‘Disappointing’ Sinema Is About To Face A Moment Of Truth On Senate Filibuster Rule

7 thoughts on “‘Disappointing’ Sinema Is About To Face A Moment Of Truth On Senate Filibuster Rule”

1. “She’s (Sinema) simply a roadblock; a debate-dodger. She thinks $3.5 trillion is a big number but can’t say why.”

   The “why” probably goes no deeper than her opposition to taxing the wealthy and the corporations. Remember, this is the same heifer that voted against the $15 minimum wage and made a spectacle of herself when she did it.

   I’m feeling really bad for Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Nancy Pelosi. I believe that all three of these Democratic leaders have good intentions and genuine concern for the American people and the future of this country. Furthermore, the Biden agenda is what the Democrats ran on in 2020, they won the election, and they have a mandate from the people. This should not be so hard, progressive policies are long overdue.

   Loading...

2. Alex Shephard writes at The New Republic, “How Kyrsten Sinema Convinced the Beltway Media That She’s the Sensible, Pragmatic One”, https://newrepublic.com/article/163667/krysten-sinema-spreadsheets-austerity-axios

   So it turns out that if you are a member of Congress and can do basic math and have a temp-agency level of proficiency with Microsoft Excel, you are, apparently, newsworthy.

   That is the takeaway from a recent Axios story, which lavished praise on Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema for her “accountant-like focus on the bottom line,” all because she kept spreadsheets of “the costs and tax hikes needed for each program” in the Democrats’ proposed $3.5 trillion budget. This is an astonishing political feat, as well: The existence of these spreadsheets is kryptonite for big-spending progressives “who are working to make the spending bill as big as possible.” Checkmate, jerks!

   Axios’s brief review neatly exemplifies a number of failures in the reporting on the divide between Democratic Party factions. Sinema’s opponents are, according to this frame, the free-spending lefties of the Senate Democratic caucus, such as Bernie Sanders. They love to make that money machine go “brr.” Unlike Sinema and her Excel fare, this faction has an all-too-casual relationship with math; they only care about jamming as much money into the budget as possible, never mind the ultimate price tag.

   Absent from this discussion of who has the more precise math are any specifics of the budget in question—which might otherwise inform the discussion.

   [S]inema is also presented in a way that suggests that Axios only learned who she was a few hours ago—not as an ideologue with bizarre ideas about how the Senate works, but as a ruthless and clear-eyed pragmatist who has stumbled down Mount Sinai with Excel printouts. If her work seems far less complicated than the data I wrangle before a fantasy basketball draft, that’s no matter: Axios’s singular quality is that it is neutral and objective. Her Democratic rivals in the Senate only care about spending money for its own sake. But Sinema is a cold rationalist who is just calling balls and strikes by “updating her data to ensure she has accurate top- and bottom-line figures.”

   It’s a familiar, frustrating dynamic for those who have followed conflict between the Democrats’ right and left flank. Progressives are never given credit for showing their work, they are at best starry-eyed romantics and at worst dangerously foolish. They have rejected the risks associated with deficit spending out of hand and want to use the vast resources available to the federal government to shovel resources toward pet projects. (That these pet projects are things like health care and climate mitigation are rarely mentioned.) The moderates tend to receive praise for making the tough choice to not help everyone who could be helped. But there is nothing objective about Sinema’s approach to the budget; hers is just another shopworn performance of fiscal seriousness, updated with some new props (if Microsoft Office can be called “new”).

   There’s more missing from the story: Democrats, including progressives, have proposed a number of tax hikes for corporations and wealthy Americans, which would pay for half of the proposed budget. The fact is that Sinema, along with other Democratic moderates like Joe Manchin, have made paying for this budget more difficult by opposing these pay-fors. Sinema claims to be tracking how Democrats will pay for spending very closely, but she’s not using that work to facilitate the budget’s passage, or even lay out a plan that would be more to her liking. She’s simply a roadblock; a debate-dodger. She thinks $3.5 trillion is a big number but can’t say why. Sinema’s concerns are presented as being in good faith, despite there being no evidence to suggest that, whereas the progressives’ policy goals are characterized as fantastical, despite the lack of proof for this claim.

