Look at These Cheap Bastards With Their Miserable Plan to Take Your Relief Money
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
No Republican Covid relief proposal can be trusted as long as Mitch McConnell is a living, breathing congressional leader.
By Charles P. Pierce Feb 1, 2021 SAUL LOEBGetty Images
So it seems that 10 Republicans are visiting the White House today so that the president can tell them that they're all miserable skinflints who want their fellow citizens to die gasping and broke. That's how it seems to me, anyway. From the AP:
The Republican group's proposal focuses on the pandemic's health effects rather than its economic toll, tapping into bipartisan urgency to shore up the nation's vaccine distribution and vastly expanding virus testing with $160 billion in aid. Their slimmed down $1,000 direct payments would go to fewer households than the $1,400 Biden has proposed, and they would avoid costly assistance to states and cities that Democrats argue are just as important.
There's also no provision for raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, so, it's nice of y'all to come by, and make sure to stop by the gift shop on your way out, but, no, this is a non-starter. And this is arrant nonsense.
"We recognize your calls for unity and want to work in good faith with your Administration to meet the health, economic, and societal challenges of the COVID crisis," the 10 GOP senators wrote to Biden. "We share many of your priorities."
The overture from the coalition of 10 GOP senators, mostly centrists, is an attempt to show that at least some in the Republican ranks want to work with Biden's new administration, rather than simply operating as the opposition in the minority in Congress. But Democrats are wary of using too much time courting GOP support that may not materialize or deliver too meager a package as they believe happened during the 2009 recovery.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 290 times, shame on me. No Republican proposal on anything can be trusted as long as Mitch McConnell is a living, breathing congressional leader. Democrats—and this president, especially—have been down this road so often that they should buy a home on the cut de sac that is its inevitable end. The Republicans can intone the conjuring word, "bipartisan," as often as they want. There are no buyers across the table for their magic beans anymore. If the president wants to have the gang over so he can turn them down personally, I have no problem with that.
The problem with the Republican proposal is not that their congressional leadership can't be trusted. (Pro tip: It can't.) It's that their proposal doesn't remotely meet the needs of the country which is in the middle of the worst public-health crisis in a century, and the worst economic slump in at least half that time. These two crises are feeding off each other with unprecedented destructive energy and the Republicans came to the White House on Monday bearing a mop and a bucket. White House press secretary Jen Psaki came right to the point in her briefing that preceded the meeting.
I appreciate the opportunity to give more comment on their proposal. I think if they put their ideas forward, that's how the president sees it, he felt it was an effort to engage on a bipartisan basis. And that's why he invited them to the White House today. But his view is that the size of the package needs to be commensurate with the crises we are facing—the dual crises we are facing—hence why he proposed a package that is $1.9 trillion...
He outlined the specifics of what he would like to see in the package in his primetime speech just a few weeks ago. There are some realities as we look to what the American people are going through. One in seven American families don't have enough food to eat. We will not have enough funding to reopen schools. We don't have funding to ensure that we can get the vaccine in the arms of Americans. There are real impacts that he will reiterate, as he he has publicly and privately in many conversation. They have put forth some ideas and he is happy to hear from them. He also feels strongly about the need to make sure the size of the package meets this moment and feels the American people expect that of their elected officials as well.
It appears as though there is a new sheriff in town. In Congress, the slim Democratic majorities on both houses are preparing to pass Biden's package through reconciliation, if that's what it takes, bipartisanship be damned. (Expect an ensemble of scalded cats bellowing about things being rammed down throats etc.) But it seems that the White House is planning to take advantage of the fact that its proposal is actually popular out in the country beyond the green rooms of the Capitol studios. In addition, over the weekend, the administration sent an unmistakable shot across the bow of two Democratic "moderates" who have been inclined to make mischief in the past.
Get unlimited access to Esquire's politics coverage. esquire.comJoin Esquire Select
Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kirsten Sinema of Arizona looked up and saw vice-president Kamala Harris all over the local media in their respective states, pushing hard for the administration's relief plan. At the very least, Manchin got the message. From WSAZ:
"I saw [the interview], I couldn't believe it. No one called me [about it]," Manchin said. "We're going to try to find a bipartisan pathway forward, but we need to work together. That's not a way of working together."
