The Young Turks - Sinema on Drugs

Episode Date: September 20, 2021

Senator Kyrsten Sinema delivered a tough ultimatum to President Joe Biden at a private meeting on infrastructure. Sinema also objected to drug pricing reforms that are already struggling to make it through the House of Representatives. Sen. Joe Manchin has suggested pausing discussions on the $3.5 trillion spending package until 2022 as the House gets ready to vote on a bipartisan deal next week. Ted Cruz praised Manchin and Sinema for ‘standing up to the crazies in their party.’ Democrats are unlikely to get immigration reform measures in the $3.5 trillion budget proposal after the Senate parliamentarian ruling. Apparently, Trump is looking for a challenger to depose Mitch McConnell. Hosts: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Thank you. I welcome to the Young Turks, Jake, you're out and consparing with you. I want a show, what a day, what a week. Okay, so we told you about a trap, an ambush, and it got sprung today. So we'll explain that in a little bit.

And then you're gonna be shocked to find out that we are going to take Republicans to task, but we're also going to take Democrats to task. It's as if we do a fair show. Well, stay here, watch, and find out. All right, news with Casper. All right, well, let's begin with Democrats. Yes, definitely. Yeah, because they are testing us.

They're testing our last nerve, and we've got a lot to say about them. Yes, we do. My opinions about these testes are swollen. No, that's, okay. Never mind, let's come to me. Let's get the story done. Ignore what he just said. Nikki Minaj's cousin's friend, I'm looking at you.

All right, sorry, go ahead. The game of chicken between conservative congressional Democrats and progressives continues. This time with Senator Kirsten Cinema issuing an ultimatum to President Joe Biden in regard to the bipartisan infrastructure bill, otherwise known as the corporate handout bill. The reconciliation bill, by the way, is on the line. And the threat has to do with what she's likely to vote on the reconciliation bill if she doesn't get what she wants. on the infrastructure bill. Now, if the House delays its scheduled September 27th vote on the bipartisan infrastructure

plan, according to Politico, or if the vote fails, Senator Sinema won't be backing a reconciliation bill. In fact, she's not the only one who has issued these types of threats, although this ultimatum seems to be the most specific because it indicates that she would vote against the reconciliation bill unless the bipartisan bill passes. Now when you look at Senator Joe Manchin, another conservative Democrat who's captured by corporate interests, he said back home in West Virginia last week that to a group of employees at the Procter & Campbell facility in Martinsburg, he wanted to pause all the talk

about the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill until 2020, 2022, my bad. And that's a big deal because that essentially means that he's hoping that you just push it, push it, push it, so the budget reconciliation bill eventually just dies, right? And that is the bill that's the most important because it includes incredibly important provisions including paid family leave. It would expand Medicare. It would lower the Medicare eligibility age. It would also make the child tax credits permanent. It would have universal pre-K. The reconciliation bill is the big cahuna. And that's what conservative Democrats. have been targeting to essentially get rid of or defeat, Jank. Yeah. So this is the trap we were warning you about. So when they passed the bill, if you'll remember, in the House to go forward with both of these at the same time, but to hold a vote by September 27th, Anna and I were adamant that it was a bad idea.

And we were pretty much alone. There was just universal praise of Nancy Pelosi for quote unquote landing the plane. That's what almost everybody said. It's that talking point started with her daughter, Christine Pelosi pushing it out. And then you saw everyone in the echo chamber in D.C. All the way through progressives said, oh, she landed a flight. We got a great compromise. We're in great shape.

Now, the reason that we warn you guys about it is because there was no way in the world that the $3.5 trillion dollar bill was going to be ready by September 27th. Hence, it was an ambush almost by definition. So they were going to say, hey, we've got to vote on the corporate-backed bill. Another one is already, don't worry, we'll keep that football there. We won't pull away before we get to the $3.5 trillion bill. And we said, that's nonsense. Of course, they're going to put a world of pressure on progressives to vote on the crappy corporate-backed version.

Right. And they say, oh, we promise, we promise we'll get to the other one later. and then they'll turn around and go, oh, John, well, we didn't like the other one. We just couldn't. We tried, we just couldn't do it. In fact, that's exactly the track we're on. Now, number one, cinema tells Biden, okay?

No, if we don't vote and pass it by the 27th, that's a new measure and a new litmus test show, I want to get back to in a second. If we don't do that, now I'm definitely going to vote against the other one, and you need every Democrat in the Senate. Then there's 10 House Democrats, and they say, oh, I'm with Krista Cinema. We work for corporations.

We don't give a goddamn about your vote. voters, about American citizens. And so those guys are now saying, we're gonna vote no too. And we'd rather not even have the corporate-backed one that the Schrader and the House Democrats, conservative Democrats in the House are saying, if it means that we also get something that helps the American people, the $3.5 trillion one, it helps average person way too much. We hate it, and we will kill everything to make sure that it doesn't happen. That means we're it is stalemate.

So they're saying your only two options are progressives as always give unilateral surrender. Otherwise, we're going to kill everything. And of course, the real answer for progressives has to be. Have that at it, Haas. We're also willing to kill your stupid corporate-backed bill. If you don't do what we say, let's go, let's have that standoff. But there's no way we're surrendering. In fact, I want to actually go to the video featuring Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez first.

