House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has
already provided a pretty
significant concession to corporate
Democrats who do not want to spend
$3.5 trillion on the budget
reconciliation bill.
So she made this concession in
the form of an interview on ABC
over the weekend.
Now, there aren't any specific
numbers, but
her messaging is certainly telling.
So let's take a look.
>> I know the budget committee
passed a resolution calling for
3.5 trillion, but
it sounds like you acknowledge that
the final number is going to be
somewhat smaller than that.
>> Yeah, I mean
that seems self evident.
That seems self evident.
The fact is, is that this is
the excitement of it all.
It's just in real time and
exploitation of a few people not in
agreement being called the division
in the Democratic Party.
Everybody overwhelmingly, and
I think even those who want
a smaller number, support
the vision of the president.
>> No, no,
not everybody [LAUGH] supports
the vision of the president.
And let me be clear, the budget
reconciliation bill includes all of
President Joe Biden's provisions
that were stripped away from the
corporatist infrastructure bill.
So the corporate Democrats who
are pushing back against the budget
reconciliation bill are very
clearly against the agenda that
Joe Biden had laid out, okay?
So let's be clear about that.
One other thing I want to mention
is that the budget reconciliation
bill was already negotiated down to
$3.5 trillion.
Initially, Bernie Sanders was
shooting for somewhere between $5
trillion and $6 trillion.
So to make it appear as though 3.5
trillion is the highest starting
point in the negotiations is
just a complete and utter lie.
And for her to say, well
the numbers going to come down,
that's self evident.
Is it self evident?
I mean, seemed like she was holding
on, she was claiming that she
was going to push back against any
attempts to cut this
legislation down.
And now it seems like she's ready
and willing to do so, which isn't
that surprising to be honest.
>> Yeah, so, look, there are things
that are enormous mysteries here.
So I want to get to that in
a second.
But now at least one thing is clear
as we suspected, and
this is the easiest one.
Do corporate Democrats and
Democratic leaders,
they used to be one in the same,
now there's a tiny bit of a schism.
There's the corporate Democrats
represented by Manchin and
Sinema that's actually a much
larger group than that.
But they're just using those as
the convenient rotating villains
for today, right?
And now there's Democratic
leadership which is slightly
different than the corporate
Democrats for
the first time probably in my life.
They've always been the same
until now.
So, which way was
Democratic leadership going to go?
Were they intent on passing this
bill at all?
Or was it always a trick and
they were going to kill it right
after the corporate back plan gets
passed, right?
And were they really trying for
$3.5 trillion?
So, the first part of that has come
in, and here's Democratic
leadership saying, no, of course we
weren't really trying for
$3.5 trillion.
And so, I'm going to file that one
under at least surprising event
in this whole saga, okay?
And it's classic Democratic
leadership to negotiate against
yourself publicly, if it's really
against yourself, right?
The reality is they also want
the number to go lower, because
they're actually negotiating
with their own corporate donors.
That's what the Manchin,
Sinema drama is all about, right?
But if they were serious and
they weren't lying, you would never
go out publicly and say, let's
say you're at a car dealership, and
a guy is offering you the car for
20,000 and you want it for 15.
You wouldn't say,
I'll definitely take it at 20, but
I'm starting at 15.
Everybody knows that, right?
So you wouldn't do this if you
actually wanted three and a half,
that's clear.
Now the things that are unclear,
do they actually want it at all?
It looks like overall big picture
that they do, but they want it
at a much lower number.
Leadership does, corporate
Democrats don't want it at all.
>> They don't want it at all.
>> And we're going to show
you that game.
So, is it going to happen?
Well, I've never seen the corporate
Democrats opposed to Democratic
leadership.
So who's stronger?
Probably the corporate Democrats.
It's the only thing that could be
stronger than Democratic
leadership.
because normally when you have
an authoritarian message in
Washington, especially from
the Democratic Party, and they say
this is how it's going to be done,
that's how it's done 98% of
the time, if not 100% of the time.
So here we have it,
a drama we'd never seen before.
So Progressives are in a different
camp, they're in the three and a
half trillion and we meant it camp.
And now we're on collision
course here.
Let's see how it turns out.
>> We'll see how it turns out.
I have some predictions.
But before I get to those
predictions, I actually want to
go to other parts of
the interview with Nancy Pelosi.
Because, as some of you might have
noticed, today is September 27th,
and Nancy Pelosi had made a pledge,
a promise if you will,
to corporate Democrats in the House
regarding holding a vote on
the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
That's the corporate bill that
we're not big fans of, she was
supposed to have that vote today.
It's already passed in the Senate,
that vote did not happen today.
And so over the weekend,
George Stephanopoulos
asked Pelosi about that and
here's what she had to say.
>> I know you said
the infrastructure bill is going to
pass, but the leader of
the Progressive Caucus in
the House, Jayapal, is baulking.
She said on Friday that voting on
this bill tomorrow is an arbitrary
date, adding that more than 50
members will vote no if you
first don't have agreement on
the broader social investment bill.
So are you confident these
Progressive members are going to
vote yes, even though she says no?
>> Let me just say we're going to
pass the bill this week.
