The Senate has released new details
in regard to the bipartisan
infrastructure bill.
A much smaller bill compared to
what is proposing $3.5 trillion
reconciliation bill.
The reconciliation bill of course
includes everything that we'd like
to see funded, including funding
for child care, elder care,
climate action, and the like.
Now this 2700 page bipartisan
bill does include some funding for
physical infrastructure that's
incredibly important, but
it does have some giant red flags.
The number one red flag, of course,
being what we've talked about on
the show before asset recycling.
And that's something
that representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke
about during a conversation
with Jake Tapper over the weekend.
Let's watch.
>> I want to be clear that
the investment from the bipartisan
bill are not all Candyland.
There are some of these unquote pay
fours that are very alarming that
we need to see the language on.
For example,
some of the language around
privatizing public infrastructure,
putting toll roads, leasing public
infrastructure to private entities
are very concerning and should
be concerning to every American.
So we really need to see that
language and see what's
put in there until it reaches when
it reaches the house by partisan
doesn't always mean that it's in
the interest of the public good.
Frankly, sometimes there's a lot of
corporate lobbyists giveaways and
some of these bills..
>> And she's right about that as I
mentioned, this bill as it stands
right now is 2,700 pages long.
We don't have too many details
because you have to sit down and
read every single detail of how
that funding is appropriated.
And more importantly,
there's going to be $579 billion in
new spending.
>> And when they talk about the pay
force because overall, this is
supposed to be a $1 trillion,
bipartisan infrastructure deal.
They're talking about privatizing
public infrastructure, which means
that private companies will manage
and control our infrastructure.
And implement various tolls and
fees on the American people who
need to use that infrastructure to
go to and from work or
to do anything, to travel to get
from one place to the other.
And so I think that AOC is right in
raising alarm on that issue.
It's frustrating to see Democratic
lawmakers celebrate this as if this
is a giant victory just,
because it's being
done in a bipartisan way.
You could have bipartisan
legislation that's completely
disastrous for the American people.
So, why don't we just hold wait and
see what's actually going to be in
the final version of this bill.
But more importantly, see whether
there's going to be enough of a
fight to ensure the passage of the
reconciliation version of the bill,
which is of course, far better.
>> Okay, what AOC did there was so
important because, again,
you've got to call out
what's actually happening here.
And there's,
as we've explained many times now,
there's two versions of this bill.
There's the so called bipartisan
version that we're talking about
here that has less provisions for
climate change relief,
less provisions for creating jobs.
We can go on and on now, there are
parts of that bill that are good.
And because of the pressure that
progress is put on.
They actually did take out the part
about toll roads and
all the things that Anna's was
telling you about that we were
deeply concerned about.
By the way, when progress is
threatened to withhold their vote,
hey, look at that.
You get leverage and
you get results.
So the worst parts of that
bipartisan bill appear to have been
removed because the pressure
that AOC and others put on.
So send her a thank you note.
Now, having said that, we still
believe that they should vote on
the larger bill in the house first,
because if they don't.
If they vote on the so
called bipartisan version of it,
I guarantee you, that's the only
thing that will pass, in fact,
not just democratic leadership.
But the media now is gearing up
to put pressure on progressives and
everyone else to bow their heads
and only pass a smaller version of
the bill, the one that
the Republicans agree to.
Okay, now why do I say that?
Now you might think that this
is subtle and I'm going to read you
some of the things from just one of
the articles that I read on this
but I see it throughout all
the articles.
And I saw them do this numerous
times especially on the Dodd Frank
financial reform bill, okay.
So first of all, the Washington
post explains it, or says declares
in its headline that this is a $1
trillion bipartisan infrastructure
bill, only later in the article,
did they clarify it well,
it's not really a trillion.
They're repurposing about half of
that from the COVID relief bill
that already passed.
So it's actually only 550 billion.
Okay, 550 billion is not a bad
number, okay, in the context of
the trillions that we're talking
about for infrastructure is
actually relatively small.
But at least be honest about what
the number is,
because they already passed
the other portions claiming they're
repassing it totally pointless.
I just gives them
extra publicity for no reason.
Okay, now they describe it this way
second paragraph.
The package arrives after weeks of
haggling among a bipartisan bloc
lawmakers who muscle through late
night fights in near collapses to
transform their initial boot
blueprint into a roughly
$2700 I'm sorry,
2700 page piece of legislation.
The fate of their labors now rests
in the Senate..
You say I would say that makes them
sound like heroes they're
bipartisan and they fought so hard.
And now all their hard work goes
to the Senate, and let's see if
something good could be made of it.
These heroes third paragraph,
virtually no part of the US economy
is untouched by the plan chiefly
put together by Senators
Rob Portman and Kirsten Sinema.
In other words,
this is comprehensive and
historic and unprecedented.
It's exactly
what they did with Dodd Frank.
And mind you, how did we find out
Dodd Frank was so weak,
because one out of ten or 20
articles will tell you the truth.
Paul Volcker wants his name removed
from the bill because it's so
weak and it's not going to get any
real reform done, they bury that
in the middle of the newspaper.
