[ad_1]
Progressives have shown that they will not budge on what they want. But how they get there is now up to negotiation, the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said on Sunday.
Why is this important: Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) Said her group might not get the $ 3.5 trillion in social spending it planned last week, but it wasn’t just either. of the $ 1.5 trillion pushed by Senator Joe Manchin (DW.Va.). Adjusting the length of some new programs – rather than cutting them completely – can close the gap.
- “What we’ve said from the start is that it’s never been about the price; it’s about what we want to deliver. The price flows from that,” Jayapal said on “State of the Union ”from CNN.
- “Our idea now is to watch how you do [programs] funded for a little less time. “
- Clean energy standards may need to be funded over a 10-year period to encourage business investment, she said. Other programs like free daycares and community colleges may be funded for shorter terms that future presidents and congresses can extend.
There is a wider debate within the Democratic Party as to whether to reduce the scope of individual programs, cut some of them or, as Jayapal suggested, reduce their duration. It is a way of establishing services which can then be continued afterwards.
- Critics argue that it is better to fund a few programs for longer periods than to dilute the government’s ability to provide too many services.
- “We will consult with Congress,” said Cedric Richmond, senior adviser to President Biden and former lawmaker, when asked about the intra-party debate on NBC’s “Meet the Press”.
- The $ 3.5 trillion bill that collapsed in the House targets “soft” infrastructure, including a massive expansion of the federal safety net. It would complement a $ 1.2 trillion “hard” infrastructure bill – already passed by the Senate – which focuses primarily on improving roads and bridges.
Jayapal didn’t get ink from Manchin and other lawmakers but it also defined the terms of the infrastructure debate. She refused on Sunday to allow herself to be drawn into giving a high price to the priorities of progressives.
- “I don’t feel the need to give a number, because I gave my number. It was $ 3.5 [trillion].
- As for the $ 1.5 trillion privileged by Manchin: “Well, that won’t happen,” she said.
- “It’s gonna be somewhere between $ 1.5 [trillion] and $ 3.5 [trillion]. And I think the White House is working on it right now, because, remember, what we want to deliver is child care, paid time off, climate change, housing. “
The member was clear on two other points.
- She will not support the means test for expanded benefits, arguing that this creates unnecessary bureaucracy.
- Nor will she comply with Manchin’s demand that any final bill ban federal funding for abortion.
- “It’s not nobody’s business. It’s our business, as the people who carry the babies,” she said.
[ad_2]
Source link