That's the last clip in this story because she has made those threats not once, not twice, but several times. And one of the more aggressive moments was when she filmed a video for social media and essentially said that she would be delighted to defeat the bipartisan bill if progressives don't get what they want in the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. As you guys are queuing up that video though, just to give more detail into what Jank mentioned in regard to Representative Kurt Schrader. Well, he's one of the approximately 10 moderate Democratic House members playing hardball

with leadership, and he said that he had several members of their group are on the same page. In fact, he told political, quote, if they delay the vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, or it goes down, so he's repeating what Kirsten Cinema is saying, then I think you can kiss reconciliation goodbye, reconciliation would be dead. Well, you know, they're not the only ones who get to issue these threats or engage in this game of chicken. Here's the video featuring AOC that I was referring to earlier. Yes, nothing would give me more pleasure than to tank a billionaire dark money fossil fuel Exxon lobbyist drafted energy infrastructure bill if they come after our child care and climate priorities. And of course, AOC isn't the only one.

the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Pramila Jayapal, also declared that House progressives had the votes to tank the infrastructure plan unless it's paired with the larger $3.5 trillion reconciliation package. But it's become abundantly clear that the reconciliation bill won't be ready a week from today, the date when Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised moderates a vote on the $1.2 trillion bill to rebuild the nation's roads and bridges. That's the corporate handout bill. That's the way it should be described by Politico, but of course, they're not going to describe it that way, unfortunately. But I just want to note that Speaker Pelosi can still hold the vote on September 27th. That bill can still pass on September 27th. It is her decision

as Speaker of the House as to when she then sends that bill over to the Biden administration for Biden's signature. So she could very well hold the vote. It could pass, but she could hold on until she gets the passage of the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. At that point, she could send both pieces of legislation to Biden for him to sign it. The question is, will she do that? So listen guys, there's one part of this that's easy, and then the rest of it is super hard. So the original deal that everybody called Nancy Pelosi a master legislator for was that they hold a vote on September 27th.

Not that they passes on September 27th. So now these so-called moderates, the corporate Democrats, are trying to renege on that deal and pretend that it was that it must pass on September 27th. No one ever agreed to that. They agreed to a vote. And so, and now Schrader, this is one of the corporate Democrats in the House, says, if they don't hold a vote by then, that would indicate that they're not playing fair in the sandbox. It would be a travesty if they try to play games. You're playing games right now, so please meet a tall glass of shut up juice. So, but yet these threats are taking very, very seriously in Washington.

I'm surprised, and I'll give Biden a little bit of credit here, that apparently in the Mansion Biden meeting, Manchin said, now shut up and do as we corporate Democrats tell you to do, and make sure that we vote on the $1.2 billion corporate bill first. That's my demands. Normally, that's when Biden and every Democratic leader would buckle and go, I'm so sorry, yes, of course. President Manchin, of course, right? But apparently Biden didn't say that. He said, no, we don't agree on that. So give Biden credit for holding strong to his own plan.

But yes, that's usually unusual. It's a funny way of putting it. But anyways, bottom line here is, guys, they can have the vote and they can vote no and then have both of these things proceed down the track. But if they say to progress as you must vote yes, they would be nuts to vote yes. They would lose all power, all credibility, all leverage. The $3.5 trillion kiss it goodbye. You won't pass $3.5 in the next bill if you vote on the other one first.

That's a fact, stone cold fact. And now since both the corporate Democrats and the progressive Democrats are drawing their lines in the sand and those lines conflict, there is a good chance that none of the bills will pass. Yeah, I think that there are two possibilities in my mind. These are my predictions, I don't know for sure, but one of two things could happen, either both bills pass, which I think is ideal because I do think the reconciliation bill is incredibly important, or neither one of them pass as a result of both sides of the Democratic Party standing their ground on what they demand, right? Now, something really interesting did happen over the weekend, though. So Representative Jim Clyburn, who is a pretty conservative congressional Democrat, had an interview with, you know, had an interview and talked specifically about the possibility of delaying the vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Now, the vote is supposed to take place on September 27th.

He seemed to be more in favor of, you know, focusing on that bill. But now all of a sudden he's like, I don't know, things could change. There might be a delay. Let's watch. So you're certain the House will still vote on this bipartisan infrastructure bill on September 27th, and then it will pass. Or is it also possible you'll delay the vote? Well, there's always a possibility that the vote will get delayed. But the question is, are we going to work to get to our goal for September 27th? Yes, you're going to work hard to reach that goal.

And sometimes you have to kind of stop the clock to get to the goal. We'll do what's necessary to get there. So with Representative Clyburn saying that there's a possibility for a delay on the vote for the bipartisan bill, you now have other conservative members of Congress coming forward saying like, nope, that would that would be a big mistake. Let's go back to Schrader, who says that'd be foolish on their part. Schrader said, noting that Clyburn, Pelosi, and House, majority. Leader Steny Hoyer were in the room when the promise was made to them to take up the infrastructure plan on September 27th. That would indicate they're not playing fair at the sandbox.

