Politico’s playbook reports, Scoop: Sinema issues ultimatum to Biden:
MODS TO BIDEN: BIF NOW OR BUST — Sen. KYRSTEN SINEMA (D-Ariz.) delivered a tough message to President Joe Biden at a private meeting Wednesday, we’re told: If the House delays its scheduled Sept. 27 vote on the bipartisan infrastructure plan — or if the vote fails — she won’t be backing a reconciliation bill.
JUST IN @SenatorSinema told President Biden at a private meeting Wednesday: If the House delays its scheduled Sept. 27 vote on the bipartisan infrastructure plan — or if it fails — she won’t be backing a reconciliation bill, per @playbookdc
— Brahm Resnik (@brahmresnik) September 20, 2021
Sinema is not the only moderate taking this stand. Rep. KURT SCHRADER (D-Ore.) — one of approximately 10 moderate Democratic House members playing hardball with leadership — said he and several members of their group are on the same page. Some of the lawmakers have conveyed that message up the chain to leadership and the White House. A senior Democratic aide confirmed the warnings.
“If they delay the vote — or it goes down — then I think you can kiss reconciliation goodbye,” Schrader told Playbook. “Reconciliation would be dead.”
This is obviously big news if moderates follow through. The threat comes days after Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-Wash.) declared that House progressives had the votes to tank the infrastructure plan, aka BIF, unless it’s paired with the larger $3.5 trillion reconciliation package. But it’s become abundantly clear the reconciliation bill won’t be ready a week from today, the date when Speaker NANCY PELOSI promised moderates a vote on the $1.2 trillion bill to rebuild the nation’s roads and bridges.
The time crunch and threat from the left has led many to question whether the speaker will try to postpone the infrastructure vote. House Majority Whip JIM CLYBURN (D-S.C.) told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday that a delay is possible.
But the mods’ new threat indicates that a delay would not end well.“That’d be foolish on their part,” Schrader told us, noting that Clyburn, Pelosi and House Majority Leader STENY HOYER were in the room when the promise was made to them to take up the infrastructure plan on Sept. 27. “That would indicate they’re not playing fair in the sandbox. … It would be a travesty if they try to play games.”
Asked about her exchange with Biden, Sinema’s office neither confirmed nor denied the account: “Kyrsten does not share details of private conversations with President Biden or her colleagues.” However, her office added: “She does look forward to House leadership making good on their commitment to an up-or-down vote on the historic and bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act next Monday — to create jobs and expand economic opportunities across the country.” (In another sign of trouble for Democrats, our Laura Barrón-López scooped Sunday night that Sinema has also told the White House she opposes the Democrats’ prescription drug plan — a critical source of funding for the reconciliation package. Schrader voted against it in committee last week.)
Link: Sinema tells White House she’s opposed to current prescription drug plan:
The White House has a new headache as it struggles to get its multitrillion-dollar party-line spending bill passed: Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s objections to drug pricing reforms that are already struggling to make it through the House.
The Arizona Democrat is opposed to the current prescription drug pricing proposals in both the House and Senate bills, two sources familiar with her thinking said. They added that, at this point, she also doesn’t support a pared-back alternative being pitched by House Democratic centrists that would limit the drugs subject to Medicare negotiation.
Sinema met with President Joe Biden on Sept. 15 to discuss the social spending package, in which party leaders hope to include the Medicare prescription drug pricing proposal. Sinema has made her resistance to the current House prescription drug negotiation proposal clear to the White House, according to one of the sources, but it’s unclear if she’s completely immovable.
The White House similarly declined to comment. “We don’t discuss the president’s private conversations with senators,” said one senior administration official.
INSIDE THE MODS’ CALCULATION: Progressives think if they band together and threaten to kill the infrastructure bill, it will convince moderate members to go along with the larger reconciliation package. But multiple sources — including a senior Democratic aide and several in the centrist camp — tell us the left is misreading their colleagues.
The upshot: Some moderates privately have decided that no infrastructure bill is better than one that’s paired with $3.5 trillion in spending.
