NEW: I wrote a little in today's @MTPFirstRead how the Ghosts of 2009 are driving Dems to go BIG BIG BIG on Covid relief -- even as there's mounting evidence the $1.9 trillion is more than needed nbcnews.com/politics/meet-…
You saw today's jobs report, which rules. State budget pictures are improving. New economic forecasts look sunnier. Shots are in arms. Even some Biden allies wonder if $1.9 trillion is overkill given the numbers. @JStein_WaPo had a good roundup on this. washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021…
Economists can debate whether $1.9 trillion (and $350b for state/local aid) is too much given the data.
But Biden isn't just looking at data, he's looking at the Senate. One bad roll of the actuarial dice and their ability to pass more stimulus is gone. nbcnews.com/politics/meet-…
Yes, jobs are coming back and vaccines are getting out. But we're still down almost 1.4m state/local jobs and 9.5m jobs overall from 2020. And there's LOTS of uncertainty. Every scary headline about variants could be nothing, or could be looming disaster. nytimes.com/2021/03/03/wor…
If there's another surge from variants/letting guard down, even just one last big one before vaccines go widespread, that could darken the recovery picture or require more resources to respond. Prematurely rosy projections were a factor in the too-small stimulus in 2009.
Even as state budgets improve, there's also still a case for shooting big on state/local aid. Local govts in particular might feel more confident aiding the most affected after tightening belts preemptively in 2020. nbcnews.com/politics/meet-…
In DC, when it turned out the budget looked better than expected, some leaders were actually upset. If they had known it earlier, they'd have delivered more aid to the most vulnerable and to small businesses in 2020. More federal $ could free that up. dcist.com/story/21/02/05…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So this finding gets to something that might apply to several other D priorities. Unlike other partisan fights, D's and R's disagree more on the scope of stimulus rather than the underlying concept. That makes it easier for D's to outbid R's and then argue for their position.
Looking at other attempts by R's to compete with D's on policy, R's could run into same problem in upcoming fights. You want to give out tax credits to workers and parents? Okay, D's will propose bigger ones. You want infrastructure? D's will definitely outbid you there.
Similarly, R's say they want a higher minimum wage? D's clearly aren't united on $15, but they can almost surely outbid R's.
The biggest ACA change would address one of THE core complaints about the law since passage: The "subsidy cliff" that leaves middle class customers with huge premiums if they don't qualify for federal aid. Now premiums would be capped at 8.5% of income. nbcnews.com/politics/congr…
One reason ACA changes in COVID bill are generating little drama?
No one's spending money to stop them.
The health industry, from insurers to hospitals to doctors, love it. It's more money for them with no price controls or taxes. All cake, no spinach. nbcnews.com/politics/congr…
The key is the information environment on the right, which elected leaders have shown no interest in addressing. You could have predicted on 1/6 itself the exact combination -- false flag conspiracy, whatabout XYZ, procedural technicality -- that would soon bring voters back.
The below tweet turned out to be inaccurate in two ways. One, he lost his Twitter feed, negating the premise. Two, according to Rep. Herrera Beutler, he was already spreading false flag conspiracies mid-attack, not the next morning.
Were Haley to rise to the top of the polls, Trump would be watching it 24/7 on cable, getting jealous of the attention, and inevitably he would say and do outrageous things to get the spotlight and then demand she affirm it all as a loyalty test. This is Trump 101.
Think of the chyrons. “CAN HALEY MOVE THE GOP PAST TRUMP?” “WILL HALEY REPAIR TRUMP’S DAMAGE WITH THE SUBURBS?” He wouldn’t just sit around for it.
This is all granting the assumption he doesn’t run himself, in which case you can guess from the @TimAlberta story what he’ll be bringing up about Haley.
Cruz warned of a "consistent pattern of inciting violence" in April 2016. Why? Trump warned there would be "riots" if GOP delegates didn't hand him the nomination. Supporters were threatening to confront delegates in their hotel rooms to back him up. cbsnews.com/news/cruz-trum…
Cruz was clear-eyed in 2016 that Trump could use the threat of violence by supporters to try and overturn an election, in this case a party one. He also criticized him for inciting rally violence earlier.
For about 24 hours, Graham was in full ditch Trump mode, leaving behind a long trail of quotes. Then he snapped back almost instantly along with others who got in front of their skis criticizing him, most notably Nikki Haley.
Nikki Haley really went under the radar with this:
Jan 6 on Fox: “He was badly wrong with his words yesterday. And it wasn’t just his words. His actions since Election Day will be judged harshly by history."
Jan 26 on Fox: "At some point, I mean, give the man a break!"
"Judged harshly by history" got downgraded to, quote, "not his finest" in the second appearance.