It would be a travesty if they try to play games. But what about you guys playing games? What about corporate Democrats playing games, right? I mean, they never get called out for that. Yeah, and so that's of course, as usual, one of the problems here because the mainstream media paints the corporate back bill as bipartisan and moderate. and wonderful, and it was so hard to reach, but they were American heroes for reaching that deal. Mitch McConnell approves of it, so it must be great. It privatizes public infrastructure. Right. That alone is something you should know about. Right. So of course,

since it's totally a corporate bill, the corporate media loves it and paints it as very positive. The $3.5 trillion one, they say, it's a lot of money. It's a lot of money. It's that one's iffy. That one's if you have that perspective, you'd say, well, okay, then we should do the one everybody agrees to, and maybe do the, if you want, and maybe not. But the reality is, no, the first one sucks. It's backed by corporations for completely their own benefit. The second one has actually all the progressive priorities. And by that, I mean, in this case, Democratic priorities that Pelosi Schumer and Biden agreed to and champion.

And of course, the press hates those. So they're like, I don't know. But if you thought that was a really important one, you would stand your ground. And that is what progressives think. And that is what theoretically a majority of the Democratic Party thinks. But these corporate goons are now just out in the open. They're just saying, I don't care about democratic priorities. We were using unity as a way to punch progressives before.

We never meant a word of it. And now the mask is off. And we work for corporate America. And we're going to try to kill your better bill because it doesn't serve our masters. No, but Jake is not using hyperbole. here, okay? That is exactly what's going on. In fact, a new report by David Serota over at the Daily Poster has to do with the three corporate Democrats who voted down the provision to allow for Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies, thus securing

lower drug prices for Americans. Peters, Kurt Schrader, and Kathleen Rice, all three of them voted that down in the House Energy Committee, right? And when the constituents for Representative Peters demanded that he stopped taking money from pharmaceutical companies, you know what he said? No, I'm not gonna do that, I'm gonna keep taking the money. Just straight out telling his constituents, I don't care, I work for corporate interests, I work for the pharmaceutical companies, I do not work for you. And you know why he does that and why he feels emboldened to say that and be so transparent

about his own corruption? because he doesn't think his constituents will do a damn thing about it. And I think they should call his bluff. Yeah, those guys, there's literally no constituency. No one outside of the drug companies who thinks that drug prices should be at this level or higher because we are not allowed to negotiate with drug companies. It doesn't make any sense. No market would agree to that.

Republicans don't agree. Democrats don't agree. And nobody actual voter agrees to what those corporate goons are saying. And they're all Democrats, by the way. The Republicans agree with them because they're all corporate sellouts. Every Republican politician works for corporate America, okay? But those goons in the Democratic Party are saying, we are against every single voter. We will brazenly take bribes and serve the people who gave us those bribes, which are the drug companies.

That's who Kurt Schrader is. That's who Chris DeCinema and Joe Manchin are. And every one of those Peters, Rice, all of them. And they should be called what they are, corrupt. Well, we have more on that pharmaceutical drug price provision when we come back after the break. And man, Kirsten Cinema does not want Americans to pay lower drug prices. She seems to really love the idea of them price gouging you. So we've got those details and more when we come back.

All right, back on Young Turks, Jenkinana, with you guys. More unfortunately at Kristen Sinema. Yes, very unfortunate. But you know, she holds some power in the Senate and she could tank important provisions in the reconciliation bill. So Senator Kirsten Cinema is fighting hard to ensure that her own constituents overpay for pharmaceutical drugs. Now this has to do with a provision in the budget reconciliation bill that she has come out against.

That provision would allow for Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies, something that's currently banned, in order to secure lower-jure. drug prices for Americans and also in order to save money to the federal government, which funds Medicare. Now, Senator Sinema is opposed to the current prescription drug pricing proposals in both the House and the Senate bills. She also doesn't support a paired back alternative being pitched by House Democratic centrist that would limit the drugs subject to Medicare negotiation.

Now Representative Scott Peters in the House, of course, has offered a substitute for the more robust provision that would allow for these negotiations to take place between Medicare and drug companies. And basically what he would do is limit the number of drugs that would be able to be negotiated on, right? So there'd be only like 20 drugs that Medicare could negotiate about, but everything else would be banned from negotiation, which, I mean, this is how neoliberalism works. In neoliberalism, the government isn't irrelevant. The government works on behalf of corporations, And that's exactly what's happening now in regard to how these negotiations don't take place with the Medicare system and the pharmaceutical companies. Now, here's more on the health care provisions in the budget reconciliation bill.

The drug price negotiation changes that cinema is coming out against are a major component of the bills envisioned financing. Democrats are counting on them to raise as much as $700 billion over 10 years to pay for the party line bill's ambitious program. And you know why? Because allowing for the government to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies leads to lower drug prices, leads to less money being spent by the federal government on these drugs. It makes sense, right? So whenever you hear these corporate Democrats talk about how it is not fiscally responsible to pass this provision, no, it's fiscally irresponsible to not pass this provision, because that means that we're going to continue spending way more on prescription drugs compared to other countries.

Yeah, so first of all, that context is really important. Because if you hear that it's some sort of, you know, extraordinary thing to do to negotiate drug prices, you might have a different mindset and go, oh, my God, these radicals say that we should depend on the markets. But wait a minute, I thought conservative said their whole lives that we should believe in free markets. This is not a free market. It's literally the exact opposite. It says the market cannot negotiate drug prices. The government is the biggest buyer of drugs, along with many other buyers, and they're saying

we should do an unnatural thing with one of those participants, the government in this case, not being able to negotiate. They should just take whatever price the drug companies say. Whatever that is, it ain't free market. So now, no other country in the world does this. It's unprecedented. I'm not even talking about developer world, developing world. No, no, no, no country says we will not negotiate.