I promise that we would bring
the bill to the floor,
that was according to the language
that those who wanted this
brought to the floor tomorrow wrote
into the rule.
We will bring the bill to the floor
tomorrow for consideration.
But I'm never bring a bill to the
floor that doesn't have the votes.
>> Strong words from Nancy Pelosi
because Representative Jayapal,
who George Stephanopoulos should
probably get a little
acquainted with her,
just totally butchered her name.
But nonetheless, has made it very
clear that Progressives will defeat
the bipartisan infrastructure bill,
the corporate handout bill, unless
they get a vote on the budget
reconciliation bill first.
Now Pelosi says we're going to pass
the bill this week.
And she claims that she will not
bring that bill to the House floor
for a vote unless she knows she has
the votes necessary to do it.
So, look, the situation hasn't
really changed much.
It's a game of chicken, and
really the only hope we have is
progressive lawmakers holding
true to their promise of defeating
the corporate bill unless we get
what we want and what we need
from that reconciliation bill.
There's a lot of pressure for
them to fold and so
far they haven't done so,
but we'll see how it plays out.
>> Well, look, I think I found
the loophole, because I kept
telling you I've never seen
anything like this in politics.
I know how the game is normally
played.
Corporate Democrats and Democratic
leadership tell Progressives, sure,
sure, kick the ball,
they take the ball away, etc.
But here they were doing a lot of
different things that contradicted
that playbook.
So, what did I just hear in that
clip that makes me think, okay,
maybe this is what they're
going to do?
So Pelosi says, no we meant it,
we're actually going to have a vote
on this, the corporate backed one,
and then she says, and
it's going to pass.
But wait a minute,
Progressives just told you it's not
going to pass until the three and
a half trillion dollar one or
whatever the number is, but
the actual infrastructure plan
passes the Senate first and
then the House.
So that it's a bill, and
then we pass the corporate backed
one, right?
It looks like Pelosi is going to
say no, we're going to pass
the real one in the House and then
we're going to pass the corporate
backed one in the House.
And that's what I meant.
Well, that doesn't
accomplish anything.
Because the three and
a half trillion dollar one,
the real one, they're going to
kill in the Senate.
>> Yep.
>> If that's how it turns out at
the end, and that's the loophole
that she created, well,
I said we were going to vote on one
before the other,
I didn't say both houses.
Do you think we're morons?
>> Yes. >> And
by the way we're going to find out.
We know what we are, we're not.
We know we can see that
game very clearly.
If Progressives go, okay, I guess
they will pass it in the Senate at
some point then they are morons.
If they pass the corporate
backed one first there's
a 0% chance the larger one passes.
0%, no chance whatsoever,
negative 45%.
There's no chance,
I'm positive about that, okay?
So, if the Progressives do as we
think they're going to do, as
they've said a thousand times over
publicly that they're going to do,
and they're going to vote no on
the corporate backed one,
is Pelosi going to be flummoxed?
Is she going to be like?
Okay, then I thought,
wait a minute,
she seems weirdly confident.
Either she doesn't know what she's
doing at all,
which is a distinct possibility.
Can people understand what she's
saying on air?
She's barely coherent.
>> Well, there's one more clip I
want to get to, Cenk, because that
might help bolster the argument
that you're trying to make.
Because George Stephanopoulos was
confused by what she was saying,
and had a follow up to
the answer that you just saw.
Let's take a quick look at that.
>> In order to get the votes
to pass it,
it sounds like you're going to need
agreement on the broader social
investment- >> Absolutely, you're
right, you're absolutely right.
>> So that is going to happen this
week as well?
>> Let me just say, we're prepared,
we're ready.
Yesterday the budget committee
passed out the Build Back Better
legislation at the full $3.5
trillion, that was the number that
was sent to us by the Senate and
by the President.
Obviously with negotiations they'll
have to be some changes in that,
the sooner the better, so
that we can build our
consensus to go forward.
>> So she seemed a little tripped
up by that follow up question,
maybe she wasn't expecting it.
But what do you think?
What do you make of all of this?
>> So there's only two
potential answers.
One is Nancy Pelosi is incoherent
and doesn't know what's going on.
So she thinks, we'll just yell at
the Progressives and I'll get all
my friends in corporate media to
yell at them on Thursday, because
the votes happening on Thursday.
She scheduled it,
that ship has sailed.
And we'll do the same playbook
we always did and
the Progressives will vote no.
And she'll be surprised because
she's out of touch, and
can't believe she couldn't bully
them into it, right?
Or she has secret Republican votes.
Think about that.
People always say, no,
the Republicans are never going to
vote with the Democrats,
you have to have the Just Democrats
vote with the moderate Democrats in
order to pass anything.
Do you?
It depends on how many
of them there are.
Ken Kinzinger and
Liz Cheney who've been so
buddy buddy with Nancy Pelosi and
Steny Hoyer, now turn around and
deliver 6 to 12 extra Republican
votes in the House, so they can
turn around to the Progressives and
go, sorry this trap was a little
different than other traps.
Thank you for
playing along you suckers.
Democratic leadership has always
been corporate Democrats,
and we just laid an ambush for you
in a way that you didn't expect.
