Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[lpetrich]

December 2021:
AOC Says She Doesn't Own Bitcoin to Do Her Job 'Ethically' - AOC doesn't think members of Congress should be able to hold or trade digital assets given the nonpublic information they have.

Jeff Stein on Twitter: "“Because we have access to sensitive information and upcoming policy, I do not believe members of Congress should hold/trade individual stock and I choose not to hold any so I can remain impartial about policy marking,” AOC said (link)" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "It is absolutely ludicrous that members of Congress can hold and trade individual stock while in office.
The access and influence we have should be exercised for the public interest, not our profit. It shouldn’t be legal for us to trade individual stock with the info we have." / Twitter

She does not accept corporate lobbyists' money, so that is in character with her. She supports proposals to outlaw Congresspeople trading stocks, though owning mutual funds would be OK.


Ron Filipkowski on Twitter: "The Boebert family. (pic link)" / Twitter
Showing Lauren Boebert with four boys, each with rifles.
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Tell me again where Christ said “use the commemoration of my birth to flex violent weapons for personal political gain”?
lol @ all the years Republicans spent on cultural hysteria of society “erasing Christmas and it’s meaning” when they’re doing that fine all on their own" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "When you pose in front of a Christmas Tree and can name all those guns but can’t name the gifts of the Wise Men " / Twitter

That's in character with what a gun nut she is.

 

[lpetrich]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: ".@USGAO has the authority to conduct oversight of all federal agencies. However, most U.S. intelligence agencies don't fully cooperate.
Today, we introduced an amendment to put that to an end. GAO should be able to fulfill its mission of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. (vid link)" / Twitter

Several dozen Democrats took down an amendment from AOC asserting a federal watchdog may investigate the intelligence community.

What AOC said: The New York Democrat said she crafted her amendment "in partnership" with the intelligence community and that it enjoyed the support of Intelligence Chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). But her fellow Democrats joined with Republicans to still take it down.

noting a document with her amendment:
untitled - OCASNY_097_xml211206120705149.pdf

Anthony Adragna on Twitter: "Several dozen Democrats joined with House GOP to take down an amendment from @AOC asserting a federal watchdog may investigate the intelligence community. (link)" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Reason #235 why “Bipartisanship” in & of itself is not a virtue: Handful of Dems joined w/ Republicans to block intelligence agencies from widely agreed upon oversight standards
They did this even though intel communities themselves asked us for this after the Trump admin!" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Bloomberg on Twitter: "Amazon is pausing ..." / Twitter

Amazon is pausing construction on its second headquarters near Washington, a decision that coincides with its deepest ever job cuts

Amazon’s real estate chief said the company remains committed to Arlington, Virginia, where by 2030 Amazon has committed to spend $2.5 billion and hire some 25,000 workers

The construction moratorium will delay the online retailer’s full arrival at its biggest real estate project.

It could create headaches for local developers, as well as construction and service workers banking on Amazon’s rapid expansion

Amazon HQ2 Pauses Construction Amid Layoffs, Remote Work - Bloomberg

• Delay affects three office towers, ‘Helix’ conference center
• Move coincides with biggest job cuts ever, remote work reality

AOC was attacked quite a lot for her opposing Amazon's proposed HQ2 project in Long Island City, NYC, NY, even though it was local activists who did the work of stopping the project.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "When I opposed ..." / Twitter

When I opposed this Amazon project coming to New York bc it was a scam of public funds, the whole power establishment came after us.

Billboards went up in Times Sq denouncing me. Powerful pols promised revenge. Op-Eds & CEOs insulted my intelligence.

In the end, we were right.

I know I’ll never get an apology for that time, but it was worth it.

We protected NYers from a scam deal to drain public dollars from schools & infrastructure in exchange for empty promises of “Amazon jobs” w/ 0 guarantees or guardrails. Sadly, cities who took it are suffering.

 

[lpetrich]

From Dec 2021,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "There is no reason ..." / Twitter

There is no reason members of Congress should hold and trade individual stock when we write major policy and have access to sensitive information.