We'll just pay whatever price that a company says on anything. Oh, cars, we're buying cars. We'll just, the government needs a bunch of cars. Okay, hey, GM, you just, or Toyota, just charges whatever you want. A million dollars of cars, sure, no problem, I'll pay it. Like, it's insane. Nobody would do that. Except we do do that.

We've been doing it for a long time. Why? Because, and this is, will blow the minds of Main Street Meteor reporters. And I hate to say, because I love America, but America is the single most corrupt country in the world. It is. No, we're the only ones to actually legalize bribery. Exactly. Like, it's amazing. And if you're wondering, and you say, oh, that sounds like hyperbole. No, no, no, no, no. Even in the most corrupt countries, like the former governor of Afghanistan and the current government of Afghanistan. The new BMO, V-I-Porter Mastercard is your ticket to more.

More perks, more points, more flights, more of all the things you want in a travel rewards card, and then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO ViPorter MasterCard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit BMO.com slash ViPorter to learn more. It's still illegal to take the money and run, which they did, right? In our country, we made it legal. Drug companies pay politicians and they say now, hand over, this is a robbery, but except it's a bribery.

So I give you a tiny amount of money, which you, questionable politician, take so that you can win and keep your power and wealth and fame and all those things, and then you give me back trillions of dollars from the American taxpayer. Yep. It is exactly what conservatives are supposed to despise. And it's certainly what progressives despise. The whole country agrees to this. The only people who don't are people who've now raised their hands like Christmas Cinema and

just blatantly said, I am corrupt, I work for drug companies, there's no way I would let the voters get their way. You will pay higher drug prices because my donors bribed me. That's what Krista Cinema is saying. Anyone else pretending, you know, they're out of excuses. Do you know what they're excuses for having these higher prices, artificially higher prices? It would help the drug companies with innovation. Except we help fund their innovation through research and development funding.

It's not even worth discussing how absurd that talking point is. It's absolutely absurd. It's so pathetic that even like mainstream media reporters are like, give us a better one than that? That's just, that's pathetic. No one believes that. If you don't call them corrupt, you're not actually doing journalism. So I want to quickly mention that axing that provision has a domino effect within the reconciliation bill. What is that domino effect? Well, as political reports, axing it would imperil

the health care reform components of the social spending plan, such as a proposal from Senator Bernie Sanders, which is supported by Biden, that would expand Medicare coverage to hearing, dental, and vision. It would also, by the way, lower the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60. So it's not just about doing away with one provision that has to do with negotiating drug prices. It would in fact have a domino effect on other health-related provisions within the bill. Now, why is this happening? Jank has already talked about it, but I want to give you more details in regard to the corruption that's taking place here. Because when it comes to the Senate, Kirsten Cinema happens to be the top darling of the pharmaceutical industry.

This is not about Kirsten Cinema pouring over spreadsheets because she's worried about the deficit, as Axios would have you believe. This is really about her own personal interests and how she's willing to sell out her own constituents and the American people in order to do right by her corporate donors. So Cinema formed a congressional caucus, by the way, to raise awareness of the benefits of personalized medicine in February. then soon after that, employees of pharmaceutical companies donated $35,000 to her campaign committee. Now, it doesn't stop there. I want to give you specific examples. Amgen gave her $5,000. So did Genentech and Merck, Sanofi, these are all pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer and Eli Lilly all gave $2,500 each. Each of those companies has invested heavily in personalized medicine, which sounds great, right? except it promises individually tailored drugs that can cost a patient hundreds of thousands

of dollars. Absurd. And also, it's worth noting that for the 2019 to 2020 election cycle through March, this isn't even when she's running for reelection, political action committees run by employees of drug companies and their trade groups gave her $98,500 in campaign funds. That's what this is about. It's about the legalized bribery. It's about the corporate donors having far more sway over these corporate Democrats than

their own constituents do. And when you look at the House of Representatives, as we've reported on before, there are corporate Democrats who are trying to defeat the same provision in the House version of the bill. One of those corporate Democrats is Representative Scott Peters. His constituents confronted him about voting down the provision in his committee. And he essentially said, when they demanded that he stopped taking pharmaceutical money, because He's the top Democratic recipient of money from pharmaceutical companies. He said no.

And he claims, I will not unilaterally disarm and allow a Republican candidate to beat me when I run for re-election. But you know what would actually speak pretty loudly for your constituents? If you actually secured material gains, if you actually improve their lives, if you lower drug prices, that speaks way louder than just continuing to screw over your constituents by raising money by these corporate, with these corporate goons. Yeah, so, look, every time we propose Medicare for all, or Green New Deal, or Collins for all, any proposal, what do you hear, guys?

You hear, how are you going to pay for that? Well, good news, in this case, we're paying for it through this provision. So it's a win-win. We all get lower drug prices, and the American government gets more revenue to be able to pay for climate change and all the other things that we're tackling in this bill. And then once we do exactly what they have, do exactly what they ask for, conservatives, including conservative media

and conservative Democrats, change to immediately move the goalposts. No, now we don't like you paying for it. So which one is it? It's none of them. What it is is, I'm never, ever, ever going to vote in a way that is that my donors do not allow

me to. And you got the $98,500 for Kirstenema. That's a lot of money already, but that doesn't even take in account the real money, the dark money. So those are all appetizers. And then behind the scenes, she eats at the trough of those donors for a lot more. She's cheap. They're all cheap.

