The Virginia Governor’s Race Will Be the Latest Verdict in the Culture Wars - In the contest between Glenn Youngkin and Terry McAuliffe, the candidates are less important than the grassroots battles that have defined state politics. - link
Another Buffalo Is Possible - This summer, India Walton looked likely to become the first Black woman to lead Buffalo, and the first socialist mayor of any major American city in decades. Then the sitting Democratic mayor launched a campaign to defeat her. - link
Biden Can’t Quite Close the Deal—with His Own Party - “Everybody’s on board,” the President said. But they weren’t, at least not yet. - link
What Biden Can’t Do on Student Debt—and What He Won’t Do - Activists argue that the President could cancel student debt with the stroke of a pen, fulfilling a campaign promise. Newly uncovered documents suggest that Biden has been “reviewing” the issue for months. - link
Gaba-Ghoul: Several Questionable Halloween Puns - Take your pick for the Ghoul du Jour. - link
From Vox
Why progressives still aren’t voting for the infrastructure bill -
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said members would vote down an infrastructure bill if it came to the floor on Thursday. | Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg via Getty Images
It’s the only leverage they have to guarantee that the social spending bill moves forward.
Moderate Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) have demanded major cuts to Democrats’ Build Back Better bill, a large climate and social spending package that’s been in the works for months. Progressives fear further cuts — and some worry the bill might be abandoned altogether — if Manchin and Sinema can’t be compelled to accept the $1.75 trillion spending proposal currently on offer.
Their strategy to pin the senators down was on display Thursday, when the Congressional Progressive Caucus refused to move forward on a bipartisan infrastructure bill without a simultaneous vote on Democrats’ larger social spending bill. Because House Democrats have a narrow three-person margin, any major defections can sink legislation.
Progressive members have for weeks demanded that the votes on the two bills be held together. They worry that Manchin and Sinema — who back the infrastructure package — could completely abandon the budget bill should infrastructure advance on its own, given their longstanding opposition to the size of the measure and to several of the policies it contains.
The best way to guarantee that Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin support the President’s framework is for the Build Back Better Act to pass in the Senate first.
The people — not just some, but ALL of our people — must win.
To ensure the two senators support the spending package, progressives are using the bipartisan bill as leverage: In order to pass one, Democrats need to get on board with passing the other as well. Tying the two votes together is also a way to prevent moderate lawmakers from whittling down the spending bill even further. The sooner moderates agree to the latest spending proposal numbers, the sooner they’ll get their vote on infrastructure.
“Congress needs to finish the job and bring both bills to a vote together,” the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote in a statement explaining their stance. “There is too much at stake for working families and our communities to settle for something that can be later misunderstood, amended, or abandoned altogether.”
Progressive pressure on Thursday secured an infrastructure vote delay, which marked a win for them. It also followed a loss: The latest version of the spending bill, which progressives have announced they’d accept, includes some serious cuts. The plan, released by the White House Thursday, doesn’t include many of their key priorities, including paid family leave and Medicare’s ability to negotiate prescription drug prices.
Despite this, they appear to have now decided to take what they can. They want Manchin and Sinema to do the same and hope to use what leverage they have into making sure they do so.
What progressives hope to gain in the next week
Progressives called for the infrastructure vote delay for two reasons: They wanted specifics about the text of the social spending legislation, and they wanted direct assurances from Manchin and Sinema that they’d vote to pass the social spending bill.
A core issue at play is a lack of trust: Because of how many cuts Manchin and Sinema have already demanded to key Democratic priorities (including reducing prescription drug prices, increases to the corporate tax rate, and eliminating the Clean Energy Performance Program), progressives are wary of their support for the Biden framework. Additionally, neither senator has publicly said they support the framework. That has progressives concerned since Democrats have approved a budget resolution framework before only to have the legislation itself stall.
Progressives’ concerns weren’t assuaged after the release of President Joe Biden’s $1.75 trillion framework for the legislation. While the CPC publicly endorsed the measure in principle, both Manchin and Sinema issued positive statements about negotiations without any concrete commitments.
“As we work through the text of the legislation, I would hope all of us will continue to deal in good faith and do what is right for the future of the American people,” Manchin said in a statement.
“I look forward to getting this done, expanding economic opportunities and helping everyday families get ahead,” Sinema said in a separate statement.