SO LET’S PLAY THIS OUT: If the vote happens Sept. 27, it’s going to be close. Moderates think progressives are bluffing when they say half their 96-person caucus is willing to vote “no” — especially once Pelosi and Biden start whipping. But even if only 20 progressives oppose the bill, that means the party is going to have to rely on Republicans to pass it, since Pelosi can lose only three votes.
That could be a real problem. Leadership aides have openly acknowledgedthey don’t know if they have the votes to pass it. While 19 Republicans backed the BIF in the Senate, few expect that level of support to translate to the House, where DONALD TRUMP’s hold on GOP members is much stronger.
Perhaps you’re an optimist and think these threats are the kind of posturing you’d expect with major legislation, and that Democrats will ultimately figure it out because the alternative would be a lot worse. It could happen! But at this moment, it does not look promising.
Paul Waldman of the Washington Post writes, Kyrsten Sinema needs to show us what she believes in:
The next week could be the most important of Joe Biden’s presidency, as the fates of the infrastructure and reconciliation bills are likely to be determined. If it passes Congress, the latter will almost certainly be the most significant piece of legislation Biden signs; it could even be the last significant piece of legislation he signs.
So in this moment, everyone is being called upon to decide what matters to them. What do they hope to accomplish? What do they do when faced with competing impulses? What goals are they willing to sacrifice? And why did they get involved in politics in the first place?
Let’s consider those questions through the case of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), perhaps the most enigmatic of the players in this drama.
Like her colleague Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), Sinema is a committed supporter of the filibuster and a performative centrist, who clearly believes that it’s to her political advantage in a closely divided state to be seen as independent. Which is fine; every officeholder weighs their political incentives as they approach important decisions.
But in this case, Sinema is putting her foot down on one of the most popular elements of the reconciliation bill: the provision allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for prescription drugs, which would save the government hundreds of billions of dollars. She has reportedly told the White House that she will not stand for it to be included in the bill and even opposes a far more modest proposal to allow for negotiation over a small number of medications.
There is absolutely no political advantage in taking this position. Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices is absurdly popular, with some polls showing over 8 in 10 Americans supporting it. Given Arizona’s large population of senior citizens — who know more about high prescription drug prices than anyone — supporting price negotiation would be a clear political winner for Sinema.
It’s important to understand how central the Medicare provision is to the entire bill. Because Democrats are determined to pay for every last penny of new spending in this legislation, and because negotiating drug prices would save the government hundreds of billions of dollars, eliminating the provision would mean cutting all kinds of other priorities from the bill.
What would they be? Pre-K? Community college? Home care for seniors and the disabled? Paid family leave? An extension of the enhanced child tax credit? It’s up in the air right now, but if your position is that the status quo — a legal ban on Medicare negotiating prices — must remain in place, it means that’s more important to you than the other things the bill seeks to accomplish.
Perhaps Sinema could offer a persuasive explanation for that position. She could, for instance, offer a list of all the things the bill in its current form does that she thinks are not worthwhile, or at least less important than drug company profits. But she hasn’t done that.
This is a broader problem with Sinema: When she is called upon to detail why she is taking a controversial position — for instance, her fervent devotion to the filibuster — she tends to offer explanations that are so weak and blind to reality that one suspects she’s either hiding her real motivations or just doesn’t care.[I believe it is the later.]
We’re told Sinema is a wonky legislator immersed in the substance of the bill (she apparently knows how to use Excel!) [sarcasm], but we don’t know what she actually cares about. What does she want to accomplish? Which of these social insurance measures does she think are vital and which aren’t worth doing?
Sinema reportedly threatened Biden by saying that if the infrastructure bill doesn’t pass the House before the reconciliation bill, she’ll single-handedly kill the latter. But we shouldn’t let (probably empty) threats such as that one distract us from focusing on the substance of what’s at stake.
Because that’s what this is about. It’s fine for Sinema, Manchin or anyone else to look at the reconciliation bill and say, “I’m in favor of items A, B, and C, but not D or E.” People bring different perspectives and priorities to these debates. Then they can try to get the bill to reflect their preferences.
