Regarding the game of chicken, Jonathan Chait at NY Mag had a different take on this (link: https://nym.ag/2Y3Pi34). To wit:
"The truth of the situation at hand is almost precisely the opposite. The people who are willing to compromise and accept half a loaf are the progressives. The ones who refuse to negotiate are the centrists.
Regarding the game of chicken, Jonathan Chait at NY Mag had a different take on this (link: https://nym.ag/2Y3Pi34). To wit:
"The truth of the situation at hand is almost precisely the opposite. The people who are willing to compromise and accept half a loaf are the progressives. The ones who refuse to negotiate are the centrists.
"Just listen to what the progressives are saying:
“What we have said is that if there is an agreement that the president strikes on this Build Back Better agenda, we will vote for the bipartisan bill, we’re willing to negotiate,” Representative Ro Khanna said on CNN. “The president keeps begging [Senator Kyrsten Sinema], ‘Tell us what you want. Put a proposal forward’ … How do you compromise when Sinema isn’t saying anything?”
"Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal: “They need to tell us what they don’t agree with. And we need to be able to actually negotiate it.”
"Jayapal, again: “If they don’t tell us what they want to do, which was the president’s message, and if they don’t actually negotiate on the entire bill, then we’re not going to get too close.”
"Representative Jim McGovern: “I think a lot of us want to make sure we have an assurance that, in fact, there’s going to be a reconciliation bill.”
"They are not making implacable demands. They are begging the centrists to simply negotiate."
yeah, it's one thing to say it can only be 1.5 trillion, you have to also be willing to say which programs should be cut and why. Manchin and Sinema are much happier bloviating about how 3.5 trillion is just too damn high than actually saying what Manchin really wants to say which is that he would like to cut anything that might hurt his corporate oil backers.
The only reason to tie the reconciliation bill to the infrastructure bill is that the progressives know the reconciliation bill is too expensive and too unpopular to stand on its own. For that, progressives deserve the criticism they are getting.
I get that the bill is unsellable because it's too big, but is it actually pad policy. I can see a solid argument for bad politics, but it seems, at least from what I've seen, to be good policy
Regarding the game of chicken, Jonathan Chait at NY Mag had a different take on this (link: https://nym.ag/2Y3Pi34). To wit:
"The truth of the situation at hand is almost precisely the opposite. The people who are willing to compromise and accept half a loaf are the progressives. The ones who refuse to negotiate are the centrists.
"Just listen to what the progressives are saying:
“What we have said is that if there is an agreement that the president strikes on this Build Back Better agenda, we will vote for the bipartisan bill, we’re willing to negotiate,” Representative Ro Khanna said on CNN. “The president keeps begging [Senator Kyrsten Sinema], ‘Tell us what you want. Put a proposal forward’ … How do you compromise when Sinema isn’t saying anything?”
"Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal: “They need to tell us what they don’t agree with. And we need to be able to actually negotiate it.”
"Jayapal, again: “If they don’t tell us what they want to do, which was the president’s message, and if they don’t actually negotiate on the entire bill, then we’re not going to get too close.”
"Representative Jim McGovern: “I think a lot of us want to make sure we have an assurance that, in fact, there’s going to be a reconciliation bill.”
"They are not making implacable demands. They are begging the centrists to simply negotiate."
yeah, it's one thing to say it can only be 1.5 trillion, you have to also be willing to say which programs should be cut and why. Manchin and Sinema are much happier bloviating about how 3.5 trillion is just too damn high than actually saying what Manchin really wants to say which is that he would like to cut anything that might hurt his corporate oil backers.
The only reason to tie the reconciliation bill to the infrastructure bill is that the progressives know the reconciliation bill is too expensive and too unpopular to stand on its own. For that, progressives deserve the criticism they are getting.
I get that the bill is unsellable because it's too big, but is it actually pad policy. I can see a solid argument for bad politics, but it seems, at least from what I've seen, to be good policy
While I'm at it, here's today's Chait column -- also interesting. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09/joe-manchin-plan-democrats-child-tax-credit-trump-taxes-plan-congress-biden.html