Cenk Uygur and I are about to disagree in regard to whether or
not progressives who have signed onto a letter deserve credit for doing so.
Now this has to do with the fact that Chuck Schumer and
Joe Manchin struck a deal in order to get Manchin to agree to vote
in favor of the so called inflation reduction act.
Now in order for him to do that, Chuck Schumer agreed that there would be a side
deal where there would be legislation that would fast track permits for
fossil fuel companies because of course that is a priority for Manchin who makes
a lot of money off of fossil fuel energy in this country particularly cool.
Now the 40, the democrats, the progressive democrats who signed onto this letter,
there are 40 of them are essentially asking house leadership,
Nancy Pelosi and the house Nancy Pelosi to basically agree that they
would not include this side deal legislation as part of a must pass bill.
Right? And it seems like Nancy Pelosi has already
agreed that she'll play along with this effort of including the provision that
Manchin wants in a must pass bill like let's say a government funding bill.
And so the progressives are like we will be displeased if you do that.
So we urge you not to do it Nancy Pelosi, that's essentially what they're doing.
Okay.
So more than 40 house democrats had signed on to the letter as of Wednesday according
to the office of the letters organizer.
Natural resources committee chair Representative paul Grijalva as TYT first
reported, the letter is addressed to speaker Nancy Pelosi and majority leader
Steny Hoyer and says fast tracking permits will hurt black brown indigenous and
low income communities disproportionately.
Grijalva calls for Pelosi and Hoyer to keep the government funding CR free
of mansions permitting reform legislation which Grijalva says contains
anti environmental and anti environmental justice provisions.
The letter also says dirty energy projects will get rushed through at the behest
of the American Petroleum Institute and Representative Ro Khanna,
who happens to be one of the individuals who signed this letter also
explained why it would be ridiculous to include the Manchin provisions that
loosen up the permitting for fossil fuels in the government funding bill.
Let's watch.
>> They know that we have to pass the budget when we come back.
We can't have a government shutdown before the election.
And so they this is gonna be high on their priority list right after Labor Day.
That's why I think the timing of the letter is good.
You can't hijack the CR process to an ideological perspective.
I mean, I can't say I want free college in this country.
I can't just say, okay, let's put free college and make everyone vote for it or
we're gonna shut down government.
So just like you can't do that for Progressive goals.
You can't do that for something that is so opposed by many members of the caucus.
>> And just to give you some more details on what the side deal is,
what it would entail and why it would be such a problem.
An internal summary of the side deal legislation obtained
by Bloomberg says that it would fast track permitting specifically for
the Mountain Valley pipeline, which mansion has supported when finished.
The MVP will carry natural gas more than 300 miles through Virginia and
mansions home state of west Virginia.
And in addition to what you just heard broken to say in the context of that
interview, he also said, quote, if we were to pass this side deal,
it would mean more plants like that harming black and brown communities
putting pollution in the air where kids can't be in their backyards.
We're not just talking about some abstract policy here.
We're talking about allowing refineries, fossil fuel projects and
heavy industry to destroy neighborhoods.
Now you might be wondering.
Okay, well, where exactly do you and Jake disagree?
Anna, I think we're gonna disagree about the effectiveness of this letter
because I would venture to say as someone who's read the entirety of the letter.
It's not even a strongly worded letter and there's really no ultimatum included.
Jake, thoughts.
>> Yeah, so it's a rare story where we've got a pole and a petition.
Whoa.
And we're gonna have a disagreement about the petition in this sense.
So, fair show in America we're honest with you guys when we have disagreements.
Okay, so why do I really like this letter?
Because it's 40 progressives, that's just a giant number already, right?
Taking one step forward and saying do not put it in the CR.
So for those of you that don't live in the CCR is continuing the resolution and
it just basically means something that allows the budget to continue.
So on the petition we refer to it as the budget bill because that's and that's
why it's a must pass because you can't the government can't not pass a budget.
Okay.
But by the way that is where progress is then get leverage because the mainstream
democrats and the mainstream media will soon yell at all the progressives
when they realize what's going on and say, this is a must pass bill.
You guys can't block a must pass bill.
No, that's actually when you have the most leverage because it must pass.
So what that means is you don't have the option of not passing it.
You have to bring us to the negotiating table and then negotiate with us.
And that is exactly when you should use your power and leverage.
And that's what progressives have begun to do here.
Like I understand Ana's point obviously,
which is that they're asking Pelosi not to put it into the continuing
resolution because if she does then it forces a showdown.
Right?
But does it?
And so there I understand I really get Anna skepticism because the progressives
would then have to actually vote no for it to force a showdown.
And my guess is Pelosi's gonna think that they're weak because historically they
have been, she's gonna completely ignore them, which is a slap in the face and
then ask them, what are you gonna do about it?
So first of all, I want your help in holding the line.
That's why we're doing the petition and it's at TYT.com/petitions/no side deal.
But don't worry, we'll put the link down below.
And if you just go to TYT.com/petitions, you don't have to remember the rest of it.
TYT.com/etitions will do it.
