USA News and Discussions

User avatar
caltrek
Posts: 6474
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: USA News and Discussions

Post by caltrek »

While the Build Back Better proposals that progressive Democrats are putting forth with Biden's support may be seen as threatening West Virginia's coal industry, there are many other ways in which it would be a clear benefit to that state.

West Virginia Constituents Decry 'Immorality' of Joe Manchin
by Julia Conley
October 22, 2021

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/ ... oe-manchin

Introduction:
(Common Dreams) "West Virginia has been locked into an economy that forces workers into low-wage jobs with no hope for advancement, and after decades of this our hope is dwindling," said one West Virginian. "The cuts that Sen. Manchin has negotiated into the agenda hurt our state."

West Virginians were joined by economists and economic justice campaigners at a virtual press conference hosted by the Poor People's Campaign on Friday where they condemned Sen. Joe Manchin's refusal to back the Democratic Party's far-reaching Build Back Better Act, pointing out how people across his home state stand to benefit from the legislation—and suffer if the senator succeeds in tanking the proposal.

While President Joe Biden and the majority of Democrats in Congress—as well as voters across the country—aim to pass a $3.5 trillion 10-year investment including a long-term extension of the child tax credit that's sent hundreds of dollars per month to families with children, tuition-free community college, universal pre-kindergarten, and other social supports, Manchin has proposed a smaller package that the Poor People's Campaign said will offer a fraction of the help to West Virginians that's included in Biden's plan.

The Poor People's Campaign decried "the immorality of Manchin’s proposal, which hurts the same people that the Biden plan helps."
Don't mourn, organize.

-Joe Hill
User avatar
caltrek
Posts: 6474
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: USA News and Discussions

Post by caltrek »

Joe Manchin’s Blatant Conflict of Interest Shines Light on a Deeper Problem
by Piper McDaniel
October 26, 2021

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... den-cop26/

Introduction:
(Mother Jones) Sen. Joe Manchin’s role in overhauling the spending bill has sparked national interest in reining in congressional conflicts of interest. The question is whether anything meaningful might come of it.

The Biden administration’s current predicament demonstrates what’s at stake: The ambition of enacting comprehensive climate action has been waylaid by two centrist senators. One of them, West Virginia Democrat Manchin, owns millions of dollars in coal industry stock and has received more donations from fossil fuel and energy companies so far this election cycle than any other senator.

Manchin has demanded a reduction in the size of the budget bill, from $3.5 trillion to $1.5 trillion. He specifically opposed the proposed Clean Electricity Performance Program, a $150 billion package of financial carrots and sticks designed to transition American industries from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

More than any other proposal, the CEPP was considered central to slashing the emissions of CO2 and methane—a more potent greenhouse gas—to pull the world back from the brink of climate catastrophe. Moreover, it would have slowly chipped away at fossil fuels, including coal, the industry that made Manchin and his family wealthy. But Manchin’s opposition killed the CEPP, and now Democrats are scrambling to remake the bill in a format acceptable to Manchin.

A politician controlling legislation that directly affects an industry their family profits from is “not illegal,” notes Craig Holman, an ethics lobbyist for the nonprofit group Public Citizen. “And it’s not a violation of congressional ethics rules. But it is a statement as to how pathetically weak congressional ethics rules are.”
Don't mourn, organize.

-Joe Hill
User avatar
caltrek
Posts: 6474
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: USA News and Discussions

Post by caltrek »

Image
Khalil Bendib / OtherWords.org
Don't mourn, organize.

-Joe Hill
User avatar
wjfox
Site Admin
Posts: 8665
Joined: Sat May 15, 2021 6:09 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: USA News and Discussions

Post by wjfox »

User avatar
wjfox
Site Admin
Posts: 8665
Joined: Sat May 15, 2021 6:09 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: USA News and Discussions

Post by wjfox »

User avatar
Ozzie guy
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 4:40 pm

Re: USA News and Discussions

Post by Ozzie guy »

wjfox wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 8:38 am
I wonder why they keep becoming more right wing they must know that if people don't have any kind of left wing option they are more likely to become fed up with the system and favour the system being ended. Why breed communists and anarchists like that if your a capitalist party in a capitalist country?
User avatar
wjfox
Site Admin
Posts: 8665
Joined: Sat May 15, 2021 6:09 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: USA News and Discussions

Post by wjfox »

User avatar
caltrek
Posts: 6474
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: USA News and Discussions

Post by caltrek »

Why Joe Manchin is Wrong About Inflation
by By Noah Berlatsky
November 5, 2021

https://www.alternet.org/2021/11/joe-ma ... inflation/

Extract:
(Alternet) Manchin has said he is opposed to social spending in Joe Biden's Build Back Better infrastructure program because he is worried too much spending will result in "runaway inflation." Among other changes, Manchin is scaling back the child tax credit that was passed in the covid-relief funding bill earlier this year. The credit reduced food insecurity among Manchin's constituents in West Virginia from 11.6 percent to 8.4 percent in the month of July.