There are many ways members can invest w/o creating actual or appeared conflict of interest,like thrift savings plans or index funds

What’s worse is that many who engage in these practices publicly tout not approving cost of living or MRA increases in the leg branch as a way of claiming “fiscal responsibility,” yet compensate by engaging in this highly questionable trading. It incentivizes this bad behavior

Ppl rag on Congress’ salary &it’s easy to score political points on it, but many don’t know it requires paying 2 rents, can’t deduct work costs, etc

Result is grand gestures to tout that they/staff aren’t getting COLA adjustments, but then trading stock to make up for it -worse!

She said in early 2019 that Congresspeople could try to get a raise, but that was a nonstarter. As long as Congresspeople don't deliver very much for ordinary people as opposed to delivering for their big donors, they won't get a lot of sympathy.

There are alternatives, like housing allowances and "Congress dormitories".

 

[lpetrich]

Late in 2021, Let's Talk About that Infrastructure Vote: Instagram Live | Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - YouTube

H.R.3684 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
She voted with most or all Democrats on amendments to the bill, but in the vinal vote, she voted against this bill, along with five fellow Democrats, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Jamaal Bowman, and Cori Bush. All the other 216 D's voted for it. The Republicans' vote was mostly against it: 13-200.

AOC says that Joe Biden was not her first choice, but that him in the White House was better than a quasi-fascist like Donald Trump. She also does not like simple categories like "moderate" and "progressive", because people's policy positions and voting records can be very mixed.

Then about splitting the physical infrastructure from Build Back Better, because it's something that Republicans might more readily support. She would have been willing to vote for both bills if the Senate voted for both of them.

She said about a Democratic Caucus meeting that one goes into such a meeting without one's cellphone and without one's staffers. One is all alone.

She says that she has refused to meet with any corporate lobbyists. She says that the CEO's of the biggest banks in the world have asked for meetings with her, before Congressional actions involving those banks, like votes and hearings, and she says that she says "no" every time.

I think that that is very revealing about her and her politics. It makes me very happy to see her in public office, someone who refuses to be bought.

 

[lpetrich]

She says that she makes her decisions with input from her community.

She says about her and her squadmates' votes against the bipartisan infrastructure bill that she forced Republicans to vote for it just to get it passed. Thirteen of them did so. She also said that many Congresspeople have a lot of stake in much of the BBB, so they are not likely to give up. As to why a lot of stuff was cut out of BBB, she notes that certain Democrats became concerned about Congressional Budget Office scores all of a sudden, seemingly out of nowhere. Seems like obstructionism to me.

She says that for her district, the issue that gets her district offices the most calls, the issue that gets the most district-office case work, is immigration. Including stopping deportations.

Then talking about how the Senate seems unwilling to challenge its parliamentarian.

She doesn't believe in the "Great Man" theory of history, instead believing that social change comes about from broader societal changes, and that what one should do is help make such changes.

She then notes that some people are willing to turn against a politician because of only one vote, and that she is not like that.

She said that not passing BBB would mean big trouble for the Democratic Party, by alienating the party's base. She also noted that in Virginia in 2021, the youth vote totally collapsed, letting Glenn Youngkin beat Terry McAuliffe, despite TMA campaigning as a dull but supposedly electable centrist. She said that one should not blame Democratic voters for not turning out for a candidate who does not seem to want to do anything for them.

 

[thebeave]

Late in 2021, Let's Talk About that Infrastructure Vote: Instagram Live | Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - YouTube

H.R.3684 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
She voted with most or all Democrats on amendments to the bill, but in the vinal vote, she voted against this bill, along with five fellow Democrats, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Jamaal Bowman, and Cori Bush. All the other 216 D's voted for it. The Republicans' vote was mostly against it: 13-200.

AOC says that Joe Biden was not her first choice, but that him in the White House was better than a quasi-fascist like Donald Trump. She also does not like simple categories like "moderate" and "progressive", because people's policy positions and voting records can be very mixed.

Then about splitting the physical infrastructure from Build Back Better, because it's something that Republicans might more readily support. She would have been willing to vote for both bills if the Senate voted for both of them.

She said about a Democratic Caucus meeting that one goes into such a meeting without one's cellphone and without one's staffers. One is all alone.

She says that she has refused to meet with any corporate lobbyists. She says that the CEO's of the biggest banks in the world have asked for meetings with her, before Congressional actions involving those banks, like votes and hearings, and she says that she says "no" every time.

I think that that is very revealing about her and her politics. It makes me very happy to see her in public office, someone who refuses to be bought.