   Axios goes on to assert that the “lack of clarity about how long each program will last has frustrated both senators and outside budget groups,” without noting that it was concerns from Democrats like Sinema about the size of the budget that have already led Democrats to time-limit some programs. Sinema responded to this by moving the goalposts: The time windows aren’t clear enough now! This is not what someone who is acting in good faith does.

   [T]he label “moderate,” once earned, is armor against any accusation of acting ideologically: Politicians like Sinema are credited as stewards of the public good, necessary bulwarks against politicians who run too hot. But Sinema’s opposition to her own party’s budget is just as purely ideological as anything you see on the political left. And it’s worth noting, again, that the leftist edge of the Democratic caucuses have, thus far, set their ideological needs aside to act as agents of compromise during these budget wranglings.

   Sinema’s antics, as galling as they are, are starting to feel dated. The conversation about government spending has changed dramatically over the last five years; the pandemic—which was made more destructive by our lawmakers’ love of austerity—seems to have further accelerated this shift in thinking. We have just emerged from a Republican administration that featured little of the bad-faith fearmongering about debt and public spending that the GOP has engaged in for generations. And yet, many inside the Beltway can’t quit old tricks: If you’re a politician and you want to seem serious, just claim you’re reading the budget line by line, as everything else falls apart.

   Loading...

3. MSNBC’s Hayes Brown writes, “Sinema wants Democrats to spend less on Biden’s economic agenda”, https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/sinema-wants-democrats-spend-less-biden-s-economic-agenda-n1279159?icid=msd_topgrid

   (excerpt)

   A new report from Axios that dropped late Monday revealed Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., has spreadsheets. And she’s preparing to use those spreadsheets to demand that Democrats spend less on Democratic economic policies during the one chance they’ll likely have in the next two years to advance Democratic economic policies.

   [W]hat the article doesn’t mention: anything about what’s in those spreadsheets. There’s nothing about how she’s making determinations about what should stay and what should go as Democrats craft the final package. There’s nothing about what programs might be on the chopping block when whittling down the bill. The closest the article comes to the point that spreadsheets aren’t the same as legislation is the acknowledgment that Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., “aren’t necessarily on the same page on which programs — and which tax increases — they can stomach.”

   That’s about par for the course in how Sinema has treated the negotiations around this package, where her demands for cuts are unmoored from concrete proposals. The Axios story is meant to showcase her granular focus on the details — but they’re the wrong details. Instead, we should understand this effort as plastering the veneer of technocracy onto her already shallow version of moderation, where aesthetics are more important than policy.

   That shiny, shallow moderation is also a throwback to the political eras that Sinema, 45, grew up with. It’s former President Bill Clinton’s obsession with making sure aid only goes to the right people mixed with the Obama administration’s belief in the power of numbers. Sinema’s likely show only one part of the picture, the total cost, but to keep that as the sole focus is to miss the point of what progressive Democrats are trying to do.

   Is there an Excel formula that shows the number of Americans who will be hurt when the number in the spending column for each program is cut down? Is there a row for the amount of carbon emissions that will be reduced for each dollar spent on green initiatives? Is there a chart showing how forcing shorter lifespans for social safety net programs will affect families planning for the future? (I’ve asked Sinema’s office to provide details about just what’s in those binders she’s hauling to her meetings, but they did not respond prior to publication.)

   [She never responds.]

   [S]inema is trying to project seriousness on what is fundamentally an unserious project. In trying to protect her seat in 2024 when she faces her first re-election campaign, she’s gone all-in on trying to convince Arizona Republicans and independents that she’s on their side. But she’s still refusing to grapple with what being on their side means for the people behind her spreadsheets’ numbers.

   Loading...

4. “Some senators are skeptical that Sinema will simply go along to get along after seeing her theory of politics — that bipartisan negotiation and cooperation can produce significant, lasting results — validated by the infrastructure deal.”

   Sinema’s “theory of politics” and her expressed belief in “bipartisan negotiation” is such a joke that I can’t even comment. The Party of Trump is playing her like a fiddle. Congratulations, McConnell, you found your bitch.

   Indeed, Sinema is a force to be reckoned with, but not because she is a brilliant politician and legislator. It is because of the 50-50 split in the Senate that potentially empowers ANY Democratic senator with the desire to make waves, to obsruct, and to draw attention to herself and has the nerve to do this with total disregard for her constituents, the American people, and democracy itself.