Manchin is worried that large scale spending will cause prices to rise. Prices go up when there is a lot of demand for goods. If the government spends money, people have more money and want more goods and services. Then demand increases, and you get inflation.

…In the first place, there is little indication that more spending would create the kind of hyperinflation he fears. Prices did rise 4.3 percent year to year in August, which is a 30-year high. However, they have fallen slightly since August — hardly a sign that inflation is running away. Moreover, part of the reason energy prices are spiking is because worldwide demand contracted during the pandemic. It's taking some time for suppliers to ramp up production again.

Even if the Build Back Better act is passed without cuts, government spending is going to fall by about $1 trillion and borrowing is going to drop by $2 trillion from 2021 to 2022 as the covid-relief package is used up. That doesn't suggest an inexorable upward pressure on pricing analogous to what happened during the Johnson era.
...
When the value of money goes down, the real value of debts also goes down. People who have credit card debts or student loans will find it easier to pay down those debts if prices and wages rise across the economy. In contrast, people who hold debts — like credit card companies and banks — will end up being paid back in less valuable dollars. Since creditors are generally wealthier than debtors, inflation can shift resources to less affluent people. Which, one suspects, may be a reason why millionaires like Senator Joe Manchin dislike it
The Alternet* article cites a Washington University in Saint Louis* article in which it is noted that not investing in education has its own costs:
“Impoverished children grow up having fewer skills and are thus less able to contribute to the productivity of the economy,” said Mark R. Rank, the Herbert S. Hadley Professor of Social Welfare and one of the country’s foremost experts on income inequality. “They are also more likely to experience frequent health care problems and to engage in crime. These costs are borne by the children themselves, but ultimately by the wider society as well.”

These costs are clustered around the loss of economic productivity, increased health and crime costs, and increased costs as a result of child homelessness and maltreatment, finds the study, “Estimating the Economic Cost of Childhood Poverty in the United States,” published March 30 in the journal Social Work Research.

… “It is estimated that for every dollar spent on reducing childhood poverty, the country would save at least $7 with respect to the economic costs of poverty,” said Rank, co-developer of an innovative poverty calculator.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Rank said that the federal government spent $3.7 trillion in 2015, meaning that the annual cost of childhood poverty represented 28 percent of the entire federal budget that year.
*https://source.wustl.edu/2018/04/childh ... udy-finds/

The Alternet article also notes that increases in government spending in some areas could be offset by reductions in others, such as in military spending and ethanol subsidies. In regards to ethanol subsidies, an article in The Atlantic** is referenced in which it is noted that:
As a way to replace dwindling reserves of oil, ethanol subsidies had a certain brutal logic, especially if oil prices were going to keep rising with no end in sight. But as a way to address climate change, the program never made any sense. Corn ethanol may well be worse for the climate than fossil fuels, and the program does significant damage to both the economy and the environment. Its sole beneficiaries are large agricultural corporations—and the politicians who serve them.

… today’s corn-ethanol program is a glaring failure, and it is unconscionable that politicians of both parties are conspiring to keep it alive despite knowing full well what its problems are.
**https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... us/602191/
Don't mourn, organize.

-Joe Hill
weatheriscool
Posts: 12727
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 6:16 pm

Re: USA News and Discussions

Post by weatheriscool »

House passes $555 billion infrastructure bill, sends legislation to Biden's desk
Source: MSNBC
The House passed a $555 billion infrastructure bill on Friday night, sending the legislation to President Joe Biden who is expected to quickly sign the measure into law.

The funding package, which passed 228 to 206 and relied on Republican votes to get across the finish line, will ramp up government spending on roads, bridges and airports, as well as funding for public transit, water and broadband.

Six Democrats voted against the measure and 13 Republicans voted in favor. The Democratic opposition was progressive members who were unhappy that the bill was being voted on before passage of a $1.75 trillion social safety net spending bill.

The vote hands Biden a victory on a major bipartisan bill, but one that took months to get through Congress and revealed deep divisions in the Democratic Party. The Senate approved the bill in August before it stalled for months as House progressives clashed with Democratic centrists on a $1.75 trillion social safety net measure that could get a vote later this month.
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... s-n1280527
User avatar
wjfox
Site Admin
Posts: 8665
Joined: Sat May 15, 2021 6:09 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: USA News and Discussions

Post by wjfox »

Post Reply