But sooner or later, they have to make clear what matters to them. If making sure drug companies continue to make trillions of dollars in profits is important to Sinema (and apparently it is; she’s one of the drug industry’s most stalwart allies in Congress), then she’ll have to show us what is less important to her.
And no one should be able to hide behind abstract numbers, saying that $3.5 trillion or $2 trillion or some other number is just too big.
A point Cris Hayes made last week.
Over the same 10-year period the reconciliation bill covers, we’ll likely spend around $8 trillion on the military. Sinema and Manchin are in favor of that spending, regardless of the fact that it’s a big number, because they think all those planes and guns and bombs are worth spending that money on.
So when they say the reconciliation bill costs too much, they’re saying they don’t think these things are worth spending money on. They have every right to take that position. But they need to own it and tell everyone why.
A Freshman back bencher senator with no political capital who engages in performance politics does not get to make ultimatums to the president of her party, and jeopardize the political agenda of the Democratic Party of which she is putatively a member. This is totally unacceptable. Back in the day, this would have been unthinkable, and resulted in harsh sanctions from party leadership. Kyrsten Sinema is a political pariah.
Kyrsten Sinema should resign from office and take that sweet lobbyist job she is lining up with her performance politics (she knows that she will not win a Democratic primary in 2024, she is a one termer), and allow Arizona Democrats to select her replacement with a real Democrat who will represent the interests of the Arizonans who voted for her under false pretenses. Sinema committed a profound fraud on the electorate. She is only interested in herself. She does not care a wit about Arizonans who voted for her. Goodbye, and good riddance.
Governor Ducey must appoint a Democrat from three names submitted by the Democratic Party to fill a vacancy in Sinema’s seat.
Via Lawyers, Guns & Money; as someone said, Kyrsten Sinema is the Joe LIeberman of Ralph Naders.
The Claim
BlogforArizona commenter Liza that Senator Kyrsten Sinema is, in summation, vile and toxic to democracy.
The Results of Our Investigation
Fact-Checker Sharpie has verified these claims
The Verdict
We rate commenter Liza's claims as 100%TRUE
I was thinking about this after reading all those articles from last week about Sinema’s corruption.
Well, there’s no enigma here. We don’t have to wonder why Sinema is wiling to tank a Democratic president’s entire economic agenda. Just follow the money.
Sinema is a person who believes in absolutely nothing. She has no values, none at all. That’s why it was so easy for the rightwing to buy her.
I know a lot of people are still hoping that she’ll come around, she won’t REALLY vote down the reconciliation bill, etc…
Truth is, mentally ill people are hard to predict.
It’s going to be a rough week for the (real) Democrats. Even so, I hope they don’t choose appeasement, I hope the progressives stand their ground.
BlogForArizona
@BlogForArizona
11h
‘Carrying Water for Big Corporations’: Sinema Faces Backlash for Opposing Tax Hikes
“She’s such a huge disappointment. Complete lack of principles and no sense of public duty. She only serves herself.”
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/09/26/carrying-water-big-corporations-sinema-faces-backlash-opposing-tax-hikes
Paul Waldman of The Post writes, “Democrats need a new litmus test”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/21/democrats-need-new-litmus-test/
The current machinations around the battle over the “reconciliation” bill are enough to make you tear your hair out. But if anything, that response isn’t extreme enough. Though the bill is still likely to pass, the most important lesson of this chapter may be that so much of this would be unnecessary if we had a Senate that ran on rules that were sane and responsive to the will of the voters.
Yes, I’m talking about the filibuster — but the time for arguing about its merits is behind us. The case for its removal is so obvious that we no longer need to spend time on that debate.
It’s now time for a real litmus test. Or even a purge.
If Democrats actually care about the things they say they believe in, they have to place filibuster reform at the absolute center of their agenda and their identity. No less than support for abortion rights, fair treatment for workers, universal health coverage, or action to address climate change, it’s time to say that if you don’t want to reform the filibuster then you can’t call yourself a Democrat in good standing.
