, Sources Say - The New York Times
then
Sinema's office denies report that she wants to cut $100B in climate spending | TheHill

On Twitter:

The New York Times on Twitter: "The $100 billion in cuts that Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona is said to want in major pending legislation could force Democrats to cut or shrink programs designed to help poor communities adapt to climate change. (link)" / Twitter
then
John LaBombard on Twitter: "Neither Senator Sinema nor our office have requested or demanded such cuts, nor have we ever heard of any such demands. Once again, the NY Times relies on anonymous sources and gets it flat wrong. Do better." / Twitter

I like this response:
Josh Leon on Twitter: "@jlabomb Instead of complaining on Twitter, maybe ask your boss to hold a press conference or even a town hall to clear up the “rumors”.
She had plenty of time to fly back to AZ to host a fundraiser with her corporate donors but can’t host a town hall? Don’t ya’ll ever get tired?" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Congresswoman Marie Newman on Twitter: "Hmmm all these items seem quite popular, proven and practical…" / Twitter
noting
Progressive Caucus on Twitter: "What's actually *in* the Build Back Better Act? ..." / Twitter

What's actually *in* the Build Back Better Act?
A

• Home-based care for seniors and people with disabilities
• Lowering prescription drug costs
• Two years free community college
• Universal child care
• Funding to transition our electric grid to clean energy
• Permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness
• Funding to repair crumbling public housing
• Expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing
• Millions of green jobs, including through a Civilian Climate Corps
• aid family and medical leave
• Extending the child tax credit to address child poverty
• Roadmap to citizenship for Dreamers, TPS holders, essential workers, and farmworkers
• Universal Pre-K
• Ending tax subsidies for Big Oil and Big Gas
• Funding for communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis

And we're going to pay for it all by finally making the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

These are the urgently needed, long-overdue investments for working families that we're fighting for.

It's time to deliver.

 

[Derec]

Congresswoman Marie Newman on Twitter: "Hmmm ������ all these items seem quite popular, proven and practical…" / Twitter

Yeah, promises of "free" money is usually popular with voters for much the same reason promises of going out for ice cream are popular with children.

Progressive Caucus on Twitter: "What's actually *in* the Build Back Better Act? ..." / Twitter

Nothing yet, as it hasn't been written yet. On the other hand, the actual infrastrcture bill is gavel ready and could be signed into law by week's end if the Fauxgressive Caucus were to drop their obstructionism.

������

An aside: why is VBulletin (?) breaking emojis when replying?

But anyway, from that list of proposed things in the not-yet-written $3.5T Spendapalooza a few things area good idea (e.g. more investment in the electric grid), some are bad ideas (making the pandemic child tax credit permanent, the ominous-sounding C³) and some are good ideas for later but not now (e.g. free community college).

And we're going to pay for it all by finally making the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

I do not think the math checks out. There are less than 3 million taxpayers making more than $400k. If half of the $3.5T price tag is to come from them and half from "evil" corporations, that is $350G/(a*2*3M) = $58k/a in additional tax burden on the rich. That will be difficult to say the least.

These are the urgently needed, long-overdue investments for working families that we're fighting for.

The Left is actually very much opposed to Manchin's idea to have a work requirement on these new or expanded entitlement spending plans. "Working families" is just a marketing term. In reality, giving people more entitlements will discourage people from working, as they get money anyway. Plus, in some states/counties paying rent is still optional.

 

[Swammerdami]

And we're going to pay for it all by finally making the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

I do not think the math checks out. There are less than 3 million taxpayers making more than $400k. If half of the $3.5T price tag is to come from them and half from "evil" corporations, that is $350G/(a*2*3M) = $58k/a in additional tax burden on the rich. That will be difficult to say the least.

These are the urgently needed, long-overdue investments for working families that we're fighting for.

It's good to note that, when speaking of the highest income brackets, the mean income is usually three (or more) times the threshold. The "< 3 million taxpayers making more than $400k" are mostly not struggling middle-class families trying to make due on a mere $400,000. Their mean income is $1.3 million or thereabouts. In 2012 (last time I Googled) the top 0.1% of households averaged almost $8 million in Adjusted Gross Income. I, for one, think such taxpayers should pay a higher rate than those struggling on just $400k.

And don't forget that all these figures from the IRS are self-reported AGI's. When one considers sheltered income, unrealized capital gains, estate inheritances, and so on, rich people's income is much greater.

A billion bucks seems like a lot of money, but even small Navy vessels cost $1 billion apiece. Do QOPAnoners whinge when these moneys are spent?

 

[lpetrich]

Yeah, promises of "free" money is usually popular with voters for much the same reason promises of going out for ice cream are popular with children.

Like how right-wingers eat up promises of protection for free.

������

An aside: why is VBulletin (?) breaking emojis when replying?

It's a bit inconsistent in how it handles them. If you're using Quick Reply, then it mangles them. But if you edit your reply in another tab, the emojis will work. Right-click or control-click on "Reply With Quote" to do that.

These are the urgently needed, long-overdue investments for working families that we're fighting for.

The Left is actually very much opposed to Manchin's idea to have a work requirement on these new or expanded entitlement spending plans. "Working families" is just a marketing term. In reality, giving people more entitlements will discourage people from working, as they get money anyway. Plus, in some states/counties paying rent is still optional.

Because a work requirement is a lot of bureaucracy that it is best to do without. If people have very transient jobs, then their eligibility is off-and-on.

There is a reason that post offices use a flat rate for anything that is not very heavy. In the 1830's, inventor Charles Babbage got involved with investigations on how to make postal service more efficient. At the time, postal rates were by distance and weight, even for the lightest bits of mail. He discovered that doing the calculations necessary to get a rate had added quite a lot to postal rates, so he proposed skipping that and having a flat rate for the lighter sorts of mail. That led to the 4-penny post in 1839 and the 1-penny post in 1840, with postage stamps as a convenient form of prepayment.

Right-wingers claim that they dislike bureaucracy. Yet they seem fond of bureaucracy here.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yeah, promises of "free" money is usually popular with voters for much the same reason promises of going out for ice cream are popular with children.

That’s why Republicans vote for candidates promising tax cuts. Even if most of the free money goes to the rich.

 

[ZiprHead]

I just learned this morning that the Trump tax cut is still costing us 200 billion per year and we didn't get squat out of it. The Biden BBB plan will put real money into the hands of the people that will spend it and improve people's lives.