I have never heard this particular angle on this bill, and would hope that it's wrong. Can someone confirm/deny with some references?
From the article that's linked to in the article:
>The social policy bill could be transformative for millions of American families. Though the details are fluid and the overall package almost certain to shrink, the proposed legislation would extend the child tax credit, establish universal pre-K education, create a federally paid family and medical leave system, in addition to an array of programs to combat the climate crisis and transition the country toward renewable energy. The plan would be paid for by trillions of dollars in tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and corporations.
Maybe Apple and Disney are against the apparently myriad other things in the bill rather than the programs to fight climate change?
They have enough billions so if this bad PR had an effect they would have released a cool designed webpage and a cool video explaining why their move is correct and how they are very green, maybe next week on their strategist thinks is the most effective time this will happen. Anyway I would not waste a keyboard press to try to defend this giants, there are people very well paid to do this job.
I think the filibuster has some merit. If you want to do something controversial (to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it), there must be a strong majority of 60%, not just 50%. But there must be some sort of cost to filibusting.
That is a common misconception. The modern filibuster doesn't actually require legislators to work that hard and is now generally purely procedural.
In theory, yes. But in practice the US is a two party state, and parliamentarians usually vote along party lines ( because, at the very least, that party controls if they can run for re-election or not).
The US needs proportional representation like.. a few decades ago.
It does not make any sense in any universe to take a legislative body that is already counter-majoritarian and then add on even more counter-majoritarian rules and procedures on top.
The thing about 'real' filibusters vs. the pretend one in the US Senate isn't just that they cost something, it's that they are generally doomed to fail if that's all you have.
Even endless talking has historically been rarely enough on its own to prevent a bill from passing in most legislatures. It can be an opportunity to bring attention to the issue and make legislators have to listen to their voters, or to convince other legislators to reconsider. But something else has to happen or eventually the bill will have to be tabled anyways.
But I think people fail to recognize this, because the concept of filibuster in the US has been so thoroughly distorted by this broken rule. Even if the filibuster required actually doing an endless talk, it would still not be sufficiently democratic if they could simply run out a clock and the bill was defeated -- in fact, that would perhaps be even worse since it would allow any given member to exercise an unreasonable amount of control over the body as a whole that currently at least requires some degree of unity among the minority party.
I’m not quite sure what we’re confirming or denying here.
My understanding of how bill making works, anyway, is that there are usually riders or provisions like this that are known to be, shall we say, sacrificial. They make useful bargaining chips when seeking concessions.
It doesn't "grant citizenship", just provides a pathway for "Dreamers, temporary protected status holders, agricultural and other essential workers" to "getting permanent legal status or a green card". Which may then lead to citizenship if they meet the requirements.
As a Canuck, I see this as a huge US weakness. These megabills, riders and such.
The parent's point is valid. If people cared, really, really cared, it would be a single purpose bill.
It would be more effective too, in that, people could legitimately say... this is only about climate change. Nothing else. What part of this do you object to?
Right now, it clearly is not, and lo and behold, people can easily reject it, and even have very valid reasons for doing so.
Given the lack of success of, well, any major climate change action in the US, this quality would probably not provide much.
The Senate already gives heavy weight to less populated conservative states. add the filibuster rule - which a simple majority can get rid of - and it just amplifies the power of white, conservative men who vote to get re-elected or build for a presidential run. They're voting for what appeals to something like less than 40% of the population.
We're talking about giving DREAMers a path to citizenship which is supported by over 75% of voters...
I think people really care. It isn't their top issue but it has very broad support.
it does look like there is some movement on a standalone bill with at least a couple Republicans supporting it. But I wouldn't hold my breath though. [1]
As the original comment shows, one side views it as a 'power grab' to 'dilute' voting power... That's a pretty narrow view and to me reads a small shade of likely racial bias.
And back to state elections of Senators, that rhetoric is what wins votes for many of these Rs and that's what drives their decision making. Money too. But that's used to win votes.
One hears the same argument against universal vote-by-mail and other anti-suppression measures. A 'vote grab'.. yeah that's the point we should encourage more people to vote!
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/us/politics/congress-docu...
Instead hyperbole and outright falsehood abounds and nobody is held accountable for what they say.