Which means that if you’re already in office, Democrats should run primaries against you if you don’t support filibuster reform. If you haven’t been elected yet, no primary voter should accept that you’re sincere in what you say you believe. And they should vote accordingly.
[If] someone says, “I support abortion rights, but I also think Roe v. Wade should be overturned,” your response would be, “Then you don’t actually support abortion rights.”
And so, if someone says, “I believe in passing a new Voting Rights Act, a minimum-wage increase, and a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented, but I don’t think we should get rid of the filibuster,” then the only reasonable response is, “Then you don’t actually support those things.”
Amazingly, many Democrats have gotten away with not taking a clear position on this issue. According to The Post’s count, 34 of the Senate’s 50 Democrats have clearly advocated eliminating or altering the filibuster, 14 have expressed vague openness to change, and two — Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) — adamantly believe Republicans should keep their veto power over Democratic legislation.
[S]inema has plainly earned a primary challenge, and barring some change of heart, by her next election in 2024 it will be hard for any sincere Democrat to justify voting for her.
While Democrats won’t get to 60 votes in the Senate any time soon, they might get to 52. If so, they should be ready to make it possible to pass their agenda even if Manchin and Sinema resist. And I’d apply this litmus test to Democrats running for offices other than senator, if only as proof that they believe what they say.
[T]here should be no disagreement on this fundamental principle: When Democrats win elections, they should be able to enact the agenda they ran on (and that applies to Republicans too). If you don’t support that, you don’t deserve the trust and support of your party.
“As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators…”
Well, RATS!
So, AZBlue, that’s why you have called upon Sinema to resign for committing “a profound fraud on the electorate.”
Without Divine Intervention, she will cause a lot of suffering between now and 2024.
Yeah LZ, this is a sterling example of the legalized bribery that is killing our democracy & the country along with it. “Dances for money, any old dollar will do”.
I’ve got to admit, I missed this about Sinema, I missed the greed factor. I thought her character deficits were mostly about power grabbing and a pathological need for attention.
Big Pharma, medical firms donated $750K to Kyrsten Sinema — then she opposed drug bill
By IGOR DERYSH
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 6:01AM (EDT)
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the controversial Arizona Democrat who threatens to derail President Biden’s legislative agenda, received more than $750,000 in donations from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. After that, she announced her opposition to a Democratic plan to lower prescription drug costs.
Sinema is a longtime favorite of the pharmaceutical industry and now appears ready to undermine Biden’s entire agenda as Big Pharma wages a lobbying blitz in hopes of torpedoing the bill, which nearly 90% of voters support.
Sinema has received $519,988 from PACs and individuals in the pharmaceutical industry throughout her political career, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. She brought in more than $120,000 in pharma contributions between 2019 and 2020 even though she is not up for re-election until 2024. Sinema has also received $190,161 from donors in the pharmaceutical manufacturing space and $62,797 from the medical supplies industry.
Sinema’s office is led by a former lobbyist whose firm worked on behalf of pharmaceutical companies.
https://www.salon.com/2021/09/23/big-pharma-firms-donated-750k-to-kyrsten-sinema–then-she-opposed-bill/
The Tucson Sentinel reports, “Arizona Sen. Sinema urged to support Build Back Better spending plan”, http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/092221_build_back_rally_sinema/arizona-sen-sinema-urged-support-build-back-better-spending-plan/
Democrats in the Legislature and activists from the Working Families Party met Tuesday at the state Capitol to urge Sen. Kyrsten Sinema to take action on President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better agenda.
Dolores Huerta, the co-founder of the National Farm Workers Association, was one of many who called upon Sinema to vote yes on Build Back Better, which aims to get the American economy back on track after the COVID-19 pandemic by cutting taxes for workers and families; creating clean-energy jobs; and lowering the cost of housing, health care and education for working families. The plan would be funded by raising taxes on wealthy corporations and Americans earning more than $400,000 a year.