Peters is cheap, they're all cheap, okay? But they're not that cheap. They still get more of the dark money. And so for a couple hundred thousand dollars, they sell out every single voter and then brazenly admitted in public. Well, I'm not going to unilateral these are. And guys, remember, when I ran for Congress, I asked my Democratic primary opponent to give back money and not take money anymore from these giant companies.

They won't do it. Not only did she not do it, everyone in media yelled at me and said, how dare you? That is so uncivil to point out that she's taking direct contributions from corporations. You are the bad guy, not her. And that's why the cinemas and the peters of the world are empowered to do these outrageous corrupt acts, because the media doesn't call them out, they're on their side. Oh, bravo bipartisan, Chris's cinema. Oh my gosh, she cares so much about spreadsheets.

This little article we covered last week on Axios. It's amazing the propaganda that corporate media does for corporate goons in Washington. She's got that accountant-like focus, Jank. Yeah, yeah. It's cinema paradisio, how much she cares about the math. It's ridiculous. She's so objective. Whereas Bernie Sanders wants the larger, more, less,

practical bill. That's how Axios painted it. By the way, who are giant advertisers on Axios? Drug companies. So that's how this game is played. Well, look, we've been pretty hard on these lawmakers, but they are getting some praise from people like Ted Cruz, so let's discuss it. Ted Cruz, a senator on the right, who consistently lies to the American people and his own constituents is apparently a fan of Senators Kirsten Cinema and Joe Manchin. And it's because of the fact that they are standing up to progressive policy proposals that would materially benefit the lives of Americans. Now with that said, let's take a look at what Senator Ted Cruz said during a conversation with Maria Bartaromo.

This is the Bernie Sanders budget. Bernie Sanders is a wide-eyed and admitted socialist. He says this is the most transformational bill in a generation. He means it. It is trillions in spending. It is trillions in new taxes. It is the Green New Deal. It is everyone who pays taxes in America will see their taxes

go up under this massive proposal. Individual taxes are going up. Corporate taxes are going up. Small business taxes are going up. Capital gains taxes are going up. The death tax is going up. Seniors are getting hammered. Farmers, ranchers, small businesses. It is disastrous.

Whether it passes or not, will depend on 50 Democrats in the Senate. Do they get Joe Manchin and Kirstenna to go along? I can tell you Chuck Schumer is putting a world of hurt and pressure on the two of them. I hope they stand their ground that they have demonstrated some real courage so far standing up to the crazies in their party. Let me decode that for you. Okay, Ted Cruz is essentially saying, hey, my taxes are going up, Maria Bartaromo's taxes are going up, but let's just make one thing abundantly clear. Middle class taxes, working class Americans will not see their taxes go up unless they privatize more public infrastructure, which will mean that corporations will implement tolls and fees every time you use roads and bridges, then your taxes do go up. But the way that this is being proposed in the budget reconciliation bill is, yes, capital gains taxes do go up, which I think is a good thing, and taxes for those making more than $400,000 a year would go up.

Now, we don't know the specific details yet because they're still working on writing the legislation. But I just want to note a few things, Jenk, before I go to you, because this budget reconciliation bill that he's fearmongering about includes the following. provisions that would lower drug prices, it would expand Medicare to include vision, hearing, and dental. It would also lower the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60. It would make the child tax credits permanent. It would offer universal pre-K. It would offer mandatory paid family leave. It would respond to climate change in a more robust way than what we've experienced in this country so far. It would also offer two years of free community college. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Again, the budget reconciliation bill is the biggest, most relevant bill in

materially improving Americans' lives in decades. And that's why these goons, like Cruz, are against it. The fact that he's praising cinema and mansion is not a good look for cinema and mansion. Yeah, I mean, he said, you know, I'm glad they're fighting back against the crazies of their party by supporting the crazies and the other party. I mean, so they're happy to receive the credit from Cancun Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz, who is one of the most vile right-wing sociopaths in the country, and Mansion and Cinema are saying, oh, it's okay. We don't want credit for working with Bernie Sanders and AOC.

We want credit for working with Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell. And you would think, look, that's absurd if you're a Democrat. Democrats hate Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz, rightfully so, for all their policies and all the actions that they've used to block progress for Americans. But if you watch the press, no. Working with Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell makes you godlike, heavenly, wonderfully bipartisan. Working for actual voters makes you crazy and radical. Guys, if you had the actual facts, we would win so easily and overwhelmingly.

Because take the example we've been talking about all day today, lower drug prices. Who's going to vote for higher drug prices if you know that it saves the government money and it saves you money? and you get access to drugs like every other country in the world has, but that were denied. Who would vote against that? Nobody would vote against that. So what happens? You have to send in your corporate goons that are the politicians like Ted Cruz and Chris's Cinema, and they have to tell you, oh my God, the taxes are going to go up. But wait a minute, let's break it down. Here's facts. He says the death tax would go up. That's the estate tax on estates over $10 million. Do a lot of you have $10 million? dollars and you're worried about, because it only applies for a dollar above 10 million.