And what we're saying is progressives, please hold the line, hold the line.
There's no reason we have to honor a very corrupt side deal with Manchin
when Manchin didn't honor any of his agreements and killed bill back better.
>> Yeah. So I wanna be clear about something.
The letter again, just wanna make sure, you know,
it doesn't say anywhere in the letter, hey Pelosi,
if you include a pro fossil fuel pro Manchin provisions
in the budget bill, we will not vote for it.
We will vote against it like at no point does it say that.
So I would venture to say that it's very easy for
some of the faux progressives to sign onto it.
So they get cookies and they get a round of applause from people like us without
any real commitment, right?
And we do have a poll on this.
But honestly, after reading the letter, I feel like this poll isn't even worded
accurately because they haven't made the promise that's being implied here.
The poll is do you agree with Anna on the likelihood that progressive
signatories will break their promise and
vote yes if the government funding bill includes mansions, fossil fuel side deal.
But again, I wanna be clear that they did not promise to vote against
a government funding bill or a CR if it includes the mansion side deal in it.
So I think they're just being really careful in not making any promises, but
they're sending Nancy Pelosi a letter to describe their
displeasure if it happens the way they think it's gonna happen in the future.
>> But so let me get into that strategy and by the way,
I get what you're saying Anna and historically you've been right and
I'm tempted to vote in your favor in the poll.
Okay.
But I don't want to, I want the progressives to do the right thing and
they're on the way to doing the right thing and
by the we wouldn't have known any of this if it wasn't for our new TYT Washington
correspondent Candice Cole because Grover writes a letter, but it's not public.
No one in mainstream media cares,
they all want that deal to pass because it helps corporate interests.
So nobody's paying attention.
Candace goes and finds out my God,
12 letter exist to she found in the first round that 30 people had signed on to it.
Now that she got broken on the record and
now found out that there's 40 progressives who signed on to it now if it had said
what Anna says which is we're gonna vote definitively against the budget bill.
If you put it in there, there's no way they would have gotten 40 signatures.
No way.
And so I think strategically Grijalva was right in making the letter
a little bit softer because then he shows a giant block of 40 votes.
That might vote that way.
If he had said we're gonna vote against it, everybody would have gotten nervous.
It's Washington.
My God!
The media's gonna yell us yell at us.
Pelosi's gonna yell at us.
They would have gotten nervous.
That's just a fact, right?
So instead he's got the 40 signatories and now though this puts them on the spot and
let me read you one of the last lines in the letter.
Okay, Grijalva wrote and 40 progressives signed on to it.
Such a move.
If she, Nancy Pelosi puts it in the budget.
Such a move would force members to choose between protecting EJ communities and
those are the underserved communities minorities et cetera for
further pollution or funding the government.
>> Yeah that's the point.
That is literally the point.
>> Yeah. And
my point there Anna is that's in the letter.
So if the progressives that signed onto it then say okay, well we got nervous,
we got scared of Pelosi even though it's a must pass bill and
we don't want to be at the negotiating table, which most of the time they do,
they get nervous just like that.
Then they'll be saying in public, yeah, we chose the budget and
leadership and the Democratic Party over under representative and
underserved communities that they made that active choice.
Now, there on the spot.
And so I think Grijalva handled it perfectly.
>> And finally I do wanna just give a comment that
Grijalva gave to the hill on this story.
Grijalva acknowledged that it would likely be difficult for
many members to vote against funding the government.
This is not trying to torpedo anything he said,
this is saying the continuing resolution and the budget is critical.
Yes, but let's do this other one where everybody is
accountable, he said so we'll see.
We'll see what happens.
I feel bad being the cynical one and I'm not.
I know I'm supposed to cheerlead this and feel really good about it.
But listen they're swimming in a sea of sharks and
they've decided in a lot of ways.
Well, we'll just be the humans that happen to be carrying meat.
Like for the sharks.
Like I just feel like if you're gonna be swimming with the sharks,
you gotta be like a shark and
you gotta be way tougher than just writing a letter that expresses your displeasure.
But we'll see.
We'll see what happens.
I'm just getting a little tired of like,
I'm getting tired of the strongly worded letters.
And to be honest with you, I don't even see this as a strongly worded letter.
>> No, but anna just look, I'll say one last thing actually,
somewhat on your side, which is that if you do letters like this, I love it.
And I think it's a great step forward, but you have to follow through because if you
write the letter and then Pelosi says no, I think progressives are irrelevant.
I think I don't care at all what U 40 think I care what my fossil fuel donors
think.
So. I'm gonna put it in the budget.
I'm gonna put it in the continuing resolution.
I'm gonna shove it in your face.
Well then you gotta vote no.
Otherwise you lose even more leverage.
Then then your threats and
your letters mean nothing and then you would prove it and completely right.
It's a great step forward.
But you got to keep taking more steps.
Otherwise it winds up being counterproductive.
>> Yeah.
Well I hope I'm wrong.
I would feel a lot of joy to be proven wrong on this.
So we'll see.
We'll keep you guys updated on it