'I simply will not support it'- Sinema kills Dems-only infrastructure bill

[NewsCenter28]

She also says she’s not willing to negotiate. Unbelievable!

Kyrsten Sinema still opposes her party's plans for a $3.5 trillion, party-line spending bill. And she’s not up for a negotiation about it.

As House Democratic leaders hold back Sinema’s own Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill in order to push the Arizona Democrat and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to support a multitrillion-dollar spending bill, Sinema is making it crystal clear that her mind can’t be changed. And that applies even as her own legislation becomes a bargaining chip in House Democrats’ internal discussions.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/23/sinema-35t-spending-bill-506583?nname=playbook-pm&nid=0000015a-dd3e-d536-a37b-dd7fd8af0000&nrid=0000014e-f111-dd93-ad7f-f91591180000&nlid=964328

[Lovie777]

1. Any cross overs from the GOPer side? . .

I think it will pass tho.

[joetheman]

3. Just two cross overs would neuter Manchin and her. Not likely tho. But they would be (s)heros

[Walleye]

2. What? She was out in front pushing the bipartisan bill.

Doesn’t anybody care about actually getting legislation passed?

[vanlassie]

4. She needs attention.

[LiberalFighter]

9. She wants the attention.

[agingdem]

23. she's kind of dumb...

does she think she's a maverick like, let's say, John McCain who was anything but a maverick?...or does she envy the imbecilic Marjorie Taylor Greene and her "look at me look at me" attention-getting performance?

[FBaggins]

24. She's trying to get the House to pass it

She’s trying to give ammunition to the House moderates that want the compromise bill to pass now

[Demsrule86]

30. She will vote for that but not the reconciliation bill. This is why moderates want to pass

the bipartisan bill and we should.

[Bluethroughu]

5. She's bought and paid for.

[FalloutShelter]

7. She lost me with the curtsy.

[PoliticAverse]

44. I thought the literal pats on the back to McConnell right before that was worse. n/t

[NewHendoLib]

6. just follow the money.

[honest.abe]

8. I think your title is a bit misleading. She is opposed to the 3.5T spending bill..

not the smaller bi-partisan infrastructure bill which she helped negotiate.

[AZProgressive]

11. It says Dems only

There are 2 infrastructure bills and she does support the bipartisan but both were negotiated all summer and Biden indicated he supports both so she isn’t on the same page as the President.

I’m just glad 2024 is a long way away but I will happily vote for Mark Kelly and Greg Stanton is a better rep than Sinema. This is all I can do for the 2022 midterms besides donating. I live in her former district.

[honest.abe]

25. The 3.5T spending bill is not about infrastructure.

It’s focuses mostly on social and environmental programs. That’s the one she is talking about.

[AZProgressive]

26. I support the reconciliation bill more than I support the bipartisan bill

But I like both as a package together. I feel Sinema doesn’t listen to her constituents and she didn’t either when she was a House Dem.

[honest.abe]

29. Yes, understood. I'm just saying the title isn't correct.

I suspect the 3.5T spending bill will have to be negotiated with her and some other moderates before it gets passed with all 50 Dems.

[lagomorph777]

47. Her constituents need to hear from Pres. Biden what their Senator is keeping from them.

Same goes for Manchin.

[Demsrule86]

32. And? I always thought this is what would happen.

Pass the other bill and keep working on the bipartisan bill.

[AZProgressive]

34. I'm hoping both eventually are signed by Biden

That is my position.

[Miguelito Loveless]

13. She opposing the one that will actually accomplish something.

[Demsrule86]

33. The bi-partisan bill is good bill...better to make some progress than none.

[WHITT]

62. Clearly

you're unaware what's in, and what's not in, the Repub corporate bill.

[Demsrule86]

64. Oh please. I am aware what is in the bill.

It is a compromise and is a good bill. And your words show why moderates insist that this bill is done first. The bipartisan nature of the bill is very important for their re-elections and they believe many who feel as you do won’t vote for the bipartisan bill after passing reconciliation. And they may be correct. I wish progressives could win in red or purple states- many which are gerrymandered but I see no evidence that this is the case. And the total amount will need to be lowered in the reconciliation bill to be able to pass it. Sen Sinema said as much. So compromise will be needed here also.

[WHITT]

66. Really?

I am aware what is in the bill.

So you're aware that, according to the EPA, the $15 billion they propose to spend on replacing lead pipes, will replace LESS THAN A THIRD of all the lead pipes in the country. Of course, that means MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS of communities will continue to drink lead-contaminated water?

So which communities get their pipes replaced, and what do you say to the other two-thirds of communities?

You're aware the bill promotes corporate welfare they call 'public/private partnerships', where they build roads, but charge tolls that consumers have to pay to the corporations for the rest of their lives, build bridges and charge tolls that consumers have to pay to the corporations for the rest of their lives, take water owned by communities and then sell it back to them at greatly inflated prices for the rest of their lives?

