What does Kyrsten Sinema want in
the reconciliation bill?
Everyone's just so
excited to find out, and we thought
we'd gotten a little bit closer to
an answer just a few days ago,
when it was reported that she
wanted to cut $100 billion from the
reconciliation bill, specifically
targeting climate funds.
And specifically some climate funds
intended to provide what's called
climate resiliency to communities
that are going to be more greatly
affected by the changing climate.
So there, at long last, months into
this, this is what she wants, or
does she?
because within like 48 hours,
they pretended that they didn't.
A member of her comms team tweeted,
neither Senator Sinema nor
our office have requested or
demanded such cuts, nor have we
ever heard of any such demands.
Once again, The New York Times
relies on anonymous sources and
gets it flat wrong.
Do better.
To his credit, he didn't refer to
them as the fake news.
But anyway, so Cenk,
really we've got a lot of things
that we're going to focus on here,
but at least it felt like finally,
she wanted to cut something.
We know that if you cut like
a trillion, $2 trillion out of
this, that's going to be cut.
They're not denying that they
want to make those cuts or
that climate funds might get caught
in the obstructionist crossfire.
They just want to pretend that
they're not specifically calling
for this to be cut.
But before we really get into
evaluating that, do you even
believe what they're saying?
Why would we believe what she or
a member of her comms team at this
point are actually saying about any
of the specifics
of the negotiations?
>> No, generally with any
politician, especially
corporate-backed politicians,
I don't believe a word they say.
In law there's this thing called
a rebuttable presumption.
It's not hard to understand.
And in the case of politicians,
there's a rebuttable presumption
that they're lying.
It can be rebutted, [LAUGH] but
my presumption is they're not
telling the truth.
On the other hand,
I've seen the New York Times get
stories wrong, [LAUGH] yeah.
Okay, but here's what's important.
Somebody's floating this idea.
Somebody leaked it to The New York
Times full well knowing that what
was going to happen.
It could be her team,
it could be other Democrats.
But somebody put their toe in
the water and go, what if we cut
100 billion from climate change?
And what they got back was no!
[LAUGH] Certainly from the left and
for most Democrats, and
that's why you see Sinema's
office backpedaling here.
Did we put our toe in the water?
No, our foot's hurt,
that's why we went to Arizona.
So again, to me, it doesn't really
much matter if it's them or not.
The only way that it would,
John is, am I shocked and chagrined
to find out she might not be for
fighting climate change?
[LAUGH] Come on.
>> Or a green party member.
>> Yeah, of course,
I'm not surprised by that.
No, hence is my expectations
are already at rock bottom.
I agree with you.
The fact that she put out any
proposal would have been good news,
not bad news.
>> Yeah.
>> And when you look into the 100
billion they were looking to cut,
I saw, yeah, they're going to
cut some of this stuff, John.
They are, right?
And so to me the most damaging of
the cuts was the recharging
stations.
>> I'm going to give us a full
rundown of some of what they're,
whether they're specifically
calling for it to be cut.
They're calling for a huge chunk of
the money to be cut, and
this is what's going to be in that.
So, again, the fact that they're
not specifically calling for it is
not only needlessly secretive,
it's also incredibly cowardly.
Because they do want this to
be cut,
whether they'll admit to it or not.
On the New York Times,
maybe one reason they have to use
an anonymous source and just one is
she's a US senator who refuses to
let us know anything of what she's
advocating for or against.
And I think a nice little example
of that is, she didn't even rebut
their reporting,
someone on her team did.
Even this,
when they're finally engaging,
she can't be a part of that.
Probably because as we'll soon find
out, she was busy on that old dusty
trail, training for
the Boston Marathon.
But let's talk about what could end
up getting cut, before we return to
the protests against her,
the substance of what she is aiming
to do seemingly is cutting
things like this.
So Democrats are expected to
protect a proposed $150 billion
clean electricity program,
as well as about 300 billion in tax
incentives for wind and
solar power and electric vehicles.
However, they may slash, and
when they say this, they mean they
have sources that are telling
them that this is being planned,
up to another 200 billion in other
climate programs as part of
an effort to win over Sinema and
Manchin.
Again, you don't have to do that,
unless that's what they're
pushing for,
whether they admit to it or not.
Now party leaders have previously
promised to safeguard two
significant climate change programs
costing 450 billion in total.
The Clean Electricity Program which
incentivizes electric utilities to
use wind, solar and nuclear.
And a general climate package
of tax incentives meant to
encourage the use of clean energy.
But there are several other climate
focused programs that could
theoretically be cut in order to
shrink the bill.
Things like these provisions aimed
at helping poor people adapt to
the effects of climate change,
as well as a $30 billion Green Bank
that would fund construction
of community solar panels, and
electric vehicle charging stations.
I assume that's part of what
you were referring to earlier.
>> No, there's another provision
that specifically deals with the
electric vehicle charging stations.
The Green Bank I think is awesome
and necessary.
It is one of those things that
I think might be able
to stand on its own, and
is almost inevitable at some point.
I'm being way too hopeful,
[LAUGH] okay, but
guys, there's an important part of
this which is that we've got to get
just past this rolling fascist coup
that the Republicans are doing.
Because if we can get that out of
the way, then we have a battle
between us and corporate rule.
And that's a battle we are
definitely going to win in the long
run, because the younger voters
are so overwhelmingly on our side
that they stand almost no chance.
So that's why when I see
Green Bank I think,
I know everybody's going to think
it's way too optimistic, but
that's going to happen, right?
So now mind you guys,
this is all in the context of if
you have to cut something.
To the point that John is making,
well, wait, if Sinema and
Manchin are denying this, or
in this case Sinema specifically,
do you agree?
If you agree, the other 48 senators
agree, the House agrees, we're
going to have a deal right now.
