Alex Brandon/AP Photo
President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speak with reporters as they depart after a House Democratic Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill, October 1, 2021, in Washington.
The headline on the New York Times story on Sunday proclaimed: “Biden Throws In With Left, Leaving His Agenda in Doubt.”
This might win a prize for most misleading headline of 2021.
Bernie Sanders and the Progressive Caucus actually originally wanted a $6 trillion plan, so in reality they “threw in” with Biden’s much more modest $3.5 trillion proposal, which the Times is now calling the “left” plan.
By so doing, the Times lets Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), along with a handful of corporate Democrats in the House, define the terms of the debate, which plays into the hands of the Republicans and their corporate and right-wing allies.
This isn’t a conspiracy. It is simply muddled thinking by the Times’ reporters, editors, and headline writers. Unfortunately, it is typical of how the media have framed the story of the battle over Biden’s top legislative priorities.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, said that his original $6 trillion (over ten years) proposal should be the floor, not the ceiling, for a bill to make the U.S. a more humane, environmentally sustainable, and economically prosperous society.
A more accurate Times headline would point out that Manchin and Sinema have “thrown in” with the right. True, their stances are more liberal than that of any Republican. But their refusal to support Biden’s plan is surely putting a rare smile on Mitch McConnell’s face.
A more accurate Times headline would point out that Manchin and Sinema have “thrown in” with the right.
Soon after Biden took office in January, he, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer agreed to draft two bills to incorporate trimmed-down versions of Sanders’s proposal. One involved a $1 trillion (over ten years) public-works plan, often described as the “hard” infrastructure proposal. The other focused on expanding the nation’s social safety net, or the “soft” infrastructure bill, which would cost $3.5 billion over ten years—though that figure is misleadingly high, as explained below.
The Democrats’ plan would expand Medicare, enrolling more senior citizens and, for the first time, cover dental, vision, and hearing. It would expand the health care for roughly four million low-income people in the 12 states (most of which are run by Republicans) that have refused to expand Medicaid on their own. By expanding the Child Tax Credit to $300 a month per child under six and $250 a month per child age 6 to 17, it would cut child poverty by half. It would also offer free public pre-kindergarten and two years of free community college. The “soft” plan also provides 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, which would guarantee that all Americans have the time to care for themselves and their families and loved ones.
The plan also includes provisions to deal with climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions, including a clean-electricity program designed to eliminate fossil fuel emissions from U.S. power plants by 2035. It would invest billions of dollars to build 500,000 electric-vehicle charging stations and update the electrical grid to make it more effective during extreme weather events.
Public-opinion polls reveal that a significant majority of Americans support both the physical infrastructure and social safety net plans.
These are hardly radical or leftist ideas. Biden’s plan would be called centrist in Canada, Australia, and most Western European countries.
The media typically describe the plan as “massive” and “unprecedented.” The Associated Press headlined its story “Big Pressure on Biden, Dems to Trim $3.5T Federal Overhaul.”
In fact, the plan would only amount to roughly 1.5 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. This is a smaller increase than that of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal (which included Social Security and unemployment insurance) and President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs (which included Medicare and Medicaid).
Even the $3.5 trillion figure is misleading. It would stretch over ten years, a fact that many news reports ignore or downplay. Moreover, the $3.5 trillion would be offset by $2.9 trillion in new revenue, according to recent estimates. So the actual cost is just $0.6 trillion.
To pay for the plan, Biden proposed raising the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 26.5 percent on companies’ annual income over $5 million. He’s also proposed restoring the top tax rate to 39.6 percent on individuals earning more than $400,000—or $450,000 for couples—plus a 3 percent surtax on wealthier Americans with adjusted income over $5 million a year. As such, the plan would partially reverse the trillions that the Trump administration and the Republican Congress gave away to the wealthy and big business in tax cuts.
In fact, 48 of the 50 Democrats in the Senate and all but a handful of Democrats in the House support the $3.5 trillion Biden plan.