   That’s a nice fantasy, what LBJ would do with the likes of Manchin and Sinema. But it appears that Biden is still kissing their asses and begging. I really have my doubts that Biden and Schumer know what to do with the two ass-clowns.

   Loading...

5. UPDATE: The Washington Post adds, “Joe Manchin gets all the attention. But Kyrsten Sinema could be an even bigger obstacle for Democrats’ spending plans.” , https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sinema-reconciliation-manchin/2021/09/15/8c583f96-162d-11ec-9589-31ac3173c2e5_story.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=wp_main

   (excerpt)

   Sinema, 45, is not the only Senate Democrat to raise pointed concerns about the size of the party’s legislative agenda. In fact, her objections have been largely obscured by the much more prominent complaints that fellow Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) has aired about the left wing’s ambitions in newspaper op-eds, TV news appearances and near-daily comments to reporters.

   Sinema, on the other hand, has remained almost entirely mum. While Manchin appeared on multiple Sunday news programs this month, Sinema hasn’t done a national television interview in weeks. But her vote in the evenly divided Senate is just as crucial as Manchin’s, and some Democrats quietly fear her objections could be even more nettlesome.

   She remained silent when asked about her priorities in shaping the bill at the Capitol this week, and a spokesman, John LaBombard, said in a statement Wednesday that Sinema “is continuing to work in good faith with her colleagues and President Biden as this legislation develops.”

   According to more than a dozen interviews with her Senate colleagues and aides involved in the negotiations, Sinema and her staff have been closely involved in the talks, asking detailed questions to several key lawmakers and committee aides to understand the justification for proposed spending and tax increases.

   “She’s gone through the whole package and has very specific concerns and questions about very specific pieces,” said Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), who said Tuesday that he has personally fielded questions from Sinema about his own proposal for a new Civilian Climate Corps — a multibillion-dollar line item that is a key priority for the left.

   Sinema, Coons said, wanted to know more about whether the program could be quickly grown to the scale that its supporters envision.

   “It’s a perfectly reasonable question,” Coons added. “I spoke up in caucus and said, you know, this is one of the ones I’m working really hard on. And she said, ‘OK, I need answers to this, this, this and this.’”

   Other Democrats familiar with Sinema’s work behind the scenes, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations, said a major priority has been to ensure that matters that were negotiated out of the bipartisan infrastructure bill — additional transit funding, for instance — do not reappear in the Build Back Better bill, which would violate an agreement with Republicans to keep the two bills separate.

   [Because we would not want to offend the Sedition Party that tried to overthrow American democracy. This is who she trusts?]

   Sinema, the Democrats said, has also been exploring ways to “means test” some programs to target their effect on the nation’s neediest at a moment when many liberals argue that a much larger swath of Americans need help from the federal government.

   [Democrats ignore the middle class at their peril.]

   Her voting record also provides warnings. Notably, with Democrats eyeing $2 trillion or more in tax increases to offset their spending plans, Sinema has publicly allied with Republicans on several tax bills.

   As a House member, she was one of seven Democrats to support a GOP bill eliminating the federal estate tax in 2015 and was one of only three Democrats who, in 2018, voted to permanently extend individual tax cuts passed by Republicans the year prior.

   “She does not like tax increases,” said one Republican senator who has worked with Sinema and spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe her views.

   In a signal of how seriously Sinema’s views are being taken, she met with Biden at the White House on Wednesday morning, with Manchin attending a similar meeting later in the day. LaBombard characterized the meeting as “productive,” and a White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

   [Joe Biden is no LBJ. LBJ would have told them “I have had enough of theatrics, this is what you are going to do.”]

   While Democrats privately express exasperation at both of the holdout senators, several colleagues said that they have become accustomed to Manchin’s penchant for putting himself into the center of virtually any hot-button negotiation. Sinema’s motivations, they said, have been harder to read — and her concerns tougher to predict — but party leaders have had no choice but to take them seriously in the 50-50 Senate.

   [The answer is to expand the Democratic Senate majority in 2022 to make them expendable on votes, and to render them irrelevant.]

   “The conversations are ongoing to allay her concerns,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 Senate leader and lead vote-counter. “We take them very seriously, respect her positions and try our best to find common ground.”

