We can only do that once every fiscal budget. The only reason we were able to do this now was Republicans didn’t bother passing a budget last September. Our next shot at reconciliation is this fall.
That said, the idea that anything needs to pass through reconciliation is itself telling of the dysfunction of the filibuster. The chamber was never designed to operate on a supermajority basis, the Articles of Confederation before the Constitution required a supermajority and it was one of the downfalls of that framework.
But until Sinema and Manchin realize they are in the majority and have a responsibility for the administration of good governance, Mitch continues his role as Mephisto in the Republican Cinematic Universe.
Just line any melodrama villain anyway. “How DARE you not let me bully you!” Mitch had a full decade where he basically called all the shots and I guess he’s loathe to lose power now. His desperation is beginning to show, imo.
The first measures of the New Deal were oriented around and almost explicitly for the benefit of businesses (the NRA e.g.) which were nowhere near as populist as later measures (once the first did no good to end the depression).
A mofo this hypocritical shouldn’t even be listened to at all. There is no fucking good faith left in Washington; Mitch is the enemy of American Democracy. Treat him as such.
Isn’t it about time to call his bluff? Wouldn’t a scorched earth approach against passing a voting rights bill into law put pressure on Manchin and Sinema to agree to ending the filibuster or hastening its reform? Is it time to grind McConnell to a halt?
Repeating a point I have made in another forum on this point: where exactly does the Senate minority leader get off acting so aggrieved, and high and mighty? Does he think we don’t remember that he changed the filibuster rules to suit the GOP ? Honestly. Save the holier-than-thou attitude there, Sparky.
I’d argue that FDR ran and governed as an economic populist.
If you’re suggesting that the New Deal rescued American capitalism from itself, or that it rescued American democracy, I could agree. At the very least it helped ensure that anti-establishment feeling built pressure for more social justice rather than less.
Which is not the same as saying this:
The whole point of populism is a demagogue stirring up the mob with appeals to emotionalism. They use the people they attract.