She's also someone who refuses to pay.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

pay wall. what does it say?

 

[Swammerdami]

pay wall. what does it say?

A few paragraphs in the middle of the article give the gist.

Ethics rules prevent members of Congress from accepting gifts such as “a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value.”
They are permitted to attend charity events, but only if invited by the organization hosting the event. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and her partner, Riley Roberts, were originally invited to the $35,000-per-ticket event as guests of Vogue, and not by the Metropolitan Museum of Art itself, the review found. But because Vogue, and its longtime editorial director, Anna Wintour, are deeply involved in organizing the event, the investigators found the invitation permissible.

“The committee notes that the mere fact of conducting further review of a referral, and any mandatory disclosure of such further review, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred,” the Ethics Committee’s bipartisan leadership wrote in a statement.
David Mitrani, counsel for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, responded that the Office for Congressional Ethics had not found an ethics violation, only delays in paying vendors for the costs.

“The congresswoman finds these delays unacceptable, and she has taken several steps to ensure nothing of this nature will ever happen again,” he wrote in a letter to the committee. “However, while regrettable, this matter definitively does not rise to the level of a violation of House Rules or of federal law.”
He added: “There is no evidence that she ever intended to avoid these expenses.”
After the September gala, several vendors, including those who did Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s hair and makeup, tried repeatedly to follow up with her staff for payment. However, the congresswoman said in testimony that she did not know about the delays and that she always intended to pay.
Condé Nast staffers helped arrange for the congresswoman to have her hair done by a stylist, which led to a $478 bill, and a makeup bill for $345, according to congressional ethics investigators. The custom dress, shoes, handbag and jewelry were provided as rentals from the designer, Aurora James, and initially led to a bill for about $2,300, but that was revised later to about $990.
Aurora James, and her company, Brother Vellies, identified $5,580 in additional unpaid goods and services when Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s lawyer reached out to them after being contacted by congressional investigators. That included transportation to and from the gala, the congresswoman’s share of room charges at the Carlyle, and about $400 for shoes and a bow tie for Mr. Roberts. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez then paid this bill.

Small potatoes perhaps, compared with the billions given to Kushner by the Saudis, or the millions of Russian Mob financing for his father-in-law. But the Hate Machine has to get its stories where it can.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Alexandria Occasional-Cortex was not merely pluckt from the crowd & thrust into her present rôle. No ; she was required to undergo rigorous rehearsals & audition for her position.

Yet, despite her efforts, she remains a mere player in the grand theatrical production orchestrated by the banks, a performer without true agency or influence.

Her purpose is to offer you the illusion of victory, or defeat, as the situation dictates ; but I hold her in no esteem ; for she is but a pawn in a larger game.

Truly, she is of no significance whatever.​

 

[Elixir]

Alexandria Occasional-Cortex was not merely pluckt from the crowd & thrust into her present rôle. No ; she was required to undergo rigorous rehearsals & audition for her position.

Yet, despite her efforts, she remains a mere player in the grand theatrical production orchestrated by the banks, a performer without true agency or influence.

Her purpose is to offer you the illusion of victory, or defeat, as the situation dictates ; but I hold her in no esteem ; for she is but a pawn in a larger game.

Truly, she is of no significance whatever.​

And this somehow differentiates her from anyone else in the House?
Under McCarthy's absent leadership, nobody has a more exalted role.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Oh, it does not differentiate her from anyone else. Exactly my point.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think being for progressive taxation is a policy differentiator. The purpose of attending the charity was charity and the while the dress was theatrical--no doubt--it accentuates the policy difference. She is making QOP so angry they are slapping her with red tape. I do think eventually she will become corrupted by money if she stays on as a Rep years from now, but for now, she is different.

 

[Derec]

She also said that many Congresspeople have a lot of stake in much of the BBB, so they are not likely to give up.

Impossible to pass Spendapalooza now, since Rs control the House. And a good thing too. $3.5T B³ would have driven inflation even higher, necessitating even more interest rate hikes by Powell et al.

As to why a lot of stuff was cut out of BBB, she notes that certain Democrats became concerned about Congressional Budget Office scores all of a sudden, seemingly out of nowhere. Seems like obstructionism to me.