So don't tell us your agree when
you obviously don't,
otherwise we'd have a deal!
>> Is it too much to ask that in
America, you could have someone ask
a senator, do you want the Green
Bank for $30 billion or not?
But that is too much.
You can't get that.
She doesn't go on TV so she's not
being asked by those reporters.
You go up to her in the streets,
she won't answer questions
whether you're an activist for
different groups.
Lauren Windsor is trying to
talk to her.
You do not get to know whether she
supports the Green Bank,
at that price, at a smaller price,
you don't get to know for months.
And it might be cut, and
it might be because of her, but
you don't get to find out if it was
because of her.
You don't get to find out about
any of this.
If it ends up being 2.7 trillion,
or 2.1 trillion or 1.6 trillion,
that is a massive difference that
will change the lives of tens of
millions of Americans in a variety
of ways.
Some of which we can describe,
others we can't, and
you do not get to find out what
effect she had over that.
That's absurd.
>> I have at least one more thing
to say here which is that I thought
the progressives really
had a genius idea here.
And it's simple, they said,
why don't we not cut anything?
Now you might think, boy,
what a genius idea.
[LAUGH] >> Why don't we
just give you everything?
No, no, no, no, there's of course
a second part to it, which is, but
we'll make it shorter.
Instead of a ten-year window, we'll
make the bill a five-year window.
Now that's degrees some,
by the way,
the number's negotiable,
it could be seven years, etc.
Now there's some degree of risk
there because what if five years
later, they say, we're not renewing
it, and then you've really
cost yourself half of it.
My God, you've cost yourself half
all of these proposals.
>> But why is that clever though?
>> No, now that's clever because
both the progressives and
the conservative Democrats all know
that once you have these things,
you'll like them.
So now, get a load of the argument
that the Manchins and the Sinemas
of the world have to make.
Well, we don't agree to that.
because if people get this,
they'll obviously love it.
And so then they'll want another
five years, and
then another ten years, etc.
Then maybe
in a democracy you should give them
the thing that they love, and
that you know they love.
And by the way, why aren't
you doing in the first place if you
know and are positive, and
are in the middle of negotiations,
insisting that it can't be that
we give them this stuff because
they will love it so much?
It's because you have your
corporate donors who say we know
Americans will love it, and
we don't love it.
So you are not to serve your
voters.
And by the way,
these have overwhelming majorities
support in Arizona and
in West Virginia.
You are to serve us,
your donors instead.
And that's not hyperbole,
that is exactly the conversation
happening in Washington right now.
>> Yeah, and
meanwhile we get to sit here and
wonder behind closed doors,
you have $30 billion for
a civilian climate corps.
Hey, how about $10 billion
to incentivize
rural electric cooperatives to
switch from coal to wind and solar?
I just want to know where Manchin
stands on the program that gets
them to turn their back on coal.
I wonder, he doesn't have any
incentive either way.
>> I was just going to say, John.
>> Absurd that you can own a coal
company, and you get to decide,
should we use coal or no longer?
See, I wonder.
>> See that's the one that MH is
going to object to the most, why?
Because it takes away his excuses,
because his excuse is,
I am worried about coal jobs, but
this bill will allow you to keep
those jobs and actually have
higher paying solar jobs.
And the government will finance
that transition,
that bridge to that, in which case
the workers of West Virginia
are definitely not heard.
In fact, they are helped.
So wait, why does Joe Manchin
need an excuse?
because he makes money from coal!
So he needs to pretend that he is
concerned about jobs when he can't
pretend that any more,
then he has to,
then he's out in the open and he
has to admit which he never will.
And there's no reporters that'll
ask him at the mainstream media,
but he wouldn't have to admit,
I was just kidding.
My voters love it,
it would bring more jobs
to West Virginia, I'm just greedy.
I don't want to do it because it
affects my personal interest,
both for my donors and
because I own a coal company.
>> Then I have
a controversial idea.
I'd like to propose $1 billion,
half of it, 500 million will go to
setting up a massive company to
produce solar panels and
wind turbines and stuff, and
we give it to Joe Manchin.
Another 500 million will be set up
to buy a massive amount of land in
Napa Valley, and we'll give it to
Kyrsten Sinema, and she'll get to
stomp on grapes all day long.
If it's one billion to get
the trillions we need, they get all
the money they could ever imagine.
That's basically what we're doing
here, it is about their
financial interest.
Why not just make it more explicit?
Buy him a solar plant, and
let him break in the cash, and
let her live out her dream of being
a wine empress.
>> I mean honestly,
the bribery is so brazen now.
[LAUGH] If the government itself
did it, it might be more efficient.
[LAUGH] >> Obviously we wouldn't be
in favor of that
as a principle, right?
But by the way,
I'm not kidding around, at some
point a progressive's going to come
around, who's wealthy and say,
you know what,
I'm just going to spend my money.
And so Sinema, Manchin,
you guys are servants.
So instead of serving coal
interests and Exxon Mobil, etc.,
here, I'll pay you more.
Now you serve me.
>> I wish.
>> And they would do that deal in
a second, and you serve me and
my wishes are the Bushes,
the American people.
Now go to renewable energy.
I swear to you they would
do it in a flat second.
And bribery is legal in America.
So hey, if there's wealthy
progressives out there, you should
go actively, legally bribe them.
I'm not kidding.
>> That would be great.
>> They say they're for sale.
They go and
cut checks after every vote.
And they're like, $2800!
Give me, give me branches!
[LAUGH] >> You have any
idea how easily you could buy them?
Just do it and be done with it!
>> I wish. >> And by the way,
if people complain,
they go, my god, it's outrageous,
money and politics!
Exactly, good.
Then pass an amendment to get money
out of politics.
You don't want to?
Then shut up.
>> Yeah.