Tuesday’s rally was the latest in a string of events from activists geared toward Sen. Sinema and Sen. Mark Kelly, who’s also a Democrat.
“Where are you, Senator Sinema, now that we need you?” Huerta asked. “You have heard the testimonies here of all the people of Arizona that need you right now. People believed in you. They sent you to Congress, and now it is time for you to act, not only for the people of Arizona but for the people of the United States of America.”
Sinema’s office had no comment.
State Rep. Richard Andrade, R-west Phoenix, expressed the desperation that some Arizona workers are feeling. “Today we need her in our time of need. We need her to support the Build Back Better Act … and the many acts that are going through. She is the one person who is holding back legislation which benefits working families in Arizona.”
Huerta urged Arizonans to take action into their own hands: “We are the only ones that can move her; we can’t expect anybody else to do it. So I’m going to call upon everybody here. Do whatever we can, in the next week, to let her know that she cannot get away with being the obstacle to progress in the United States of America.”
#RecallSinema
May sound good in a state that has a constitutional recall provision, but not possible. “Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of Congress from Office”, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30016.html
As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States. The recall of Members was considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the states for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative in Congress exists under the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members of Congress, other Supreme Court decisions [e.g. term limits], as well as the weight of other judicial and administrative decisions, rulings, and opinions, indicate that (1) the right to remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office is one which resides exclusively in each house of Congress as expressly delegated in the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) the length and number of the terms of office for federal officials, established and agreed upon by the states in the Constitution creating that federal government, may not be unilaterally changed by an individual state, such as through the enactment of a recall provision or a term limitation for a United States Senator or Representative. Under Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, since individual states never had the original sovereign authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of service of federal officials agreed to and established in the Constitution, such a power could not be “reserved” under the Tenth Amendment. Even the dissenters in the Supreme Court decision on the Tenth Amendment and term limits, who would have found a “reserved” authority in the states regarding “qualifications” of Members of Congress, conceded that the exclusive authority to remove a sitting Member is delegated to each house in the expulsion clause of the Constitution, and that with respect to “a power of recall … the Framers denied to the States [such power] when they specified the terms of Members of Congress.”
“…she’s in the way and doing things that are hurting people.”
I keep thinking of Bernie Sanders and the Herculean effort he has invested in getting progressive policies legislated by Congress. Finally, there is this opportunity because voting rights activists in the state of Georgia made a Herculean effort to send two Democrats to the Senate.
It’s a moment in time, really. It won’t last long. And to get this done, everything has to line up, no defections, no rogue lawmakers, no corrupt lawmakers, no overinflated egos. Then along comes Sinema, motivated by God knows what to blow it all up unless she gets to decide EVERYTHING.
It has become painful for me to watch Bernie these days, advocating for the reconciliation bill, trying to spread a message that is basically just common sense at this point. These “progressive” policies are hardly progressive anymore given that this country is so far behind.
It’s going to be a damn shame if the reconciliation bill doesn’t get legislated, or if it gets gutted so severely that it doesn’t do enough. Progressives have already made so many compromises to get this far.
But, yeah, apparently Sinema is willing to hurt people, badly, for years and years to come. She is evil.
After five years of absolute horrors like “good people on both sides” and asking if we can inject bleach, of falling in love with murderous North Korean dictators and giving a pass to the guy that had Adnan Khashoggi sawn into pieces while he was alive, January 20th 2021 was the light at the end of the tunnel.
Then Sinema came along and said “but what about my needs” and snuffed out the light.
Let’s primary this steaming pile of Republican dog-sheegies, she’s in the way and doing things that are hurting people.
LTE to Star today…
Sinema Fights for Drug Industry
Who is Senator Sinema fighting for these days? ALSIC, a pHarma dark money conduit for campaign donations to elected politicians in Congress, sent a flyer to Arizona households a few months ago. The flyer announced that ALSIC had awarded Sen. Sinema a “2021 Health Care Innovation” commendation. Maybe because she is the sixth largest Senate Democratic recipient of campaign cash from the industry this election cycle?