You're worried about your 11th million, your 110th million. How many of you out there are that? But their donors are really worried about it. Because for them, for them, that's a big section of their donors. And so, and then he says, oh my God, the capital gains tax would go up. That applies almost exclusive to rich people who already have a lot of wealth. It's not on your salary. That's a tax that goes on investments.

And it's not higher than what you get charged. It's lower than what you get charged. Significantly lower. So look, if you had the facts, even that his own Republican voters would vote with us overwhelmingly. So that's why they bribed the politicians. That's why they have the corporate media give you the bills in a completely twisted way. So the corporate one that screws you, they called a bipartisan, moderate version. It seems sane and good and wonderful.

And the other versions they call radical because it doesn't help corporations. And of course, the last part of this is the ads. And so I want to go to one of our members who has got an on the ground report on this. Zydgirl wrote in, the Atlanta TV market is being inundated with heritage ads saying Democrats are quote unquote lying to us about pharmaceuticals that Democrats want to take away needed drugs from citizens. Ads are nonstop. Jesus. So now that's a total and utter lie, but you're allowed to lie in political ads. That's an amazing fact about America. So the drug companies go, well, if we're allowed, why would

we tell them the truth? We want to charge them as much as humanly possible until they're almost all broke and they're all working as indentious servants for all of us. And we've sucked every penny we could out of them. So let's just lie to them in the ads, tell them that they were going to, that the Democrats are going to take away their drugs. Not remotely true. Not in the bill. It doesn't matter. It doesn't have to be true. Ted Cruz saying it doesn't have to be true. Corporate media, it doesn't have to be true. So that's how they deceive you into voting for things that are wildly against your interests.

We got to take a break, but when we come back, we'll discuss how the Senate Democrats are still protecting. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now. And get a free Tilly Dog. Chili Dog, not included.

The Naked God. It's on sale now. August 1st. It's ending as though they need to listen to the recommendations of the Senate parliamentarian, an undemocratic, unelected figure who could be fired tomorrow if Chuck Schumer wanted to fire her. We'll be right back with that story and more. All right, back on CYT, Jay Canana with you guys. More news forward. Before we get to the next story, I wanted to respond to a comment that Jane,

mentioned in the tail end of our social break, you know, about how the argument for lower drug prices can go even further. And I thought it was such a great point because a whopping 30% of Americans ration their pharmaceutical drugs, meaning that they skip doses or they'll take half a dose because they're trying to make it last longer because of how unaffordable pharmaceutical drugs are in America. So I thought that was a great point. I wanted to, you know, respond with that stack, because it's just 30%. I mean, in the, one of the richest countries in the world. That's what people are having to put up with because of the disgusting corruption in Congress.

Anyway, speaking of disgusting behavior in Congress, I guess today is hit the Democrats' day because there's all sorts of shameful behavior going on, including this willingness to listen to the unelected Senate parliamentarian. So, thanks to an arbitrary and undemocratic process, in the Senate, Democrats won't be able to include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Now, the unelected Senate parliamentarian, who can be fired, by the way, by Senator Chuck Schumer, said that the provision for a pathway to citizenship that is included in the budget reconciliation bill cannot stand. So in a meeting with Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth

McDonough, earlier this month, Senate Democrats made their case to include a path to legalization for millions of immigrants in the massive economic bill. That's the budget reconciliation bill. Now, Democrats argued their plan to give roughly 8 million immigrants an opportunity to apply for green cards in the country would have a major economic impact. A pitch they hoped would convince her to allow them to include it in a complicated budget process known as reconciliation. That would allow Democrats who lack the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to overcome.

the Senate filibuster to pass the bill with only Democratic votes, meaning only a simple majority. Now in order to do that though, in order for the Senate parliamentarian to agree to it, the Democrats would have to prove again that it would have an impact on the federal budget. I think that they made their case pretty clearly, but this unelected figure, who by the way used to work for the previous version of ICE, okay, she used to be, basically, basically a lawyer on behalf of ICE, right? She's saying like, no, the positive impact that it would have on undocumented immigrants and their lives overshadows the budgetary impact that it would have, which is a weird argument to make,

but that's the argument she makes. She's totally, she could be totally irrelevant, but Democratic senators refuse to do anything about it. So if I was a Senate majority leader, what would I do? I'd fire her immediately and then get someone else. And then if they disagreed, I fire them and I'd get somebody else until I found somebody who agreed. Or just get rid of that role entirely. Right. Well, I'd get rid of the filibuster and you wouldn't need the parliamentarian to make these

silly rulings in the first place if there's no filibuster. But I tell you that because in Washington, that's considered sacrilege. Like if they watch this, they go thug, you know, can you believe that he would just do whatever was necessary that was perfectly legal and acceptable? and that's been done in the past to get the bills passed to help Americans. Yeah, yeah, that's what I would do. And so if you're not doing that, you care more about rules, not even laws. Internal Senate etiquette and rules that they came up with a long time ago that have nothing to do with the actual voters

than you do about the things that you said you were going to do for them. And from a political perspective, that's absurd. No one in their right mind would ever believe that. The only reason you have something like the filibuster and the parliamentarian is so you have an excuse not to do the things you promised your voters. Yeah, that's exactly right. And one recent example of the Senate parliamentarian essentially getting fired, being ignored and all that, was during the Trump administration in order to pass Trump's tax cuts for the rich. That wasn't even meant to help Americans. That was just meant to help corporate donors and the rich with massive tax cuts.