   Sinema has already garnered outsize attention among liberals for her role, alongside Manchin, in dampening their push to eliminate the Senate’s filibuster rule — the 60-vote supermajority requirement that has blocked the advancement of a major voting rights bill and forced party leaders to use special budget procedures to pass the rest of Biden’s agenda.

   Her firm position against changing the rules has fueled efforts at pressuring her at home in Arizona, including ad campaigns, activist rallies and pleas from statehouse Democrats. But there has been little indication that Sinema has been discomfited by the backlash on the left, and she has appeared increasingly comfortable adopting the party-snubbing mantle of her GOP predecessor and political idol John McCain.

   This time, however, some fellow Democrats said they believe they have significant leverage that will ultimately cajole her into supporting their vast legislative ambitions, with perhaps marginal tweaks: The trillion-dollar bipartisan infrastructure bill that Sinema negotiated with a group of fellow centrists.

   “Is it appropriate for one person to destroy two pieces of legislation?” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an ABC News interview Sunday, in response to a question about Manchin. “I think we’re going to work it out, but it would really be a terrible, terrible shame for the American people if both bills went down. And that is a real danger.”

   House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed to bring the infrastructure legislation to a vote later this month, regardless of whether Build Back Better is ready. But many liberal House members are threatening to withhold their votes so long as the larger bill remains in flux.

   Some senators are skeptical that Sinema will simply go along to get along after seeing her theory of politics — that bipartisan negotiation and cooperation can produce significant, lasting results — validated by the infrastructure deal.

   “I just don’t think [the dual track bills are] related in her mind, or in reality, and I think that’s what’s hard for people to understand,” said the senator who has worked with Sinema. “This is not all about trade-offs and hostage-taking. It’s just, each on its own merits.”

   In a recent statement first published by Politico, Sinema reiterated her opposition to a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill and said that the infrastructure accord “should be considered on its own merits.”

   “Proceedings in the U.S. House will have no impact on Kyrsten’s views about what is best for our country,” LaBombard said.
   Her willingness to snub party leaders — or at least talk tough — has been greeted with great encouragement across the aisle. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has urged fellow Republicans to praise Sinema as a bulwark against a left-wing push to eliminate the filibuster.

   “I pray for Manchin and Sinema every night, give them a lot of love, wish them well, and hope they can withstand the pressure,” McConnell said at a Kentucky event earlier this month. “I think they know this is the wrong thing to do for the country.”

   To the Republican senators who hammered out the infrastructure deal, Sinema is doing what they hoped she and other centrist Democratic senators would do: Apply downward pressure on an agenda that would otherwise have soared to $6 trillion or more.

   [So aligned with the GQP obstructionists, doing their dirty work.]

   Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and other Republicans who dealt with Sinema said they were optimistic she would hold firm.

   “Anyone who thinks she’s going to be a pushover,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), “is going to be severely surprised.”

   Loading...

6. Oh, God, that wretched woman makes my head hurt.

   I’m convinced of the following:
   1. ) Neither Sinema or Manchin actually want the 3.5 trillion reconciliation bill to pass. After all, THEY negotiated the “bipartisan” infrastructure bill that passed in the Senate. THEY “proved” that “bipartisanship” is possible. And THEY seem to believe that their infrastructure bill is quite enough for now.

   2.) Neither Sinema or Manchin gives a flip about the right to vote. Sinema thinks she is building a coalition of Independents, Republicans, and Democrats (who have no other choice but to vote for her.) She may be very surprised one day when all those Republicans who “approve” of her performance vote for her challenger. She’ll give lip service to the right to vote but without eliminating the filibuster it means nothing, revealing her indifference.

   3.) Neither Sinema or Manchin are concerned about democracy. THEY are both doing very well as things are. THEY know how to get along with the Party of Trump. THEY are essentially in this for themselves, their careers, their egos, their “legacies.” It’s all perception, of course, but there’s no way to prevent them from perceiving themselves as exceptional. Anyhow, they don’t fight for the people, they fight against the people.

   Loading...

7. She seems not to realize that over the intended lifespan of this bill, it only spends about 1.5% of GDP. That is a trivial amount over the time horizon of the expendures in an economy the size of America’s. #PrimarySinema!

   Loading...

Comments are closed.