Inflation Reduction Act Passes House

Last year, I thought that eventually some form of Build Back Better would pass via the reconciliation process.  That is the inside baseball, but ever so important, Senate process that allows certain economic related matters to be passed by mere majority.  BBB would be climate related but also have a lot of social programs, including early childhood education. 

What a concept, I know, to have majority rule in an already mal-apportioned institution, but we have the Senate we have.  There still is a filibuster, if one limited somewhat, and not currently in place (though blue slips remain for district judges) for nominations.  Anyway, Manchin never did approve the whole thing. It was an act of treachery that pissed a lot of us off, up to and including President Biden.

[As with the filibuster, a 50-50 Senate is stuck with dealing with its last members.  It is not really fair that they can veto stuff the President, House, and the rest of the Senate majority wants.  

Still, when negotiating, it is what it is. Don't like it?  Including Manchin's rejection of the Children's Tax Credit? Get a bigger majority. And, maybe then you can even get at least partial filibuster reform.]

Ah.  It wasn't totally dead.  The social program stuff was largely stripped out (though it has Affordable Care Act stuff among other things left), but the now entitled Inflation Reduction Act [an exercise in branding, clearly] did pass.  The pending law (which the House just passed by a pure party-line vote) is particularly being promoted for its climate provisions.  

The dynamics of passing the bill involves some skillful negotiations by Senate leadership (thanks Chuck Schumer).  Manchin's agreement came as a surprise. The Senate was addressing “The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022” and it looked like the threat was that any idea of a BBB type bill would mean blocking that.  Well, CHIPS was passed, and then Manchin said "DEAL!"  Sorta looked like Republicans got played.

Anyway, the end result is a BFD (that is Biden talk -- Big fucking deal), especially given a 50-50 Senate.  It still is not as much as many wanted. The inflation part of the bill, for instance, very well be more name than something that will do much for inflation.  So some experts say.  I don't know.  There is inflation out there, but it's a worldwide economic trend, and its questionable how much any such bill will address it.  IDK.

If inflation is Manchin's thing, so be it -- it has other stuff too.  I'm for the climate and health care stuff myself.  The original version of the NYT article I linked noted some "young activists" were in particular dissatisfied.  This is the quote included, though even among this group, you could have cited any number of people (even AOC, unless she's no longer "young"):

“It’s hard to feel we really won, when the prize is not in line with the science,” said Alexandria Villaseñor, 17, who founded the activist group Earth Uprising. She said the bill “still doesn’t do enough to protect the most vulnerable among us, so we’re really going to have to start placing pressure on the government.”

As a blog comment to a post about passage, I cited that excerpt (the blog quoted from the article), adding:

Go at it. Including when you are old enough to vote. This is who they get a quote from? Oh well. Thanks Joe, Nancy, Chuck, and all the rest.

My comment was generally popular, but someone thought it divisive and implied an attack.  The person stuck with that when I noted I said "go at it," and did not intend to insult the person.  The person also argued the article was trying to divide people and we should not encourage such "framing."

As I noted, the main "framing" I saw was the person's own comments, including adding much more meaning to my comment -- and even to the article -- than to me warranted.  The person's back/forth with someone else, who was also made into a more negative person than warranted from my reading of the person's comments, added to this.  It to me is an example of an online comment that reads into a comment much more than warranted. THIS person is the one who was causing dubious division.

My comment was addressed to the article (the quote does not seem to be there in the most recent version) choosing ("this is who they get a quote from"?) this person to quote to express the faction that is somewhat unsatisfied.  My comment did not say she would not vote. Or, that her comment is necessarily even wrong. 

But, a few replies sorta took it as a dig against her, suggesting she wanted a pony or was immature.  Another (answering the person I cited) praised the content of the quote.  Again, I did not criticize her.  "Thank you" was a reply to the praise.  As if there was some need to praise someone who was not being criticized for her basic sentiments.  More power to her.  We will need people like her, pushing and fighting, in the future.

I suppose the replies are helpful to learn about what others are thinking. Like someone who claimed I was "mansplaining" (how does one reply? it will just seem like more mansplaining), perhaps I should just be philosophical about the whole thing.  There are lessons to be learned.  Still, I think that cartoon has some application as well.

Anyway, add IRA to the Democrat success pile.  One notable self-goal: Republicans blocked a $35 insulin cap, an across the board cap deemed not germane for the reconciliation bill.  So, sixty votes were needed; only seven Republican senators went along.  That still gives it "bipartisan" cred while opposition to a popular provision (in place for Medicare) is prime election time goal.  Some like Chuck Grassley claimed they really support it, but conveniently, what actually had a chance to pass was blocked.  

The other big thing on the table is voting rights. I see no avenue for that since you cannot do that by reconciliation. The one chance there is a limited voting rights reform, the Electoral Count Act matter.  That has a real chance of passing.