Inflation Reduction Act passes US Senate

[al2002]

After long negotiations and much slicing and dicing, ‘our’ (as in “we the people….”) Senate has passed a ‘thin’ version of the Inflation Reduction Act (as it is titled). Many useful provisions had to be removed in order to get Manchin and Sinema to agree.

Just in case anyone thinks Senators act on behalf of their voters’ interests, this article will enlighten them:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/07/climate/manchin-schumer-pipeline-political-funding.html

Nothing on Sinema yet, but does anyone doubt that her benefactors got their share of perks too?

No wonder the US middle class is in such a pickle. Yet, they keep voting against their own best interests, repeatedly.

Perhaps of interest to US forum members only?

 

[PsB]

Sinema's donors include private equity companies, to the tune of $ 0.5 million this year. It is of course a complete coincidence that she made her vote conditional on the removal of a provision in the package that targeted the carried interest loophole, much beloved of PE firms. She is not the only senator to be financed by PE.

In other horsetrading news, the Republicans secured a concession: the cap that had been planned on the price of insuline was dropped, so the Inflation Reduction Act won't do much on that front.

 

[Hook]

There are a number of good provisions in the bill. Is it everything progressives desired? Of course not. But it passed, and it will have a positive impact on many people’s lives.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/15/politics/biden-build-back-better-manchin/index.html

This bill will give Democratic candidates some much needed momentum going into the midterms.

 

[ks.234]

Reducing the deficit is reducing public spending. Yes it will reduce inflation, but the consequences will be economic hardship of one sort or another.

 

[sean99]

Reducing the deficit is reducing public spending. Yes it will reduce inflation, but the consequences will be economic hardship of one sort or another.

I would think that would very much depend on how the deficit is reduced. If it was reduced by cuts to programs that benefit the bottom 95% then I agree with you, but if you reduce the deficit by allowing the government to negotiate prices for medicare covered prescription drugs, or by funding the IRS to better investigate tax evasion and avoidance then I don't think there will be any resulting hardship - unless, that is, you believe that the extra taxes, mostly on the extremely wealthy, will reduce the trickle-down.

 

[Kirk]

From HCR:

"Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne noted accurately today that what these measures do is far more than the sum of their parts. They show Americans that democracy is messy and slow but that it works, and it works for them. Since he took office, this has been President Joe Biden’s argument: he would head off the global drive toward authoritarianism by showing that democracy is still the best system of government out there. At a time when authoritarians are trying to demonstrate that democracies cannot function nearly as effectively as the rule of an elite few, he is proving them wrong."

 

[gavreid]

From HCR:

"Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne noted accurately today that what these measures do is far more than the sum of their parts. They show Americans that democracy is messy and slow but that it works, and it works for them. Since he took office, this has been President Joe Biden’s argument: he would head off the global drive toward authoritarianism by showing that democracy is still the best system of government out there. At a time when authoritarians are trying to demonstrate that democracies cannot function nearly as effectively as the rule of an elite few, he is proving them wrong."

Only inasmuch as the Democrats don't get the blame for failing to deliver on anything much at all, which seems to exactly what will happen later this year...

 

[ks.234]

Only inasmuch as the Democrats don't get the blame for failing to deliver on anything much at all, which seems to exactly what will happen later this year...

We slowed down public spending cuts a tiny little bit.

 

[sean99]

Within the constraints of a broken political system the democrats achieved what was possible, which IMO is better than achieving absolutely nothing at all complaining from the sidelines that the system is broken or needs to be radically changed (which will not happen).

 

[gavreid]

Within the constraints of a broken political system the democrats achieved what was possible, which IMO is better than achieving absolutely nothing at all complaining from the sidelines that the system is broken or needs to be radically changed (which will not happen).

It's not about moaning from the sidelines, that misses the point completely. The Democrats need to be recruiting younger people to the party and fighting in each and every District for votes. There were one or two good examples last time where activists made the difference on the ground but it was very much the exception. For the Democrat establishment and their business backers this is the last thing they will be promoting, I'm sure...

 

[al2002]

Sinema's donors include private equity companies, to the tune of $ 0.5 million this year. It is of course a complete coincidence that she made her vote conditional on the removal of a provision in the package that targeted the carried interest loophole, much beloved of PE firms. She is not the only senator to be financed by PE.

In other horsetrading news, the Republicans secured a concession: the cap that had been planned on the price of insuline was dropped, so the Inflation Reduction Act won't do much on that front.

Yes, contributions to Sinema’s war chest from the financial services industry are well known, but there are others.