And so we've seen it happen in the past, it's just that it's happened in the past on behalf of the nation's wealthy, as opposed to, you know, for the best interests of Americans and the constituents that these senators are supposed to be representing. Now what did the provision entail? I just want to give some context into that. The rejected provisions would open multi-year doorways to legal permanent residents and perhaps citizenship for young immigrants brought illegally to the country as children, often referred to as dreamers.

Also included would be immigrants with temporary protected status who have fled country stricken by natural disasters or extreme violence, essential workers, and farm workers. And by the way, these are people who are abused by their employers, since they're here illegally, oftentimes they're underpaid, oftentimes they work in poor working conditions. So obviously it's incredibly important to create a pathway for citizenship because these are essential workers that we're talking about. These are dreamers that we're talking about. people who were brought here as children. They know no other country other than the United States where they grew up. And so I want to go to this statement from Chuck Schumer, who again

could fire the Senate parliamentarian but refuses to do so. He claims we are deeply disappointed in this decision. But the fight to provide lawful status for immigrants in budget reconciliation continues. Really? How? It doesn't. It doesn't continue. Don't like the lies are so disgusting. He also says that Senate Democrats have prepared alternate proposals and will be holding additional meetings with the Senate parliamentarian in the coming days. Fire her, fire her and get rid of that role entirely. They act like they don't have any power. Look, but you're right, Jank. He knows. He knows, he knows that he can fire her. He's using her as a cover, right? They don't really want to do this.

They don't want to include the provision, which is why they're just listening to this unelected person in the Senate who shouldn't have any control at all over this legislation. So look, you guys can tell that we're telling the truth and the politicians and the corporate media isn't. How? It's easy. You know what McConnell did when the parliamentarian disagreed with him? He fired him.

Yeah. Easy. He didn't even think twice about it. Oh, you don't agree with the Republican agenda? You're fired. And the next person immediately agreed with the Republican agenda. A problem solved. So it's not even a trick to keep Republicans and Democrats from doing the things that they

promised their voters. It's only a trick to keep Democrats from doing it. When the Republicans don't like what the parliamentarian says, you can Google it, you can look it up yourself. They immediately fire the parliamentarian. So this is the dumbest thing in the world. So when you see anyone on cable news talking about how important the parliamentarian is, understand that they're either completely ignorant, which is usually the case.

They don't know anything about politics or news. They're just news actors. Or worse, they're in on it. And they're like, oh, let's pretend that this is a real position. And golly gee, there was nothing they could do. And that way, corporate goons will win, like our bosses. And then, look, to give you a sense of, again, because there's so much propaganda, we'll try to push past that propaganda.

Because if you watch cable news, including MSNBC, they'll treat the parliamentarian as a god. And oh my God, you have to pray down to like as if it's the most important position. So think about the consequence here. For the dreamers in this particular provision, they've been saying that they're going to protect the dreamers for decades now. And these are wonderful, the best of us. Great grades, served in the military, et cetera, willing to risk their lives for America. We said we'd protect them.

We've been lying to them all this time. And to finally deliver for that. On the other hand, the parliamentarian. Are you serious? And some of the provisions in the bills, it's like would create literally millions of jobs in creating renewable energies, but the parliamentarian. No, anyone who says, oh, Chuck Schumer thought the parliamentarian was more important than millions of jobs or delivering for dreamers, et cetera, is basically saying, screw the voters.

We were always lying to them. This has always been a corporate trick. And that's the reality of what's happening here. Yeah. All right, let's switch gears a little bit. I think we've done enough beating up on the Democratic Party, which they definitely deserved. There's a fun drama-related story involving Donald Trump and his hatred for Mitch McConnell. So let's discuss.

Former President Donald Trump has his sight set on ousting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and he's currently looking for a challenger to essentially primary Mitch McConnell when he's up re-election. Trump has spoken recently with senators and allies about trying to dispose or depose, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, trying to depose McConnell and whether any Republicans are interested in mounting a challenge. Now, why exactly is Trump so salty toward Mitch McConnell, who, I will admit, as much as I despise the man, has actually been incredibly successful in accomplishing many of Trump's goals, including tax cuts for the rich. He also succeeded in confirming literally hundreds of Trump's federal judges. Well, you can never be loyal enough to Donald

Trump. And so McConnell has said that President Biden won the election and that Trump's wild falsehoods about the outcome were irresponsible or were responsible for the January 6th riots at the Capitol. They have also split on policy this year when McConnell joined 18 fellow Senate Republicans in voting for a roughly $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, despite Trump saying the deal makes the Republicans look weak, foolish, and dumb. Trump does not want to give the Biden administration any sort of win, because of course he's planning on challenging Biden in the 2024 general election. So what's really fascinating though, which I'll get to in just a moment, is how Republican

senators who tend to be loyalist to Donald Trump have responded to these calls to oust McConnell. I'll get to that in a second. Jank, what do you think? Yeah, I was gonna start with that too. Tommy Tupperville is one of them, and I'll read you the quotes, but these are diehard Trump loyalists. And it makes sense because the Republican voters are with Donald Trump. So then that should lead you to the question of, wait a minute, so why are even the most diehard Trump loyalists not agreeing with Trump, but agreeing with McConnell in this case? Well, that seems weird, doesn't it?

