>> Progressives in the House of Representatives have scored a significant victory in legislative
rules that would essentially clear the way for progressive policy proposals to
actually pass. Now what do I mean by that? This has everything to do with a
topic that we've discussed on the show before.
It's as known as PAYGO. And what PAYGO would do, it would hinder
the possibility of bold progressive policies from passing. Because essentially,
it would force the lawmakers proposing it to account for the funding of that bill by
cutting funding to other programs or finding ways to pay for the program as you go.
Now that's a difficult thing to do with legislation like let's say the Green New Deal
or Medicare for All. And so it was important for lawmakers, progressive lawmakers, to ensure that
these bold policies were not, did not follow under the umbrella of having to abide by PAYGO rules.
And so they managed to get what they wanted and the way that this
language is written is incredibly broad which means that this will likely apply to
any policy proposal that we feel strongly about at the moment. So just a little bit
of background on PAYGO, because I think it's important to understand how this all worked.
PAYGO really came about, following the Reagan administration,
there was an explosion in spending, deficit spending, specifically. And of course,
Democrats started to panic about deficit spending, which is why they first implemented it then.
It expired in 2002 and George W Bush did not do anything about it. However, back in 2010,
the Obama administration did allow the law to take effect again with some major exemptions.
Now, Republicans have never followed through with PAYGO.
They don't care. They don't really think they need to abide by those rules. Democrats, however,
did abide by it. And it was a huge problem. As David Atkins in Washington Monthly writes,
as if driven by masochism or perpetual fear of bad faith attacks, Democrats in the
House have continued to maintain a standing rule committing themselves balanced budget legislating.
This despite the fact that Republicans hold themselves to no such constraints
and the fact that both interest rates and inflation remain extremely low,
while the need for infrastructure, health and social spending remains dire.
Now House Dems under pressure from their more progressive members like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
are set to loosen those PAYGO rules for bills relating to COVID and climate change.
So this is incredibly good news. The rules package, by the way, for the 117th Congress
unveiled by House Democrats on Friday would grant a sweeping new exemption
from deficit controls, for legislation related to the coronavirus pandemic or efforts to curb
climate change. And look, the most important thing here is that the language is intentionally broad.
So it does apply to some pretty important policy goals. The text of the resolution
which House leaders expect will take up Monday, would provide House Budget Chairman
John Yarmuth, broad authority to adjust cost estimates for certain bills,
so that their budgetary impacts don't count as increasing deficits under House rules.
So this is good news. This is important. This is the kind of, I guess negotiating that takes place
behind the scenes that we might not be privy to. But I think it would be a mistake to think
that progressive lawmakers aren't fighting at all. This is such an important rule change that again
does make it easier for us to get the policy proposals that we want passed.
That doesn't mean that we're anywhere close to it. We need to keep fighting.
But again, this is a good update. >> I think I saw that picture that Jamal Bowman,
Cory Bush joined the squad and it was an inspiring picture to see. While also it
was like kind of depressing to think that, what does it mean?
It's missing Bernie Sanders and a few other people who are actually really on the ground
fighting for the everyday person and the everyday working human being in America who is worthy of
good climate and health care. Getting constantly attacked by people because politicians are being
politicians in Washington has become exhausting for me which is one of the reasons why I've been
taking a stay, taking a break from a lot of these people who constantly come at AOC
and are constantly coming at Rasheeda and constantly coming at Ilhan.
And the people who are actually standing in the face of guns, life death threats,
to ask for the basic needs that we should have as human beings, who should have a quality standard
of life in this country. And so, when I hear of these results and I do come under fire
because people are like, well, the Democrats are just as much trash as the Republicans.
There are people who are in that system trying to work within that system to make some things happen
for us, and and they do it every day, risking their lives and the lives of the families and
their loved ones. So I'm excited about any win that we have as progressives because
the villains get all the play, they get all the media, they get all the attention, it is constant.
And we should just take these victories, no matter how small they may seem to us,
and just know that those are steps in the right direction for what we
want for the people of this country. >> Yeah, and I think it's important
to hold politicians accountable regardless of where they fall on the ideology spectrum.
So, I don't think that members of the squad are immune to any criticism or critique.
However, I also think that it's important to both think about how we can use,
let's say political theater or pressure to persuade these progressive lawmakers
to maybe fight a little harder when we feel like they're not.