You're aware there are tens of billions of dollars of fees, and tens of billions of dollars of tolls, that working people will have to pay for the rest of their lives in this bill?

You're aware the bill:

* STEALS MONEY from the Education Stabilization Fund.

* STEALS MONEY from relief for airline workers.

* STEALS MONEY from the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program for small businesses and nonprofit groups.

* STEALS MONEY from the Paycheck Protection Program.

* STEALS MONEY from Covid relief funds for states and locals.


Their proposal relies on generating $56 billion from 'dynamic scoring', which has never happened.

The bill adds hundreds of billions to the federal debt.

I could go on and on. The more you read, the worse it gets.

[Doremus]

70. Ah yes, that lovely incrementalism that's brought us so far...

Settling for something is a last resort, not something to be satisfied with.

It's within our reach if we continue to push for it and not capitulate.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

10. She isn't killing the reconciliation bill.

She objects to $3.5 trillion. Most likely outcome is that it comes in at less than that, but she's not objecting to any bill whatsoever.

She was one of the 50 votes to pass the budget resolution in the first place.

[Walleye]

12. Yeah I think we should ignore this public negotiating until it's time to actually vote

[PoliticAverse]

46. Doing that before the vote is called "posturing". n/t

[Walleye]

52. Thanks. That's the word I was groping for. 😁

[WHITT]

18. But It's Paid For

What difference does it make how big it is if it's paid for? The bill she supports is NOT paid for.

No, this is not why she objects. She objects because she is against raising taxes on the Rich & Corporate, but won't admit it because it's so wildly popular with the American people. She's protecting millionaires and billionaires.

[brush]

21. Saying "I simply will not support it" isn't objecting to it?

What do you call it? If she had said it's too expensive, or it needs a little trimming, I could see what you mean but she said she simply won't support it and won't change.

She's setting the stage to get primaried. Everyone worked with her and Manchin to get the bipartisan bill passed in the Senate and now she digs her heels in and won't return the favor.

She's gotta go.

[FBaggins]

49. Note that she doesn't appear to have said what you have in quotes

A spokesman said "she will not support a budget reconciliation bill that costs $3.5 trillion" and the editor that titled this piece translated that into something entirely different.

[brush]

53. So what are you interpreting her intentions to be on the Dem bill?

This is direct from the article: "Kyrsten Sinema still opposes her party's plans for a $3.5 trillion, party-line spending bill. And she’s not up for a negotiation about it."

Not up for negotiations seems to me to mean she's not up for even trimming it. If her position is different from that she needs to learn to make herself clearer.

[FBaggins]

54. "Not up for negotiations" is also not something she said

She voted to allow the reconciliation process to begin with that price tag on it... so she's obviously open to some negotiation (else she would have killed it before things even got started).

Her message here is muddled by the author of the piece, but it isn't really all that complicated. The current debate is between House progressives who are saying that they won't pass the infrastructure compromise bill until a budget reconciliation package of at least $3.5T is passed in the Senate... and House moderate who say that they won't even vote for a reconciliation resolution (allowing the budget process to begin) until after the compromise bill is passed. Sinema is making clear that nothing close to $3.5T is going to pass in the Senate. Making the choice between $1 Trillion now and the possibility of 1... or 2... or 2.5 Trillion later - or possibly nothing at all.

[brush]

56. That's your interpretation of her position. We need to...

hear it from the horse's mouth not from someone imagining what she means.

[WHITT]

14. This Is Why

Speaker Pelosi needs to utilize one rule for both bills. Anybody who votes against the reconciliation bill ALSO votes against the Repub corporate bill.

Then have Schumer do the same in the Senate.

[brush]

22. The bipartisan bill already passed in the Senate.

[WHITT]

61. All The Speaker

has to do is modify one line in the bill, then it must return to the Senate for another vote. Who do they think they're playin' with?

[Demsrule86]

36. That would be a disaster. We need to get the bi-partisan bill at least.

[brush]

15. OK, if she fu_ks up the Dem bill she's gotta be primaried.

So sick of her attention-seeking posturing. Have to remember she's a former Green party member. And that party exists only to siphon off Dem votes so republicans can win.

She basically saying with this statement that she single-handedly will stop her own party's infrastructure bill.

[AZProgressive]

17. She is a lot more conservative than her days

When she was in the Arizona State legislature. I voted for her several times it is a long story but I know who she is. Many here on this board wanted her because she wasn’t a huge liberal and back then people used to worry about Jeff Flake.

[qazplm135]

27. She's simply without guiding principles

Except what she thinks keeps her in office.

Still, it's posturing so she can get cuts to say 3 trillion or 2.9.

[Mordred]

16. She has not ruled out reconciliation

She is just reiterating her position that she will never be on board for $3.5T spending in a reconciliation infrastructure bill. Manchin has the same position. That part is non-negotiable but she has never explicitly said she will not vote for a smaller reconciliation package.

