The $3.5 Trillion Democrat Budget Blueprint: Read It For Yourself

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

13 Responses

  1. Can we not do “Democrat” as an adjective?Report

  2. North says:

    If the party pulls off even half what they’re going for with this reconciliation bill it’ll be historic. My goodness it’s bold.Report

    • Philip H in reply to North says:

      Its uncharacteristically bold for the Democratic Party. And if they are really going to do it by reconciliation they may yank a big reelection rug out form under the Republicans.Report

      • InMD in reply to Philip H says:

        They need to succeed and if they fail both Pelosi and Schumer should lose their leadership spots, even on the off chance they keep the majority.Report

        • North in reply to InMD says:

          Well odds are fantastic that Pelosi, at least, is going to retire after the next election.

          Schumer, probably yeah. If he pulls this juggling act off, though, I think I’ll need to lean on Stillwater to take back all the bad stuff he’s said about him.Report

          • InMD in reply to North says:

            I share a lot of Still’s criticisms of the D congressional gerontocracy but I also believe you have to give credit when it is due. And if this works they will definitely deserve some.Report

    • JS in reply to North says:

      Good thing that at least a full third of it exists solely so it can be killed as a price for Manchin, Sinema, and perhaps one or two others.

      Which, fair enough. Bake that into the pie if you have to.

      On the other hand, it being pretty much entirely a Democratic bill, you can get some actual, honest, good-faith horse-trading done.Report

      • North in reply to JS says:

        From your lips to God(ess?)’s ear. Also, in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due: who the fish knew Crazy Uncle Bernie could be such a canny operator as the Chair of the Budget Committee?
        It’s like someone kicked a stick out of the cogs on the left and the whole party’s gears have just been clunking and turning since Super Tuesday of 2020 or something.Report

        • JS in reply to North says:

          Manchin and Sinema are already playing “I can’t vote for 3.5 trillion”.

          Which, as a cynical man who has watched politics for awhile, strikes me very much as “So please serve up the sacrificial pound of flesh added solely to this bill so we can strike it”.

          Because I cannot fathom this leaving Committee without Schumer at least (and Sanders is experienced enough he should know how the sausage is made) having already talked to Manchin and Sinema heavily, and assured them there will be something to stand against to prove their bold, independent, “I’m not your usual politician” mavericky ways.Report

  3. So, it’s the best of bills and it’s the worst of bills. From a positive standpoint, it is much needed and the climate component in particular is absolutely essential. From a negative point of view, it is likely to be inflationary, which will just eat our lunch, especially the federal budget. It seems like a no-win situation. Dire eventualities abound.Report

    • j r in reply to Paul F. Uhlir says:

      I am stuck on your formulation of much-needed but a no-win. My sense is that our whole approach to infrastructure is deeply flawed and mostly a way to use ideological sentiment to funnel money to a bunch of special interests, but I admit that I am cynical. What does the winning version of an infrastructure bill look like? Or is it that you think we are so far behind, the effort to catch up will exhaust us no matter what?Report