Some of this is rooted in the continuing hangover from the pandemic. Some 46 percent say he has done a worse job than they expected — including 16 percent of those who voted for him. These are terrible numbers. Donald Trump , for now, is history. But on the Hill, progressives are again vowing to block any vote on the bipartisan hard infrastructure bill until the social spending is finished.
One progressive source told me Speaker Pelosi's suggestion that a vote could come soon -- quote -- "definitely caught us off-guard. Not sure if she really thinks she can will this thing through, but the votes are not there. Are you against that?
Would ensure that children don't -- aren't drinking poisoned water? These are key components of change, of progress that many progressives have expressed support and excitement about.
Of course, things are still being worked out here. The White House says they're working with Democratic leaders in Congress to set up the extension for the baseline funding for the hard infrastructure that will expire again at the end of this month if a vote doesn't happen.
So that's looking like a backup plan. But the messaging from the White House is, anything's possible, could still happen -- Neil. So this issue of a billionaires tax that might have been torpedoed, whatever its real future possibilities here, because Joe Manchin did seem to pivot on this issue, that he was open to some sort of tax on the wealthy, that they should be paying something.
The difference was what was being offered here, as a tax on capital gains for the well-to-do, whether they have sold those underlying assets or not.
It gets complicated, but, fortunately, that is the world that Chad Pergram dominates and can express in English better than anyone else I know. So, Chad, where do we stand on this so-called billionaires tax? That was going to be the means by which they were going to pay for a lot of it? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is forcing the issue. She wants legislative language later today from committees on the social spending package, but things are far from settled.
Pay-fors are the biggest divide in this bill. The push to tax the elite group of billionaires may enthrall the left, but that appears to be out. None of us in the Democratic Caucus in the House have any problem with asking billionaires for more money. That's fine. But this happened all of a sudden. Democrat Joe Manchin opposes the billionaires tax. Well, people in the stratosphere, rather than trying to penalize them, we ought to be pleased that this country's able to produce the wealth.
I don't like the connotation that we're targeting different people. There is aggravation from members not knowing what's in or out. And this is why progressives won't vote for the infrastructure bill.
And then can we get a definitive time on a vote? We need to have this done by next week. One senior moderate Democrat groused about demands from what they called -- quote -- "the blanking progressives" -- Neil. Congressman, where are you on, let's say, the billionaires tax? Welcome back. My issue with this is a couple things. One, it's an idea. It's an idea that's been floated. It's not legislative text. That's an issue.
But I think there are some other technical questions. And, as Richie Neal said, look, we're -- it's not like we're averse to taxing those who have done extraordinarily well at a fair rate.
But it has to be realistic. Can we tax unrealized gains? Should we tax unrealized gains? Or should we focus our energy on taxing those high income earners with the marginal rate that the Ways and Means Committee increased by 2. To me, what we did when with the Ways and Means Committee product is more predictable. It's certainly clearly constitutional.
And what I can't understand is why is it that we're avoiding just taking what we know will work, and coming up with these ideas that are unclear, when, to a great extent, we're talking about taxes derived from many of the same people? I don't think people will say, I don't think those who are high wealth earners will say something like, well, I don't mind paying more taxes, but at least you didn't increase the marginal rates.
That's not the -- that's not a realistic way to look at this. So it sounds, from what you're saying, Congressman, is that the income tax rate hikes originally proposal in the Ways and Means Committee and part of the overall Democratic package as we knew it is returning. The billionaires tax, that wealth tax, that that is not going to be part of it as things stand now.
But, again, this is a moving target, Neil. And this is what it's like. And we have some sympathy for our Republican colleagues a few years ago. With really thin margins and a real diversity of thought within the Democratic Caucus, this makes it very difficult. But we will get there. It's just really -- it's painful. I know the devil is in the details and things will change likely, maybe a lot.
KILDEE: That's my assumption, just based on the conversations that I have had, particularly with folks on the Senate side, that that's where we can go. And I think, for progressive members, we have to take a step back and just say, look, just think about a couple of years ago. There can be disagreement about this policy, obviously. But to the extent that Democrats are united, we should be united around what we can actually achieve, and not around a promise that we can't keep.