The vice-president doesn't need Joe Manchin's permission to talk to anyone anywhere. I realize that it's been a long time since a Democratic president played this kind of hardball, but a little touch of LBJ is what's needed right now. In a proper, bipartisan manner, everybody should get used to that.
Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.
Tags
Who is online
527 visitors
I saw a news story yesterday about the number of Americans that are dipping into their retirement savings in order to pay current bills. It is a considerable figure.
I'm not sure why the Republicans want to nickel and dime stimulus money in the name of keeping the national debt down, but hopefully it will boomerang on them in future elections.
Nickel and dime John???? They cut the guts outta the Dems "Hey, let's pay for EVERYTHING and screw the people who really need it" - ya know, like the small businesses who have gone out of business, the Mom and Pop stores who got burned down by the Dem/Lib riots during a 10 month period, stopping payment to Pakistan to conduct Gender Studies, etc..
There is nothing bipartisan about the Dem plan when the Dems/Libs are only talking to 10 out of 262 Repubs - NOT EVEN 10%.
Yeah, that's gonna work really well.
Hardly. The small businesses/Mom and Pop stores were 'burned down' by Supply Side Economics which shifted manufacture and even much of the Service Sector overseas which purposely increased the profits of the economic upper tiers by hundreds of per cents.
Idiotic Democrats that think raising the minimum wage during a recession is a good idea. That will make businesses want to go out and hire more people during a depressed economy. Nothing like giving businesses the big kiss off; and then getting mad when they reduce the number of people they employ.
Biden must have gone to the Obama school of "Never let a good crisis go to waste".
Bipartisan means give and take; it does not mean capitulate- which is what the Democrats want. Biden is proving that with every EO signed.
You do understand that he is only increasing minimum wage for federal employees, not private businesses, don't you? I mean, otherwise your little rant would look amazingly foolish.
Oh, wait........LOL
someone might want to tell Bernie and AOC that , because thats not whats being told to their voters and thats not whats being understood by many people.
besides most federal employees already make more than whats being stated .
if it actually is a federally mandated min wage it would affect everyone who gets a paycheck , not just fed employees
a fed min wage goes for everyone with very few exceptions allowed.
Then why all the right wingers on NT in such a tizzy?
It's not. Normally I'd suggest you look it up for yourself, but if you haven't looked yet it means you are afraid to look and are working on being willfully ignorant.
Again, you are trying to make a false dichotomy by pushing a knowingly false narrative. If you have to lie to support your argument, your argument isn't worth much.
as for why are the righties in a tizzy, you would have to ask them , not me , like i posted earlier i dont give a rip because it wont affect me , and if im right ,prices will go up on everything shortly after , if your right , there is gonna be a lot of really pissed off voters that were counting on that raise in the min wage that wont apply to them so their stuck slinging the hash for the same pay, dont think they will forget that come time to vote . like i said its going to be fun to watch either way.
how you keep getting off ignore i have no clue , but one more time into the breach for you
My dropping off your "ignore list", in no way forces you to reply to anything I say. That was your choice entirely.
IMHO i think we are in for a very interesting next 2 years.
personally i cant wait to see what happens with that $15 an hr min wage , and im already hearing some on the left think thats not enough and it should be $20 an hr.
it wont affect me since im semi retired and if i choose to work i make a hell of a lot more than that an hr.
what it does mean is i wont be going out to eat in fast food places and will gravitate to better and more upscale sit down places to eat. y'all know, a place where a host/hostess greets and seats you , and they have a beer and wine, cocktail list.
of course what will actually be fun to watch is if and when this wage increase happens , the inevitable raise in rents , commodities and utilities goes up , just as it always does to correspond to any wage shift .