I mean, that might cost them their whole career. Tommy Tupper will won that Alabama Senate seat specifically because he kissed Donald Trump. Trump's ass. And he, and Trump was disappointed with Jeff Sessions. So he owes everything Donald Trump, yet even he doesn't go along. Why? Here's the killer stats. Political action, I'm quoting the Wall Street Journal here, political action committees run by allies of Mr. McConnell, including the Senate Leadership Fund, American Crossroads, and various state-specific groups, spent $462.5 million in helping the elect Republicans in just 2020. So in just the last cycle, McConnell brought in $462 million. Now, how about Trump?

Trump's also got a lot of money. Also quoting the Wall Street Journal here. In the first six months of 2021, Mr. Trump stockpiled a $102 million in political cash. He reported no donations to Republican campaigns during that time. So Trump raises an incredible amount of money and gives nothing zero to other Republicans. Me, me, me, me, me, me. me, me, me, me, me, because that's Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Tuberville and so many of the others, they actually need McConnell's money to win. Yep. They need Trump's endorsement, but they need McConnell's money.

Oh, tricky situation. Exactly. Oh, I love it so much. Oh, they're being pulled in two different directions. What can they do? Well, here's the statement from Tuberville. He says, nah, I'm not going to get in that fight. McConnell is doing a good job.

But he's not the only one who had this type of statement. Senator John Kennedy equated the former president's odds of ousting McConnell to that of a donkey learning to fly. He said, quote, I just don't realistically see that happening, said Kennedy, a Republican facing re-election next year, Louisiana, and one of Trump's confidants in the Senate. And then what about Senator Lindsey Graham, right? I mean, he's the one, I mean, I feel like he's at a close tie with Ted Cruz in regard to how far he was willing to go to humiliate himself on behalf of Donald Trump. Well, Senator Lindsay Graham, one of Trump's closest advisors, said McConnell was indispensable to Trump's legislative accomplishments.

And honestly, that is true. That is an honest statement. Mitch McConnell did help Trump succeed in many of his goals, again, including the Trump tax cuts for the rich and also the confirmation of hundreds of federal judges. And by the way, Trump is also going even further. This isn't just about ousting McConnell, it's about endorsing challengers to McConnell's preferred GOP candidates. So the only primary so far featuring a direct Trump McConnell showdown is in Alaska, where the former president has endorsed a bid from a former state agency head named Kelly Shibaka to unseat Senator Lisa Murkowski. Now, why does he want to unseat Lisa Murkowski, who is endorsed by Mitch McConnell?

Because Lisa Murkowski didn't agree with him on 100% of matters. And also voted to indict him in the impeachment. Yeah, so, of course, he's going to be against all those people because me, me, me, me. So, guys, this is a really interesting story because these are the two worst people in politics in my lifetime. Now, Dick Cheney and Roger Ailes made a good run at it, and you could argue for those two. too, but they're definitely, that's the final four right there, because Donald Trump is the perfect representative of fascism and is a direct threat to our democracy. And if you're a Republican, you're like, oh, no, I don't like that. I just like violence is smashing things if we don't win.

I don't care. I don't, there's reality and there's your insane alternate reality. But Trump would have ended our democracy and tried to end our democracy by having the absurd Mike Pence say, hey, no, I'm throwing out all of the votes of the American voters, and I'm going to put Trump in office. That's what Trump wanted to do. So he's the perfect representative of fascism, and he tried to bring fascism to America. He's still trying to do that. Mitch McConnell is the perfect representative of corruption in America.

And again, these are not just representatives. They're actually doing it. They're at the very, very hard. They're the team captains of fascism and corporatism. So Mitch McConnell has actually sued several times. and gone to the Supreme Court and won, saying corporations should be able to legally bribe every politician in a completely unlimited way behind the scenes

so no one can see what they're doing so we could all serve corporate masters. So what's worse, it's a good question. They're both horrible and have destroyed our democracy. So the fact that these two monsters are fighting each other is great news. Hopefully they shred the Republican Party, rip it apart and lead to endless losses.

Cross your fingers. I've told you now, no, look, on this, I have a lot of credibility because I've told you now for over a decade that infighting in the Republican Party is not necessarily a bad thing for Republicans. And actually Democrats could use some of that. It has led the country to be more and more right wing, but not this. And the reason there's a distinction here is because that was just pushing the party further and further right, and it pushed all of Washington further and further

right, and moved the Overton window. In this case, Trump actually cost them to those two Georgia seats by depressing voter turnout by telling people don't do mail-in ballots, everything fraudulent, don't bother voting. And now McConnell has, unfortunately, has always had a good plan with the biggest liar corporate scam artists as their candidates, backed with tons of hundreds of millions of dollars in money and they usually win. Now Trump's coming in there and trying to screw it up. Great, okay? So let them fight to the end of eternity. And I hope they both lose at the end and have destroyed fascism and corporatism together. And that's why you're seeing normal kiss-asses like John Kennedy and Lizzie Graham in a conundrum. Do I want Trump's endorsement or do I want the

bribes? And the reality is they want to do both. And now Trump is saying you can't have both. And that puts them in a wonderfully bad spot. American Heroes, when we come back for hour two of the show, stick around. We'll be back in a few minutes. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.