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kyrsten-sinema/summary?cid=N00033983

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...sinema-fundraising-republican-donors-1293087/

 

[al2002]

There are a number of good provisions in the bill. Is it everything progressives desired? Of course not. But it passed, and it will have a positive impact on many people’s lives.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/15/politics/biden-build-back-better-manchin/index.html

This bill will give Democratic candidates some much needed momentum going into the midterms.

The key point I was trying to make is that if politicians weren't in the pockets of big money interests, much more would get done, not that this is likely to change anytime soon.

This bill is a fraction of the original Build Back Better proposal. After a while, the hackneyed “something is better than nothing” refrain loses its appeal at the polls.

 

[al2002]

Reducing the deficit is reducing public spending. Yes it will reduce inflation, but the consequences will be economic hardship of one sort or another.

This is really an environmental and medical bill under an intentionally misleading name to make it more palatable to the Manchins of this world.

The increase in taxes will not affect anyone making under 400k/annum, or so it appears on paper. According to a preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, the reduction in the deficit will be around 90 billion over 10 years. This is a pittance.

Edit: this bill is not going to affect inflation. To curb inflation the Fed will have to raise rates further.

 

[Hook]

The key point I was trying to make is that if politicians weren't in the pockets of big money interests, much more would get done, not that this is likely to change anytime soon.

This bill is faction of the original Build Back Better proposal. After a while, the hackneyed “something is better than nothing” refrain loses its appeal at the polls.

It’s totally fair to point out how money pollutes our political landscape. Would love to see Dems do more on this, but at least two Dem Senators aren’t interested.

I grow weary of pointing out how fragile and slim the Democratic majority in the Senate is. IMO, the Dems got the best deal they were going to get this time around from Manchin and Sinema. We can complain that it wasn’t enough, but like Bernie said, it’s time to take this latest win, add it to the scorecard and move on to the next one.

Prior to this latest bill, and despite a growing list of legislative and other accomplishments, I believe the Dems ran a risk of being accused of squandering their two years of “power” by doing little to nothing on climate, energy and health insurance. Upon passage later this week or early next, that case can no longer be made.

 

[Paul R]

Prior to this latest bill, and despite a growing list of legislative and other accomplishments, I believe the Dems ran a risk of being accused of squandering their two years of “power” by doing little to nothing on climate, energy and health insurance. Upon passage later this week or early next, that case can no longer be made.

Except it's known as the 'Inflation Reduction Act'. If it doesn't work (and, AFAICT, it's more like an inflation driving package) then it's going to provide another easy attack surface.

 

[Hook]

Except it's known as the 'Inflation Reduction Act'. If it doesn't work (and, AFAICT, it's more like an inflation driving package) then it's going to provide another easy attack surface.

The bill raises taxes on high earners and corporations. This goal is to reduce the deficit and lower inflation, but that won’t happen before the midterms. Until then, the GOP will no doubt make all sorts of false claims. IMO, these attacks will not diminish Dem’s ability to tout this progress on climate, energy and healthcare.

 

[Kirk]

Only inasmuch as the Democrats don't get the blame for failing to deliver on anything much at all, which seems to exactly what will happen later this year...

That's the boilerplate comrade view though. There's a lot more in the bill than 'anything much at all' - and it's quite an achievement considering the math in the Senate and long Trump. As for the midterms, the electorate aren't looking for radical change.

 

[gavreid]

That's the boilerplate comrade view though. There's a lot more in the bill than 'anything much at all' - and it's quite an achievement considering the math in the Senate and long Trump. As for the midterms, the electorate aren't looking for radical change.

That certainly wasn't my take on Biden's election and the important Senate victories. I felt the electorate was crying out for change, which he's largely failed to deliver. I recall the White House Spokesperson scoffing at the idea of free Covid tests, for example. Useless! It will only fuel the flames of extremism still further - Trump's election was a consequence of Democratic morbidity and decline...

 

[Kirk]

That certainly wasn't my take on Biden's election and the important Senate victories. I felt the electorate was crying out for change, which he's largely failed to deliver. I recall the White House Spokesperson scoffing at the idea of free Covid tests, for example. Useless! It will only fuel the flames of extremism still further - Trump's election was a consequence of Democratic morbidity and decline...

They certainly wanted to change the President, and get back to some form of normality. The green and drug policies in the Act are decent wins: Medicare can now negotiate lower drug prices for one and the green initiatives will encourage people to buy 'low carbon' (e.g. electric cars) and push business to invest in green technologies/renewables. A huge improvement on Trump. The midterms will provide some insight into how much change America wants in 2022. I doubt it wants that much, at least on the Federal level.