Politico article: Sinema wants two changes in bill

[Tennessee Hillbilly]

Link:
https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/08-3-2022/sinemas-ask/

Quotes:
The Arizona Democrat, who has not weighed in on whether she will vote for the legislation, wants to nix language narrowing the so-called carried interest loophole, which would change the way some investment income is taxed. Cutting that provision would ax $14 billion of the bill's $739 billion in projected revenue.

Sinema also wants an add. She'd like roughly $5 billion in drought resiliency funding added to the legislation, a key ask for Arizona given the state's problems with water supply.

[ColinC]

1. Doesn't seem to be much of a big deal.

Problem is, if they give it to her ,what is the guarantee she will get on board with it?

[lapfog_1]

2. sold... but she has to promise that if she gets the changes

she is a YES for passage.

[wcmagumba]

3. Have to be a super duper pinky swear for a yes...not to be trusted person....nt

[JohnSJ]

4. Go for it

[Hortensis]

5. Sounds like she's getting ready to board.

Last edited Wed Aug 3, 2022, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Climate and water anxiety for the future are very real in AZ, even among Republicans. Though substantial percentages still insanely support their party's positions to spite Democrats, there's also more support and demand for action among them. And of course Democrats. And it's only going to grow as the crises become more deadly and miserable.

Sinema's been working at bringing her abysmal climate voting record up for a reason. Her congressional record earned her an LCV annual score of 97% for 2021 (100% is most common for Democrats now), while her lifetime average (2013-2021) has been dragged all the way up to...79%.

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/kyrsten-sinema

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Eh?

We'll see. She's just spitting in the wind and trying to get attention.

[mopinko]

7. big no on carried interest. sorry.

compromise, mebbe. but can it? oh hell no. even the guys who use it cant defend it.

[Celerity]

11. It is truly amazing it still exists, even the fucker Trump wanted to bin it, it is a 14 billion usd

pure giveaway to fucking vulture hedge fund managers and other bankster gangsters.

Stephanie Ruhle has been asking for years for someone to come on and defend it, and has had ZERO takers. Manchin just ripped it on her show.

[deRien]

8. I don't think

Manchin will go along with nixing the carried interest part. He's wanted that for years. Maybe getting one of the two will satisfy her.

[kentuck]

9. Give it to her.

She's in AZ.

[Alhena]

10. Manchin said he was a hard no on getting rid of the carried interest provision. Still, these look

like manageable differences, even if Sinema carrying water for her private equity backers is distasteful.

Give her the 5 billion for drought relief and dare her to vote against it.

[Raven123]

12. Had to find something to objectionable.

Wants less revenue, but more money for Arizona. Just amazing. How about narrowing that loophole by only $9 billion? She shouldn’t mind getting her $5 billion through carried interest taxes.

[GoodRaisin]

13. Give her what she wants and get it done.

Elect more dems and then bring up carried interest next time.

[DET]

14. Stalemate

From what I’ve read, Manchin won’t budge on the carried interest loophole. And neither will Sinema (on the other side). We know why Sinema wants to keep the tax giveaway, but I don’t think we really know why Manchin is adamant on killing it (don’t say principle - he doesn’t have any).

[Volaris]

15. If she wants 5B for Arizona, she should be ok with only a 9B cut to the

Loophole. Seems like not an unreasonable compromise to me...

[BannonsLiver]

16. "And Id also like a $20,000 gift card to Hot Topic and an Oompa Loompa, daddy!"

[pandr32]

17. No on the first, okay on the second.

She needs the second ask to look good to Arizona, so she'll cave on the first ask.

[JoanofArgh]

18. Sinema wants attention , mostly. She's a narcissist.

Last edited Wed Aug 3, 2022, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=DsUMzvbKsUDE-W8uGe7dyQ

[panader0]

20. The 14 billion out of the 739 billion is a very small percentage.

The 5 billion for drought resiliency sounds like a good thing considering the SW water problems.
Which is a huge issue for the state. I say give her the changes. The 14 B is what she wants for her
Pharma donors, and other seems like good sense.
The bill will still be monumental and help in the mid terms.
Is she still slimy and not to be trusted -- oh sure, but we need the vote, and so do the people of the US.