And that's where I land on this. Let's do what we can. Let's be reasonable and thoughtful and make the compromises we need to, to actually do something for the people that we're working for, rather than tell them what we would have done if we could have gotten it over the finish line. That doesn't do anybody any good. And we're told that Bernie Sanders was, according to one source, apoplectic over the downward trend in the overall price of this, some generous Medicare provisions that are likely going to be kept out.
Joe Manchin didn't want to expand Medicare until its underlying financials were better. And so we're told anyway that Bernie Sanders is extremely angry. Should he be? KILDEE: Well, I mean, he can be angry that it's not going to be what he would have done if he were completely in charge, or if there were 51 senators that shared all of Senator Sanders' view. But that's not the way our government is organized. I don't get to decide all on my own how Congress will act, and neither does any single senator.
I do think it's a point that Senator Manchin to take heed of that, while Senator Sanders doesn't get percent of what he wants, neither can Senator Manchin. There's got to be some rational common ground that can be found. All right, Dan Kildee, thank you. Very good catching up with you.
Thank you as well, sir, for the kind words. Michigan Democrat Dan Kildee, a very influential, powerful player in all of this, as is this next gentleman, the Ohio Republican senator not running for reelection, Rob Portman with us right now. Senator, very good to have you. Obviously, Republicans aren't keen on any of this.
They're not going to vote for any of this. Are you encouraged at least by some of the signs that are out there that at least the overall price tag is coming down? And all of these proposals involve raising taxes, and also increasing spending dramatically and stimulus spending, Neil.
And you and I have talked about this before, but this is the wrong time, for a lot of reasons. One is, it will increase the inflationary pressure we're already feeling. And Republicans and Democrats alike who look at this objectively, including Larry Summers, former Treasury secretary in the Obama years, say this is going to add more to the inflationary pressure. And then, with regard to the debt and deficit, we are now at a point, as you know, that our debt as a percentage of our economy, which is probably how you ought to look at it, is at historic levels.
I mean, it's just -- it's amazing we're throwing around trillions as if it's nothing. So, anyway, by the way, I love your home studio. It's great to have you back with us. We missed you. I appreciate that.
How Fox News gave birth to a false narrative. John King opens up on why he shared his multiple sclerosis diagnosis. Fox News anchor credits Covid vaccination for saving his life.
Conservative radio host says he wanted to catch Covid But unlike Trump, Fox was never in denial about its loss. The network's executives and multi-million-dollar stars stared the ratings in the face every day and saw that their pro-Trump audience was reacting to the prospect of President Biden by switching channels or turning off the TV.
To fix the problem, Fox ran even further to the right. And here's the thing: It worked. It was toxic for the American political system, but it was profitable for Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch.
Read More. The post-election changes at Fox happened one day at a time, one show at a time, but when viewed in totality, they are unmistakable and stark. Practically every change was about having less news on the air and more opinions-about-the-news. It was like serving dessert without dinner, when the dessert consisted of screaming about how awful the dinner was, and warning that the meal might be a socialist plot, and hey, while we're at it, why are chefs so corrupt?
And because Fox News is the primary trusted source of information for millions of Americans, including Republican elected officials and party activists, the changes affect everyone.
Trump's loss was a pivot point. Fox's ratings declined in the immediate aftermath of Mitt Romney's loss in , so the slump after the networks projected Biden as president-elect was no surprise. But the precipitousness was a shock. Fox's afternoon and evening hours fell off by 20, 25, 30 percent, even though the news cycle was nothing short of epic.
For people at Fox who were used to winning for years, this was disorienting, and for some downright terrifying. I granted anonymity to these sources because they weren't allowed to speak with outside reporters on the record, and because I wanted them to freely offer blunt assessments of the situation. Fox's problem was that the audience suddenly had somewhere else to go. On the up-and- coming channel Newsmax, Biden wasn't called president-elect right away.
Children, on the other hand, have intense curiosity and drive to explore and this helps them learn so many different things and so quickly, according to the study. High school students and teenagers go back to school in the classroom at their high school. They value their education and are excited to be in school.
0コメント