In August, the Senate approved a $1 trillion physical-infrastructure plan to rebuild roads, replace water pipes that have toxic lead, expand broadband internet, shore up coastlines against climate change, modernize the electric grid, protect public utility systems from cyber attacks, pay for new public transportation, and upgrade airports and railroads.
House progressives have refused to vote on the “hard” bill until there is agreement on the “soft” plan. Last week, Speaker Pelosi canceled the vote on the “hard” bill after progressives insisted that both bills should move in unison.
The “soft” safety net plan is stuck because Manchin and Sinema won’t go along. Manchin has demanded that at least $2 trillion be lopped off Biden’s plan, which would result in a $1.5 trillion bill—an amount that Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) dismissed as “crumbs.” Sinema won’t even say what her bottom-line figure is.
News reports often describe the battle over the bill as “infighting” among the Democrats or, even more hyperbolically, as the Democrats’ “disarray.” But, in fact, 48 of the 50 Democrats (including the two independents who caucus with the Democrats) in the Senate and all but a handful of Democrats in the House support the $3.5 trillion Biden plan.
Within the Democratic Party, progressives have gained influence, due in large part to the effect that Sanders’s two presidential bids have had on a Democratic electorate already moving leftward, and to the increasing number (as well as gender and racial/ethnic diversity) of House progressives elected in 2018 and 2020. The House Progressive Caucus now has 95 members, but many others embrace its core agenda.
The Times and other media outlets have misleadingly framed the struggle among Democrats as one between the “pragmatic” centrists and the “radical” leftists.
But contrary to much of the media reporting, the progressives have not been intransigent or unwilling to negotiate. On Sunday, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the Seattle Democrat who chairs the Progressive Caucus, signaled a willingness to compromise, but she objected to Manchin’s insistence that the bill come in below $1.5 trillion. “That’s not gonna happen,” Jayapal told CNN. “Because that’s too small to get our priorities in. So, it’s gonna be somewhere between $1.5 and $3.5 [trillion].” On Sunday, Sanders told ABC News that $3.5 trillion “should be a minimum. But I accept there is going to have to be give-and-take.”
The media frequently depict Manchin and Sinema as responding to the voters in their home states. Last November, 68 percent of West Virginians voted for Trump, though Arizona narrowly went to Biden by a 49.4 percent to 49.1 percent margin.
But due to the high levels of poverty and poorly funded schools and health centers in West Virginia and Arizona, there’s no question that their residents would benefit from the plan’s key provisions regarding health care, education, and other programs—indeed, more than residents of most other states. Manchin’s insistence that the bill incorporate means tests and eligibility caps, and Sinema’s fierce opposition to allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to lower the price of medicine, will only hurt their constituents.
Manchin and Sinema’s opposition has more to do with their close ties to big business. These so-called pragmatists are doing the bidding of corporate America, who want the physical-infrastructure projects but don’t want the higher taxes.
Manchin also has opposed many of the plan’s provisions to deal with the climate crisis—provisions that would hurt his pocketbook. He’s pocketed more contributions from coal, oil, and gas companies this campaign cycle than any senator, according to Open Secrets. And his ties run deeper than the campaign donations he’s received from these corporate interests. Last year, Manchin made half a million dollars from his son’s coal company. He’s also earned more than $4.5 million from two coal companies—Enersystems, Inc., and Farmington Resources, Inc.—he founded in the 1980s.
For her part, Sinema promised to push to lower prescription drug prices when she ran for the Senate in 2018. Now she’s changed her tune, having taken in over $750,000 from the pharmaceutical and medical device lobbies since then.
On behalf of their corporate benefactors, Manchin and Sinema may be sabotaging the potential success of Biden’s presidency and the odds that the Democrats will be able to maintain even their slim hold on Congress in next year’s midterm elections. They may also be undermining the last best chance to address America’s most pressing problems. And so long as the media depict the Biden plan as a left-wing venture, they’ll be abetting Manchin and Sinema’s malignant misrepresentations.