What do you mean "seemingly out of nowhere"? And congresscritters should be concerned about CBO scores. That's what they are for, to tell congresscritters how much legislation they are supposed to to vote for or against would cost. It is not obstructionism to vote against a bill you think will do more harm than good. I think Manchin and Sinema should be given medals for stopping B³.

She says that for her district, the issue that gets her district offices the most calls, the issue that gets the most district-office case work, is immigration. Including stopping deportations.

Illegals should be deported. Especially, but not limited to, those who have committed crimes.
You cannot have a functional country where anybody can just come in illegally or based on bogus claims of "asylum" and get to stay indefinitely without getting deported.

Then talking about how the Senate seems unwilling to challenge its parliamentarian.

Parliamentarian is there to adjudicate based on Senate rules. The parliamentarian should not be overridden just because certain Senators do not like the ruling.

She doesn't believe in the "Great Man" theory of history, instead believing that social change comes about from broader societal changes, and that what one should do is help make such changes.

False dichotomy. "Trends and forces" play a role for sure, but so do actions of individuals, especially those who can make significant decisions like leaders of countries and flag officers. You remove any of the great players from WWII - Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo - and replace them with somebody else, and WWII would have unfolded very differently.

Or take the 2000 and 2016 elections. A few hundred voters in Fl determined the outcome of the former, a few thousand votes in a few states determined the outcome of the latter. That's noise as far as "trends and forces" are concerned. And yet Gore instead of W Bush, and Hillary instead of Trump, would have led the country very differently. Individuals matter, no matter how much collectivist socialists want to discount them.

She said that not passing BBB would mean big trouble for the Democratic Party, by alienating the party's base.

Passing it would have meant even more trouble, due to higher inflation and necessity of higher interest rates by Fed. Forget "soft landing", when inflation is approaching 15% because you are foolishly pumping another $350G per year into an already severely overstimulated economy!

She also noted that in Virginia in 2021, the youth vote totally collapsed, letting Glenn Youngkin beat Terry McAuliffe, despite TMA campaigning as a dull but supposedly electable centrist. She said that one should not blame Democratic voters for not turning out for a candidate who does not seem to want to do anything for them.

TMcA did not want to do "anything" for the voters? Or was it that he wasn't "progressive" enough for AOC?
A more progressive candidate may have turned out the base more, but he would have turned off the independents though.

 

[lpetrich]

She also said that many Congresspeople have a lot of stake in much of the BBB, so they are not likely to give up.

Impossible to pass Spendapalooza now, since Rs control the House. And a good thing too. $3.5T B³ would have driven inflation even higher, necessitating even more interest rate hikes by Powell et al.

Conveniently ignoring corporate price gouging and stock buybacks.

I think Manchin and Sinema should be given medals for stopping B³.

It figures. I'm sure that their donors are proud of them for doing that.

She says that for her district, the issue that gets her district offices the most calls, the issue that gets the most district-office case work, is immigration. Including stopping deportations.

Illegals should be deported. Especially, but not limited to, those who have committed crimes.
You cannot have a functional country where anybody can just come in illegally or based on bogus claims of "asylum" and get to stay indefinitely without getting deported.

More like navigating the convoluted immigration bureaucracy.

Then talking about how the Senate seems unwilling to challenge its parliamentarian.

Parliamentarian is there to adjudicate based on Senate rules. The parliamentarian should not be overridden just because certain Senators do not like the ruling.

There's nothing that says that Congresspeople have to be bound by their parliamentarians. Back in 2001, Republican Senators fired their parliamentarian for not supporting their positions.

 

[lpetrich]

She doesn't believe in the "Great Man" theory of history, instead believing that social change comes about from broader societal changes, and that what one should do is help make such changes.

False dichotomy. "Trends and forces" play a role for sure, but so do actions of individuals, especially those who can make significant decisions like leaders of countries and flag officers. You remove any of the great players from WWII - Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo - and replace them with somebody else, and WWII would have unfolded very differently.

I concede that that is very definitely the case for Adolf Hitler. I say that because he did some very unusual sorts of decisions, like trying to conquer the Soviet Union.

Toward the end of the war, as the Soviet Army was closing in from the east, and US, British, and French armies from the west, he ordered fighting to the bitter end, without making a separate peace with either side. Some of his underlings talked about making a separate peace with either the Western Allies or the Soviets, but he refused to consider such a thing. He even ordered destroying Germany's industrial and infrastructure facilities, his  Nero Decree but his henchman Albert Speer refused to go along with it.