And what about all the stories we heard out of Seattle about some businesses installing more robotics in order to reduce staffing. Or some people actually cutting the hours worked to reduce the costs to business or in one story to reduce the take-home pay so as to not lose childcare benefits. You are correct, it's gonna be a very interesting next couple of years. I'm all for people making as much money as they can, but seems to me anytime the government gets involved it's the citizens who lose. But hey, what could go wrong. I'm sure they got all those bugs worked out of the system from the guaranteed student loans and how that messed up tuition costs for future generations.
All very true , even in the rural backwater where i like to live the addition of self serve kiosks are starting to show up in greater numbers , and the need for human counter parts are starting to be minimized
we were told automation was the way of the future , many have been resistant , but once it dawns on people removing the human element that has to be paid ( and compensated in other ways) the over all price of whatever is being purchased , either stays stable or goes down , but that comes with its own set of problems I wont bring up.
Sounds like you're making that up. Just like most everything else
will freely admit , the blurb i read a week ago stated that and has since also been advocated by some NT members concerned that that raise would just be a start if i understood them correctly , they do not feel that it is sufficient enough to bring things "in line" with the cost of living today., meaning that in order to give todays wages the same purchasing power as , say , 1968 , the min wage should be closer to if not higher than $20 an hr .
made up no , just watching the conversasions and the realities , yes . no one is obliged to agree with observations and determinations.
i will consider it that you disagree, and leave it at that.
Progressive speak: It's "taking" money from citizens if you refusing to print the amount progressives demand and give it away, but it's not taking money from citizens to literally take the money they've actually earned from them.
That's never going to fly unless the Dems jam it through by party only vote and since Manchin said he won't do it that way you guys are fucked. Dems better start working across party lines or they could lose the advantage in the mid terms and then they get nothing.
One thing that bugs me is this all or nothing approach. I would say, just drop the 15 an hr and move on. That can always be worked on after. No need for it to have to be in the package, especially if it is going to kill it.
Totally agree.
Me too. That is the art of compromise. It can always be revised later.
The reconciliation rule can only be used once per fiscal year. That is why they want to pack various things in it.
As far as the 15 dollar minimum wage goes, by the time it is enacted even that will be behind the times. A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage law now probably won't completely take effect until 2024.
Not having a minimum wage just means more social programs and more spending on social programs like food stamps. It will be just be more of the taxpayer subsidizing business.
A stand alone bill that would incrementally raise the wage would probably get some republican support.
Enough to reach a sixty threshold, I doubt, but it would be a great platform for a progressive candidate to run on. Every year I have put forth a minimum wage bill...
Beginning in the mid 1970's , and boosted in scope in the mid 1980's , the government program EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) has served as a way for low wage people to make ends meet (in lieu of a higher minimum wage) . This bs effectively serves as the US taxpayers subsidizing low wage industries and employers.
The government pays the low wage earner so the companies don't have to. This has now been going on for decades, and one can see the effect of it by the fact that the minimum wage has not kept up with what it should be according to productivity increases.
In the mid 1970s when I was in my very early twenties young men could earn about five dollars an hour for hard unskilled labor in my rural western Oklahoma hometown. Wages were going up along with the minimum wage at that time. To equal the buying power of $5.00 an hour then it would take $40.00 an hour today. The problem is that those same jobs only pay about $10.00 an hour there now.
Yes, many of the hardest of those 1970s jobs local people did then are now being done by immigrants today. Partly because the people who used to live there left for better paying jobs in cities.
Also, about that time, the OPEC oil embargo affected everything economically.
That was all over forty five years ago. America has changed a lot since then. People cannot begin to live on $3-400 a week before withholdings today.
Preaching to the choir there.
I still say, if the whole of the bill can pass without this one thing, so be it.
The whole thing could go down in flames and then they would start again. Which Imo is bullshit. Just get the thing done and be able to move on to other things.
Besides, I heard the wage was only for government employees.
That is not going to help a majority of regular people.
Except this year it can be used twice, seeing as how the congress failed to have a budget in 2020
Reconciliation bills can be passed on spending, revenue, and the federal debt limit , and the Senate can pass one bill per year affecting each subject. Congress can thus pass a maximum of three reconciliation bills per year, though in practice it has often passed a single reconciliation bill affecting both spending and revenue. Policy changes that are extraneous to the budget are limited by the "Byrd Rule", which also prohibits reconciliation bills from increasing the federal deficit after a ten-year period or making changes to Social Security .