Manchin and Sinema are signaling the House to pass the bi-partisan deal quickly and work harder on a smaller, more palatable (to them) reconciliation human infrastructure package.

[WHITT]

19. Then

there will be no second bill. That's the goal.

[MyOwnPeace]

20. I caught &%# the other day for calling her a "pea-brained DINO"

so I'm just going to watch and see how she proves me wrong on this bill.

[lagomorph777]

28. Does Trump have Kompromat on her and Manchin?

[PoliticAverse]

31. Well Pelosi won't pass the bi-partisan bill in the House without the Senate

first passing the $ 3.5 trillion bill.

[FBaggins]

37. Then she's very likely to get neither

That can't help in next year's elections.

[Demsrule86]

41. I don't think Sen. Sinema cares. I think she has a different job in mind...maybe with the media.

[FBaggins]

45. The question here is whether Pelosi cares. nt

[Demsrule86]

58. Speaker Pelosi will get what she can...hopefully both bills...but I believe the 9 moderate

house members insisting on a vote for the bipartisan bill are worried that we will get neither. It is not a done deal...fingers are crossed.

[WHITT]

63. Then That's On

Manchin, Sinema, and the nine members of the House. I don't think they can take that kind of heat.

[Demsrule86]

38. Then we get nothing and we lose the midterm badly and the GOP takes over.

[totodeinhere]

35. I wonder if there is any chance to get one Republican vote to offset Sinema's treachery?

It may be worth a shot. Maybe Romney or Murkowski?

And regarding Sinema, she definitely needs to be primaried when she runs for reelection.

[Demsrule86]

39. Nope, they voted for the bi-partisan bill and don't want another bill...we get what we can

and live with it. We can probably get a smalled reconciliation bill as some posters have noted. But we will have to compromise on the amount.

[FBaggins]

43. On the bill? Maybe (probably not)...

... but as a filibuster-bypassing reconciliation package?

No.

[Bleacher Creature]

40. So it comes in at $3.49 trillion and she and Manchin can pretend to have saved taxpayers money.

Neither of them are serious legislators at this point, so it's 100% about optics for them.

Schumer will figure out a way to make them happy. They're just going to make it as painful as possible along the way.

[Demsrule86]

59. That is likely to happen...here is hoping anyway.

[Hekate]

42. What a piece of work

[aocommunalpunch]

48. Let's play a game:

fill in the blank with other folks and see if you'd feel the same. I tend to doubt it. Having conservative street cred means never having to say you're sorry. (Or at least literally wear a ring that says, "Fuck off". Class all the way.)

[vsrazdem]

50. Just sent this to Sinema's office regarding the 3.5 trillion infrastructure bill.

Apparently you are not even considering voting or negotiating this bill. Therefore, I will no longer be able to vote for you. I hope you are primaried, as I am a lifelong Democrat and would certainly like to vote for a Democratic senator from AZ; however, if you are not, I will be leaving this D spot open, as I will not be voting for you. You have betrayed the working class and are only interested in the money in politics and what you can get out of it. You are indeed a disappointment as a member of my party.

[Fiendish Thingy]

51. Bullshit headline- Sinema did not "kill" the reconciliation bill

The $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill “is a historic win for our nation’s everyday families and employers and, like every proposal, should be considered on its own merits,” said Sinema spokesperson John LaBombard. “Proceedings in the U.S. House will have no impact on Kyrsten’s views about what is best for our country - including the fact that she will not support a budget reconciliation bill that costs $3.5 trillion.”

More performance art masquerading as governance; Sinema simply missed being in the spotlight, having been on vacation the past two weeks. When Schumer brings the reconciliation bill to the floor, it might be a few hundred billion leaner, but Sinema will vote to pass it.

[budkin]

55. Remember how hard we worked to get her elected?

That was cool.

[Deminpenn]

57. First, she already supported it, otherwise

the ball wouldn't be in the House's court right now.

Second, she is probably trying to give cover to Gottheimer and his little band of merry conservaDems, who Pelosi will squash like bugs when the bills come up for a vote.

[dflprincess]

60. So "simply will not support" a bill that will do her constituents a lot of good

How does she (or Manchin) even think they are Democrats?

[Demsrule86]

65. She insists on lowering the 3.5 number. And if she sticks

to this, there is no other choice.

[dflprincess]

67. If I were a senator with as many 65+ constituents as she has

I might think twice about not supporting a bill that expands Medicare coverage to dental, vision, and hearing.

[The Magistrate]

69. But You Are a Sensible Human Being, Ma'am

This creature fails that basic test....

[dflprincess]

72. Thank you, sir

And you are correct about the senator.

[The Magistrate]

68. This Is Wednesday, Sir

We'll see how cheaply the clotheshorse sells out for over the next week or two. I trust the professionals to have put enough padding into the bill to accommodate crap like this without losing anything essential.

[Mr.Bill]

71. This isn't Biden's

first rodeo by a long shot.