On the other side, Hideki Tojo was not very out of the ordinary in imperialist-era Japan. That nation was on the march since 1931, when it conquered Manchuria (NE China), and moved on from there to other places on the Chinese coastline, and then into Southeast Asia and the Pacific islands. Likewise, I doubt that FDR was very unusual in the US.

Returning to the main issue, I think that while AOC's position is overstated, I do think that there is a lot of truth to it. Turning to  Cyclical theory (United States history) most of the Schlesinger liberal periods had populist activist movements in them. The only one without much of such populism that I know of is the Jefferson Era.

The American Revolutionary War had a populist component, with Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" pamphlets being widely distributed.

The Jackson Era's populism included shutting down a major bank (the  Bank War) and rejection of credentials for civil-service positions, substituting cronyism, sad to say (the  Spoils system). Andrew Jackson himself was called "King Mob" by his detractors, and he invited some of his followers for a big inauguration party at the White House.

Antislavery activism had been around for decades before the Jackson Era, and antislavery activists became more active around then. Some female ones discovered that some male ones were grossly sexist, not allowing them into any important or leading positions, and they became early feminists.

They did not give up as the Jackson Era faded into an era of slaveowner dominance. As a result, many Northerners considered the "Slave Power" or "slaveocracy" to have a disproportionate influence on US politics. In the 1850's, both anti-slavery and pro-slavery activists moved into Kansas and sometimes physically fought each other ("Bleeding Kansas").

This led to the Civil War, and after it, some activists turned to helping now-free Southern black people in Reconstruction. But the US suffered from activism burnout, and white supremacists did "Redemption", a counterrevolution against Reconstruction.

More recently, the Progressive Era, the New Deal Era, and the Sixties Era had plenty of activists and activist movements in them.

 

[lpetrich]

She also noted that in Virginia in 2021, the youth vote totally collapsed, letting Glenn Youngkin beat Terry McAuliffe, despite TMA campaigning as a dull but supposedly electable centrist. She said that one should not blame Democratic voters for not turning out for a candidate who does not seem to want to do anything for them.

TMcA did not want to do "anything" for the voters? Or was it that he wasn't "progressive" enough for AOC?
A more progressive candidate may have turned out the base more, but he would have turned off the independents though.

How would such a candidate have done so?

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "It is actually delusional ..." / Twitter

It is actually delusional to believe Dems can get re-elected without acting on filibuster or student debt, Biden breaking his BBB promise, letting CTC lapse, 0 path to citizenship, etc

Esp when they run from convos abt race+culture (which is what 1/6 was abt)

We need to act now

People want to “but Manchin” everyone to death, but learned helplessness is not a disposition that inspires confidence or support.

The President has tools at his disposal. Leadership has tools at their disposal. If it really is just 1-2 votes, Senate should force a vote on BBB

To secure votes for the Bipar Infra Bill, Biden *himself* came to House Progressives & told us was putting his credibility on the line to deliver BBB if CPC voted BIF.

They trusted him. I didn’t think he could promise the Senate. He promised anyway. It’s time for him to deliver.

I agree. The Democrats risked the sort of rout that they got in 1994 and 2010, from Presidents who did not deliver on their big promises. As it turned out, the Republicans rescued the Democrats by appealing to the nastiest parts of their base, like opponents of abortion. It also helped that they ran nincompoops like Herschel Walker.

Then
Eric Michael Garcia on Twitter: "On one hand, this was exactly what progressives feared would happen if the bipartisan bill passed. On the other, it's pretty hard to convince the Senate to force a vote and then see Manchin effectively kill their legislation, to say nothing about Sinema." / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Leadership forces votes all the time.
Bc they know ppl talkabt what they’ll support until it’s vote time
The pressure of voting no+ folks@home seeing IS overwhelming. They even force unnecessary standalone votes like the extra Iron Dome $,which actually belongs in Defense $" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Occasional-Cortex was not merely pluckt from the crowd & thrust into her present rôle. No ; she was required to undergo rigorous rehearsals & audition for her position.

What do you consider "rigorous rehearsals & audition"?

Yes, she was recruited by Brand New Congress, on the recommendation of her brother, but she is not the puppet of BNC or George Soros or whomever.

