Here are some items left out of new bill passed today...........

[riversedge]

I would not call them casualties----maybe they are but that sounds like sour grapes. My attitude is that there is always more to do and Dems had to make compromises to get this one passed. Raising the minimum wage for the working poor would be a great start.


Sahil Kapur
@sahilkapur
·
4h
Casualties of Build Back Better agenda

Universal pre-K
Child care $
Elder care $
Child tax credit $
Housing $
Community college
EITC expansion
Closing Medicaid gap
Immigration
Tax RATE hikes
Millionaire surtax
Ending carried interest

These items were excluded from the new bill.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=LzXz4ndeX2n7-ksCdD9aeg

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=LzXz4ndeX2n7-ksCdD9aeg


The new bill which passed today contains:

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=LzXz4ndeX2n7-ksCdD9aeg

[OAITW r.2.0]

1. Repackage and push for a vote.

The Families Act, maybe. Make Republicans vote against it.

[riversedge]

4. I really believe they would all 50 of them. Even with that name.

[OAITW r.2.0]

5. Keep making them vote. Even if we lose.

Put them on record.

[PortTack]

2. Good gawd...yes of course, had it been left up to the Dems we'd of done it all

Talk to the gqp!!

[Cha]

7. Here's to the Dem Winners.. NOT

the Whiners who Know Damn Well the Dems would have put Everything IN with More Dem Senators.

[PortTack]

11. ☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️

[Bleacher Creature]

3. Expand our majorities in both chambers and that's all doable. NT

[Deuxcents]

8. Yes! Gotta give Joe a House n Senate

And watch what can be done. Vote ..

[Celerity]

10. not all, as some of it will not survive a Byrd Bath (like the insulin cap for just one example) and

thus cannot be included in any reconciliation bill.

Because of that, all those that are not eligible for reconciliation, and thus the filibuster comes into play. I think that even if we have 52 or even 53 Dems, we STILL will not be able to kill the filibuster overall.

Some of those items (plus voting rights, abortion, etc etc) will perhaps be allowed carve-outs, but I do not think that even at 53 Dems we have the votes to kill the filibuster entirely.

Some of this is due to the nightmarish 2024 Senate map, as we could very well likely lose the Senate (if we even have control of it post 2022 midterms). Dem senators will be sore afraid to trash the filibuster given that map, especially if we are only at +2 or likely even +3 after 2022.

We will have 23 Senate 2024 seats overall to defend, with as many as 14 vulnerable ones (some would take a major stretch and series of events to make them vulnerable, like Charlie Baker running in MA, Larry Hogan running in MD, Phil Scott running in VT, if Bernie retires, but still we will have a tonne of vulnerable seats)

The Rethugs only have to defend TEN SEATS overall, ALL but one (FL) in deep red states, with the only likely even partially vulnerable one being the asshole Rick Scott in FL

The two probably top Dems to challenge him only could if they lose their 2022 races for Senate, Crist for Gov, Demings for Senate, and they will, if they lose in 2022, thus be damaged for 2024, and if they win in 2022, they obviously will not run in 2024.

Stephanie Murphy has said she is interested, but she is likely to end up a Sinema/Manchin type, as she is one of the most conservative members of the House, a Problem Solver/Blue Dog/and New Democrat triple member, who said in an interview I saw last year that she is dubious of doing away with the filibuster. Patrick Murphy is also interested, but he is another previously failed candidate, in 2016, for Senate, where Rubio beat him badly by well over 700,000 votes. Nikki Fried likely will lose to Crist in the Dem Gov primary now, so another losing potential candidate.

I think our best shot will be Gwen Graham, if she chooses to run.

Murphy probably second best, but I fear her in the Senate becoming another problematic vote. She would, I think, be even more likely of becoming one if Sinema and/or Manchin lose or do not run in 2024. She would love to take up their mantle I fear. I saw an exit interview (she declined to run for re-election in 2022 due to redistricting) on MSNBC and she is very bitter (I was a bit surprised at how open she was) towards many of the progressives, which hardly bodes well for party unity.

Of course she would be one million miles better than Scott or any Rethug, but not the ideal Dem for the Senate, IMHO, especially if we end up at 50/50 again in the Senate post 2024, with a Dem POTUS and Dem House. She would likely take Sinema's place (who I think either doesn't run or loses to Gallego in the 2024 AZ Dem primary) alongside Manchin (if he runs and wins) as the new obstructionist twins in that scenario. Hopefully Crist and Demings both win in 2022, and Graham runs in 2024 against that fucker Scott.

[Cha]

6. Damn Straight!

Link to tweet

[Hekate]

9. Take it to the GOP

That is all

[Hortensis]

12. Just SOME items on the Democratic Party to-do list.

It'd be really interesting to see what our to-do list would be today if Hillary had been elected, sweeping in hundreds of the Democrats on her long coattails with her. She had a very extensive agenda, and presidents historically have been able to accomplish over 70% of what they run on. She would have had a Democratic senate majority and possibly the house.

So today's list would have been their second term's, building on all they'd accomplished. Likely would include the national guaranteed income she wanted to run on in 2016 but decided had to wait for other things, like expanding to universal healthcare. Unless they'd started that in the first term...

We deal with our losses, tie knots in the rope as required, and keep climbing. It's all we can do. What we do.

[gratuitous]

13. Democrats did a LOT of heavy lifting

The Republican proposal was "nothing." Republicans are now complaining that the Inflation Reduction Act won't reduce inflation fast enough. Well, how effective would doing nothing be? Answer that question, then complain about what the Democrats have accomplished.

And now voters can see that Democrats have done something, but there's more to do. See what happens over the next few months, then vote your best interests in November. Does doing something mean more than doing nothing, even when that nothing is ideologically pure (i.e., government can't do anything, and a war of all against all is always to be preferred)?