Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421
Is it the whole party or just a few people who are forcing their hand. Is the worse political instinct to hold out for the people making 160-170 and delay relief during a pandemic?
I don't like the change, but I'm not sure there was a better choice given the situation.
|
I think that it's just a very weird place for the moderate Dems to draw a line in the sand.
Let's say that you did this and you got some GOP votes in exchange (Romney, etc.). OK, maybe it is worth it to make the bill formally bipartisan. But I am hearing nothing about this bringing any GOP onto the bill.
Let's say that you really are a fiscally conservative Dem, and you say that you won't support the bill unless the price tag is < $1 trillion. OK, maybe it is worth it to save the government a trillion dollars. I might agree or disagree, but that's a real change you are fighting for.
Or let's say that it is something that no one will notice or care about. Some technical change to the rate at which the federal government will reimburse local fire departments to upgrade old equipment or something. OK. Then it's maybe a kind of a small potatoes change, but no one will notice or care.
Here, it just seems like the absolute worst of all worlds politically:
(1) Does not bring any GOP on board.
(2) Does not save any real money compared to the size of the bill.
(3) Is SUPER visible. Hell, I imagine that a distressing number of Americans think that the stimulus checks are the
only thing in the bill.
I just don't understand the optics here at all.