>> Yeah, I mean,
that's certainly a possibility.
I think that's a difficult strategy
to accomplish.
And I mean, look, it really depends
on who you believe, right?
Jayapal could be bluffing in regard
to the number of Progressives who
are willing to block the bipartisan
infrastructure bill.
She claims that it's about half of
her caucus and- >> She says it's 50
people, there's- >> Right.
>> Look, if that's true then
Jayapal's a great leader and
I want to give her terrific credit
on this issue.
She holds all 50 and
they all vote no,
then she deserves a ton of credit.
We don't know what's going to
happen ahead of time.
So all you skeptics out there,
you have to give her the credit if
she delivers, okay?
Now, if it turns out that it's
the opposite, it ain't 50,
it's the Justice Democrats,
there's 10 of them, right?
And the other 40 are generally
cowards.
And so when Pelosi goes boo,
they'll go, okay, okay,
what do you need me to do?
I'll sign, I'll sign, I swear to
God, I'll sign, please don't have
Jake Tapper yell at me and call me
a radical instead of a moderate.
I want to be a moderate so bad.
If that's the case, then yeah,
they might be able to get 10
Republicans, so we'll see.
>> I don't think that
Pelosi is an idiot, I don't.
And I don't think she's confused.
I think she knows what she's doing.
And, now it's become clear,
considering your commentary on this
story, they're going to vote
on both bills,
and- >> Of course, she said it,
there's no question- >> They're
going to vote on both bills.
Even if they vote on the budget
reconciliation bill first and
they pass it, on the same
day they're going to vote for
the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
And Progressives will definitely
carry out what they promised to do,
right?
That they won't block that bill as
long as they get the vote on
the reconciliation bill.
Remember, that bill does have to
go back to the Senate.
The Senate voted in favor of
the framework, the $3.5 trillion,
but the House version of the budget
reconciliation bill is very likely
to get voted down in the Senate.
>> Yeah, guys, so I know a lot of
this can get confusing, because
there's the House, the Senate, and
there's two versions of the bill.
But the bottom line is,
if the House votes yes on both, the
corporate backed bill one is done.
It already passed the Senate and
it becomes law, okay?
Then they have to go back to
the Senate for the three and
a half trillion one.
And that's where it will meet
a guaranteed death if the House has
already passed
the corporate version.
So, the bottom line on it is for
Progressives in Congress to vote is
very simple.
They must vote no, and
they must vote no in very
large numbers to make sure that
there aren't enough Republicans to
outvote them by joining in.
If they don't do that,
then it is definitely their fault.
If they do vote no and
Pelosi finds enough Republicans to
join her,
okay, well then the entire hand is
revealed.
Progressives will then have no
excuse anymore to pretend that
Nancy Pelosi is on their side.
because she will have ambushed them
in the biggest ambush of their
careers and humiliated them by
showing everybody how dumb they
are, okay?
And so if that's true, then will
you for God's sake understand she's
not your friend or ally.
By the way, again,
none of this has happened yet.
If I'm wrong and somehow Pelosi
pulls out a magic rabbit trick out
of her hat, where she gets
the Senate to vote on the larger
bill first [LAUGH], okay, great.
Then I'm happy to say, my God, I
was wrong about her the whole time.
She is a master strategist and
a master legislator.
And my gosh, she got
the Progressive version done and
the Progressives were right to
trust her.
She's mama bear, okay?
I will say all of that on air and
they could tape it and
replay it over and over again
until they're happy, okay?
But they're not going to pull
something out of their hat on
the Senate side.
And probably Pelosi will show
herself to be the corporate goon
that I've always suspected that
she was.
In fact, proven a thousand
times over that she was.
But this is the last tell,
last thing guys, a lot of
the establishment Democrats and
establishment media say, no Cenk,
you misunderstand Pelosi.
First of all, a lot of them say
that she's a master legislator.
That's hilarious,
let's put that- >> She kind of is,
I mean if this plays out the way
that I suspect it's going to play
out- >> The way I outlined with the
Republican- >> Yes, then she is.
She's a master of legislator,
not on behalf of the policies that
actually materially benefit her own
constituents lives, but on behalf
of corporate donors- >> 100%.
>> And corporate interest.
>> And Anna that's exactly where I
was going with that.
>> Yeah. >> So if it
turns out she does this thing,
the Republican trick, right?
Well, it's going to prove another
portion of the establishment,
media, and Democrats wrong.
They say no, Cenk, at the end she's
going to be a progressive because
she's retiring and
she wants her legacy to be these
really important progressive bills.
And she's been waiting her whole
career and playing this corporate
game so at the end, she could trick
the corporate people and pass this
amazing progressive legislation.
If that's true, great, wonderful.
It's still not great, because she
should had had a whole progressive
career, not at the very end.
But I'll take it because we're at
the very end.
But if it turns out that's not
the case, and she uses Republicans
to screw us, it doesn't matter.
I'm never going to get
establishment media or
Democrats to ever say,
you were right, it turns out, she's
a corporate goon that is wholly
owned subsidiary of her donors.
But that will be the case,
if that's the way
that the votes go down.