In two recent Arizona polls, significant majorities favored passage of the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill, which in part allows the government to lower drug prices. But Sinema has told the White House she opposes the plan to lower prescription drug prices as part of the bill.
Senator Sinema needs to fight for the people by supporting the reconciliation bill, and stop fighting for the drug monopolies! Get out of the swamp, Senator.
Yeah, WB, that fits. So does this…
“Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism.”
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662
Taking any position for money without regard for the impact of that position or previously held beliefs. That’s the very definition of a political whore.
Phoenix New Times adds, “Why Does Kyrsten Sinema Oppose Drug Pricing Reform? Maybe This Is Why.”, https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/sinema-opposes-drug-pricing-reform-takes-lots-of-money-from-the-pharmaceutical-industry-12026240
Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who is a top recipient of donations from the pharmaceutical industry, is reportedly objecting to prescription drug pricing reforms that are being pushed by President Biden and Congressional Democrats.
[Politico] reported yesterday that Sinema is “opposed to the current drug prescription drug pricing proposals in both the House and Senate Bills” and that she “doesn’t support a pared-back alternative” that is being pushed by centrist Democrats in the House who are squeamish about the provisions. Sinema also allegedly told President Biden during a September 15 meeting that she was opposed to the proposals, though the report notes that it’s “unclear” if the Arizona senator is “completely immovable.”
Why might Sinema have such reservations? One reason might be that she has significant financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. According to opensecrets.org, Sinema has taken more than $466,000 from individuals and political action committees tied to the pharmaceutical industry since she was first elected in 2018. Last year, Kaiser Health News dubbed Sinema a “pharma favorite in Congress” who is a “leading recipient of pharma campaign cash” even though she won’t have to run for reelection until 2024.
Sinema’s office did not respond to Phoenix New Times’ request for comment.
Her opposition to the proposed drug pricing reforms prompted fierce criticism from notable progressives such as Robert Reich, the former U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton. Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has also criticized Sinema for her alleged threat to kill the larger spending bill if the House doesn’t vote on the bipartisan infrastructure package by September 27.
“Changing the terms of a deal after it’s done is what one does when trying to tank millions of people’s chances at healthcare, childcare, climate protection, & unions,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a tweet thread posted yesterday. “If one member’s irrational demand tanks infrastructure, healthcare, & climate for the whole country then maybe that’s the real entitlement reform we should be looking at.”
“Sinema committed a profound fraud on the electorate. She is only interested in herself.”
Right on, AZBlue, and thanks for the timely dissemination of this information about Sinema. The wretched creature is becoming more of a monster by the hour, and I fully believe she is capable of taking down the Biden agenda by herself. Her reasons for doing so, in my opinion, are related to her mental health issues and that probably means she can’t be moved. But, at the moment, what matters is that she is threatening to obstruct almost every domestic policy proposal that the Democrats ran on in 2020. The Democrats won the election, and they have a mandate from the American people.
Things are looking pretty dire.
SEP 21, 2021 ANDREW PEREZ, DAVID SIROTA
Sinema Threat Followed Boost From Pharma Group
A PhRMA-backed dark money group started running ads for Kyrsten Sinema just before she threatened to take down Democrats’ drug pricing plan.
https://www.dailyposter.com/sinema-threat-followed-boost-from-pharma-group/
Last week, corporate Democrats Reps. Scott Peters of California, Kurt Schrader of Oregon and Kathleen Rice of New York joined Republicans and voted against the drug price provision, causing a deadlock on the House, Energy and Commerce Committee and preventing it from passing through the panel. That didn’t kill the provision — it advanced through the Ways and Means Committee later that day. “Medicare drug prices could go down — but these Democrats say no,” https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/medicare-drug-prices-could-go-down-these-democrats-say-no-n1279402?icid=msd_topgrid
Kyrsten Sinema, who has frequently voted with Big Pharma, is giving these corporate Democrats cover to obstruct in the House, as she is obstructing in the evenly-divided Senate.