But there's the other side of it which to be quite honest with you
personally speaking is not my favorite part, which is the power of building.
And I'm not even just talking about organizing, which is super important,
but the electoral politics matter. Structural politics matters, right? So it's important to
understand what kind of roadblocks stand in our way in passing progressive policy proposals.
I think it's also important to learn from how The Republican Party was able to accumulate
power following FDR, because obviously they despise what FDR did with the New Deal.
They wanted to essentially dismantle that and undo it and they've been fighting on that
ever since. But if you pay close attention, what did they do?
They focused their energies on ensuring that they got conservative federal judges
appointed and confirmed, obviously the same with the Supreme Court. In this case,
I think it's important to also look at the certain congressional rules that are standing in the way.
And then the other thing to focus on is, look, I get the frustration towards the Democratic Party.
I mean, I feel it in my bones. And when we hear rhetoric like, there's no difference between
Democrats and Republicans. Well, it depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about
their treatment toward corporations I think that they are actually incredibly similar. They have
similar donors. There's no question about that, which is why money in politics is a problem.
But then when you look at other issues like take a step back. Really, do you think that
the Democratic Party is going to actively attempt to dismantle our electoral process
to ensure that a Democrat stays in power in the executive branch? These are serious
questions and I think that we need to be precise in the arguments that we're making.
And everyone's angry, I get it, I'm angry. But anger can usually cloud your judgment and
lead to pretty bad decisions. We got to vote strategically, we got to think about
politics structurally, and what we can do to change it to our advantage. And we need to find
ways to effectively push progressive lawmakers to do what we need them to do in representing us.
And we need to increase that progressive voting bloc and I'm really happy that
we did that during this past election cycle with people like Cory Bush and Jamal Bowman.
>> Yeah, I just wanna say this because I did come under fire. And I don't dignify
some of the people on Twitter who are gunning and coming from their anger, their sexism,
and their racism that they're unaware of because they consider themselves progressives.
The truth of the matter is and I stand by this. Is that when you talk about AOC,
and you talk about Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan and you talk about Hinayana,
we have to be honest about the fact that sometimes they're held to a higher standard
because they are women of color, and it is not their job to save the United States of America.
Yes, they can be criticized. I will be the first one to say I don't like when you do that.
And I don't appreciate it. But I'm not gonna stand by a bunch of white dudes who call themselves
progressives because they believe in climate change, coming for women of color, and attacking
them expecting them to do things that white men have not done for decades in this country.
And now you wanna put it on the shoulders of a woman that is merely 30 years old to come
and save your ass. So, yes, I stand by that. And that does not mean that AOC or any or them
are beyond being criticized and being held accountable.
But those of us who are people of color can see the racism and we the women can
feel the sexism from these angry dudes who feel like they can just come at us that way.
Why don't you take that energy to some of these men? You come to women that way
because you think that you can. You're not tweeting Jamal Bowman like that.
And that is the problem that I have with it and I'm glad that we talked about this now.
Cuz I had a lot of people, even Latinos coming for me, telling me, whoa, AOC should be held to
the same standard, the same, not a higher standard.
And yes, she can be criticized, and she does the political thing because she's a politician.
But I'm not gonna stand by and let people just think that they can come for them and demand
that women of color save America yet again. >> Yeah, I agree with you and the other point
that I wanna make about it is as progressives,
we know that we can't win based on the numbers that we have right now, right?
So you might look at some polling that indicates that the majority of Americans want Medicare
for All and that's a fantastic start. But that's very different from persuading people
to engage in activism, whether it's strategic voting or organizing or
whatever. If we have a coalition that's unfriendly, unwelcoming, and incredibly
antagonistic to anyone who might have different thoughts or maybe some mild questions regarding
strategy, I think that we need to foster an environment that is welcoming.
I think that we need to listen to other people's ideas and consider them.
And right now, at least based on the online left, which I do not think is representative of the
real life left. It's not a welcoming place, and we got to really question whether or not some of the
discourse taking place right now is the best way in getting what we need.
But more importantly in persuading lawmakers to really represent us in our best interests,
because I can tell you something. If someone walks up to me and punches me in the face and
accuses me of doing all these terrible things, I'm not going to want to work with them.
I'm not going to turn around and be like,
great point. Thank you for that sucker punch. I'm now gonna off and do what you want. No,
it actually disempowers progressives in doing that. And I think it's a bad idea.