Sorry but reconcilliation does not carry over from year to year and accrue or can be saved up , its a use it or lose it rule year to year dealing with spending revenue and the federal debt . .
Partly true, but apparently the majority believe it stays with the budget year. process. Hence since Trump did not bother to pass a 2021 budget, that has to be finalized with or without reconciliation,
and then we return to passing a 2022 budget, and another reconciliation opportunity, in the same year.
agreed , its tied to the budget year being discussed , it is still a use it or lose it rule per budget/ fiscal year, unless im wrong the fiscal budget year runs from oct to oct and that is different than a 365 day calendar year that begins jan 1st , there have been years it hasnt been used at all, dang if i can say when , but the rule was only created in the 70s by act of congress.
False
care to elaborate? or is that just " feeelings , nothing but feeeelings, whoa whoa whoa feeeelings" about how you think things should be ?
If what i said is actually false , please do explain in detail how so?
* disclaimer , currently enjoying a quaint bourbon out of kentucky called buffalo trace( hell 3 or 4 so far) whilst enjoying an olivia nub nuance single roast cigar, thus i may not be suitable for mixed company, nor am likely to tolerate ignorant dumb fucks wanting to play games, fair warning is given. *
* better buckle up buttercups , your a daisy if you dont*
But it really isn't a all or nothing approach even though they are trying to say it is. I know they announce that if it doesn't pass as is the sun will burn out and the universe will be extinguished. Then various parties attach all their hopes and dreams as amendments. They wrangle with each other on the floor and in the press. It rarely turns out as is. Those times it does, it has repercussions like lost votes during the next election and/or changed later down the road.
I wish there were more honesty in politics... Never going to happen, but it's an ideal we should hold on to.
There aren't any 'party lines'. The only lines in existence now are those who are dependent and support the 'Wealth Class' and those who believe the 'Wealth Class' do not fairly contribute to the economic system which has enabled them to become the 'Wealth Class' in the first place.
You just have to laugh (or cry), when you think about things like this. They are trying to tell the American people to get buy on $1,000, while this is what our reps are getting right now:
1. A base annual salary of $174,000
2. Free airport parking
3. A free, on-site gym for House members
4. Weakened insider trading restrictions
5. Up to 239 days off
6. Congress receives health-care subsidies under Obamacare
7. A better retirement plan
8. Members of Congress fly free
9. Death benefits
10. A $1.2 million to $3.3 million allowance*
You just gotta love #10.
And you think that any of them get how hard it is for the rest of us to get by?
Fair point. Except why ignore the benefits afforded the captains of Industry, Finance or Insurance to name a couple?
sounds to me like your complaining about someone being able to negotiate what their skills are worth and being able to expand whatever business it is while continuing to make a profit to an interested party that needs it .
cry me a freaking river....
I can see that coming from those that actually do not have the nessisary skills for the job those people have applied for .
i can also see it coming from someone that has not put their money into building something that has found a niche market plan that everyone uses but no one is actually forced to use due to the open market , people that do that deserve what they can get others to pay for the service they provide , screw those that think they are being screwed because they didnt come up with it first or couldnt pay to get it done.
They are not there to serve us. Our reps are. That is the difference.
And I doubt any captain of industry, is taking 236 days off. They didn't get there by being lazy asses.
Sure. A Hedge Fund Manager making $800 million a year--shifting 80% of it off shore while claiming the 20% as loss of capital.
And yes, they are to serve us, our economy and our nation. The super rich are not an entity apart from the rest of America or Americans.
And many of them are 'lazy asses' and you know it.
Joe Biden's plan is as much stimulus as relief. It's too soon to stimulate the economy and those stimulative provisions aren't needed at the moment.
Another package will be needed later this year to stimulate the economy as vaccination brings the pandemic under control. There really is a risk of going too big, too soon. Another $2 trillion package to stimulate the economy later this year will be a harder sell after this $2 trillion relief package has been pushed through.