One out of 10 or so
articles, right?
But nine out of 10 articles are on
the front page historic
financial reform Obama hold wall
street accountable.
That just isn't true.
And we know that because of other
articles they have explaining that
it isn't true when
they actually get to the details.
So what they're framing here is the
bipartisan people are the heroes.
>> Right?
>> And if you don't pass this
heroic thing,
you are against any action.
I don't know. But wait a minute
progressives want more action,
bigger action?
No, so by the way, as always with
our predictions here, you'll get to
see it with your own eyes.
We told you that they wouldn't
do $15 minimum wage they all
said they would.
We told you they were liars and
we were right.
And everyone else
in national media was wrong.
You saw it with your own eyes.
Now we're telling you, they're
going to try to jam this bipartisan
bill through and the media is going
to glorify it, because they
are the corporate media working
with corporate republicans and
corporate Democrats.
Okay, informally so
there's no memo written by that
invisible hand works really well.
Now, finally that is why AOC
also calling out in that
CNN appearances saying by partisan
isn't necessarily good.
It depends on what are we
agreeing to?
It's the first time I've heard that
logical point in decades
on television,
maybe in my entire life.
We've made on the young turks
thousands of times.
>> Yeah. >> Who cares,
it's bipartisan.
What's in it.
>> She nailed that interview that
the entirety of that interview with
Jake Tapper was was
pretty powerful.
So definitely check it out.
But I do want to give you a few of
the.
I guess where the spending is
going to go so far.
And remember, this is the bill as
it stands today.
It's going to go through debates on
the Senate floor.
They're going to make amendments to
it, so who knows what the final
bill is going to be.
But just looking
at the preliminary numbers.
It's already abundantly clear that
it's not enough funding to improve
our crumbling infrastructure which
has not received the robust
investment from the federal
government that's necessary
to keep the bridges from let's say
collapsing, right.
We just experienced a bridges
collapsing recently which we've
reported on the show.
Now senators also said that
the measure calls for $66 billion
targeting passenger railways,
which the White House says is
the largest such investment
since the creation of Amtrak
nearly a half century ago.
One thing I want to note is
the reason why republicans are on
onboard in funding some of
the physical infrastructure?
Is because corporations need that
physical infrastructure,
you think it's just like random
private American citizens who
need infrastructure?
No, if you want commerce to run
smoothly in this country, you need
to have functioning infrastructure
in order to be able to do that.
So there are corporates like
the US Chamber of Commerce is
totally on board for the bipartisan
version of this bill because they
get to benefit from it.
They don't care about the American
people getting to benefit from it.
They want to make sure that Federal
money is used to improve
infrastructure for
their business purposes.
Lawmakers also plan
to set aside $55 billion to improve
the country's drinking water.
Are they not merciful, finally,
including a program that seeks to
replace every lead pipe in America.
This is a good thing, of course.
There's an additional $65 billion
to expand broadband internet
access nationwide.
And ensure those who do not or
do have connectivity can afford
their monthly payments.
And senate lawmakers are pursuing
additional sums to upgrade key
commercial hubs including
potentially $25 billion for
repairs at major airports.
>> Now Anna all of that is good to
really good, right?
So credit where credit is due.
But now, if you notice, once they
have the bipartisan agreement,
mainstream media tells us wonderful
and tells you all the great parts
of the package, right?
Now will they do likewise for
the three and a half trillion
dollar bill that progressives want
and Democrats claim that they want.
And we'll get that because that
version of the bill has all of that
times three or four and
then many other provisions that
are also excellent and create
potentially millions of jobs.
So so far we've been had the three
and a half trillion dollar version
presented by the press as this
thing that Democrats say that they
want, but is it really realistic?
I don't know how we're going to pay
for it, but now the paired
down version yeah of it.
Which again, if you just take into
account, new money is one seventh,
the size of the progressive slash
democratic version, right?
Well, on that one day says,
we have corporate Republicans and
Democrats agreeing it's wonderful
on them one much larger one,
the things that we told you
are wonderful when you make them
even larger, are not as good.
So that's going to come soon, okay.
But the bottom line and all
this and go to tyt.com/petitions,
because we want your helping in
pushing forward change is
in the Senate, they can vote in
any order they like.
But in the house if they vote for
the bipartisan one, the pared down
one that we're telling you about,
if they vote for that one first,
we're screwed.
You're never ever going to get
the larger one.
I don't care what Nancy Pelosi
says, I've seen her lie dozens of
times in exactly situations like
this and then they'll say,
there was nothing we could do Josh
got Heimer voted against it.
And so to three other corporate
Democrats golly, gee, right know
you've passed the three and a half
trillion dollar version first,
then we could pass this version.
And that's what the petition asked
people to do not only show your
support by signing it, but send it
to legislators and if you get them
to say, yes, I agree with this,
please let us know.
Because then you're effectuating
change in a positive way and then
we could get that to the press and
then the press will go no,
now progressives are actually
trying to do the right thing.
So now they have power and
they have leverage.
And now we're going to have to
negotiate to see if we can
get a larger deal.