Yet, despite her efforts, she remains a mere player in the grand theatrical production orchestrated by the banks, a performer without true agency or influence.
...

What a conspiracy theory. On that sort of subject, AOC once described how some CEO's of big banks would want to meet with her about upcoming Congressional actions. She refused. She doesn't seem like some faithful servant of big banks, someone like (say) Kyrsten Sinema.

• Wall Street donates to Krysten Sinema as Ruben Gallego challenges - Fri, Feb 3 202311:20 AM EST - "Sen. Kyrsten Sinema pulls in cash from Wall Street, real estate titans as she mulls reelection bid"
• Before Her Party Switch, Sinema Was Flooded With Donations From Wall Street, Private Equity - December 9 2022 - "Much of her fundraising last quarter came from donors who benefited from her work to kill higher taxes on the rich."
• Kyrsten Sinema’s donations from investors surged to nearly $1 million in the year before she killed a huge new tax on private equity and hedge funds | Fortune - August 13, 2022 at 7:03 AM PDT
• Sinema rakes in Pharma and finance cash amid reconciliation negotiations - POLITICO - 10/15/2021 09:29 PM EDT - "The senator raised more than $1.1 million in the third quarter. About 90 percent of it came from outside her home state."

Early KS would say that present KS is shamelessly taking bribes.

 

[lpetrich]

After stringing us along for half the year, he says this.
Burgess Everett on Twitter: "!!!!!!!!!!!! Manchin says he's done with BBB and it's over
"I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation"
"I can't get there"" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "When a handful of us in the House ..." / Twitter

When a handful of us in the House warned this would happen if Dem leaders gave Manchin everything he wanted 1st by moving BIF before BBB instead of passing together, many ridiculed our position.

Maybe they’ll believe us next time. Or maybe people will just keep calling us naïve.

Either way, we cannot accept no for an answer. Dem leadership - incl but not limited to the President himself and House Dem leadership - wrote a massive check on their credibility the night of the BIF vote in order to secure the votes they needed, *promising* passage of BBB…

To every member who brought up Manchin, they personally promised they had a solution & BBB would pass.

It is simply not an option for Dem leaders to walk from BBB, voting rights, etc. They must find a way, just as they promised they would when we raised this inevitability

Some of us don’t have the luxury of giving up. We serve working, middle class, & poor people. We serve everyday workers getting ripped off & immigrants & Black communities & queer kids needing shelter. We will not walk away from them. And leadership can’t walk from them either.

People can be mad at Manchin all they want, but we knew he would do this months ago.

Where we need answers from are the leaders who promised a path on BBB if BIF passed: Biden & Dem leaders. *They* chose to move BIF alone instead of w/ BBB, not Manchin.

So they need to fix it.

We, as always, are here to fight for this agenda. What matters most to us is that it gets done. But we cannot just shrug our shoulders and accept this as some Charlie Brown moment.

Our entire democracy is on the line. So we need to get back in there & get this sh*t done. Period

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "What makes the choice ..." / Twitter

What makes the choice to push even more harmful (potentially) is that if BBB gets pushed to next year, it raises the question if that decision effectively erases 1 of Biden’s 4 chances to pass major legislation before the midterms barring action on filibuster -

If we only get 2 recon bills per year, and BBB was supposed to be the 2nd recon of 2021, does pushing “roll it over” or does the Senate clock restart in 22, BBB is erased as the 2nd 2021 bill, & Dems now only have 2 swings left instead of 3? Likely the latter but not confirmed

That’s also why passing this before the new year was/is so important - delaying could cost us a major item in the President’s agenda next yr.

Unless we break the filibuster. In that case, it could still cost us a recon slot but at least lets us move on voting rights +other items

But if that not the case rules-wise, then we aren’t docked a recon “slot” but what we do lose is very precious and critical time to pass one last recon bill before the midterms

Either way,midterms-wise much of that is moot if we don’t break filibuster to pass voting rights ASAP

GREEN NEW DOG on Twitter: "@AOC Does the BBB the house passed have to be re-passed? When does it "expire"? Thnx." / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "@jaytay777 No, thankfully it doesn’t have to pass House again next year. House terms are 2 years, so anything the House passed in 2021 can be picked up by the Senate through ‘22.
When a new House is sworn in after the midterms (Jan ‘23) is when bills must be reintroduced & voted on again" / Twitter