I’ve lost count of how many interactions with reporters that Sen. Manchin has had today. His unwillingness to just come out and say he supports a WH framework - that was negotiated more directly with him than probably any other lawmaker - seems notable.
Progressives want a guarantee that all Democratic senators are actually on board with this bill, and that Manchin or Sinema won’t blow up the framework. They’ve already seen this process play out once: Democrats in both the House and the Senate passed a $3.5 trillion budget resolution, but both moderates balked at moving forward with that price tag and many of its components.
“We need to have certainty, either through legislative text, through … agreements … that we can trust,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) told reporters Thursday.
The caucus’s demand for legislative text has led to results. In an effort to convince progressives to consider a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the House Rules Committee released 1,700 pages of tentative text on Thursday. That text didn’t wind up being enough for a vote because, as with the framework, Manchin and Sinema have yet to agree to it.
Jayapal noted Thursday that progressives would support adding policies back into the legislation that were stripped out of Biden’s framework, like paid family leave and Medicare expansion provisions. She said, however, that progressive support for the framework was not contingent on these additions and that they stood behind the endorsement they’ve made.
Progressives won and lost this week
Thursday marked the second time progressives successfully blocked a vote on infrastructure over concerns about the spending bill. This time, they faced increased pressure from congressional leaders to reverse their position, in order to send Biden off to his coming G20 climate meetings with a legislative win to tout.
But the caucus held firm.
Originally, progressives had identified five broad areas where they wanted investments: the care economy, affordable housing, climate jobs, a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, and reductions to prescription drug prices. The original $3.5 trillion version of the spending bill included many of these issues, but because of Manchin’s and Sinema’s concerns, multiple areas were significantly cut back or dropped entirely.
Biden’s new $1.75 trillion framework ultimately invests heavily in early childhood education and climate but does not include a major provision to help reduce prescription drug prices, a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, or paid family leave.
And areas that survived cuts still saw dramatic reductions in spending. For example, Democrats’ original budget measure contained $450 billion for long-term home care and $332 billion for affordable housing. Biden’s framework, meanwhile, includes $150 billion for the former and $150 billion for the latter.
Sinema has opposed enabling Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, likely killing it. A pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients also isn’t expected to make it into the legislation because of the rules governing the budget reconciliation process and the Senate parliamentarian’s existing ruling advising against its inclusion. And paid family leave has run into opposition from Manchin, who’s worried that the policy would be too burdensome for businesses.
Biden’s framework still has about $100 billion allocated for immigration reform, though it’s unclear whether it will make it past this procedural hurdle. Democrats’ latest pitch to the parliamentarian will focus on issues like the legal visa backlog and a shield from deportation for some unauthorized immigrants, the New York Times reports. Lawmakers are also still finagling some of the details for the bill, leaving the door open for the possible return of some policies.
Progressives back the framework even with the existing omissions. In its current state, it includes several of their demands on child care subsidies, funding for clean energy tax credits, and a Civilian Climate Corps. Additionally, they argue that the talks on the bill wouldn’t have even happened without the pressure they’ve put on Democratic leadership and moderate lawmakers.
“The reality is that while talks around the infrastructure bill lasted months in the Senate, there has only been serious discussion around the specifics of the larger Build Back Better Act in recent weeks, thanks to the Progressive Caucus holding the line and putting both parts of the agenda back on the table,” the CPC said.
Although they are standing their ground on legislation timing, they appear willing to accept the policy concessions that have already been made. “We wanted a $3.5 trillion package, but we understand the reality of the situation,” said Jayapal.
The Supreme Court decides the religious right asked for too much -
US Supreme Court Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, left, and Brett Kavanaugh arrive at the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden at the US Capitol on January 20, 2021, in Washington, | Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Maine’s vaccine mandate for health care workers survives a challenge from religious conservatives.
The Supreme Court handed down a brief order Friday evening — it is literally just one sentence long — denying relief to a group of Maine health care workers who object to the Covid-19 vaccine on religious grounds. This means that nearly all workers in health care facilities licensed by the state must be vaccinated in order to keep their jobs.
Yet, while this order, which is also accompanied by a one- paragraph concurring opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and a longer dissent by Justice Neil Gorsuch, is quite brief, it is significant because it suggests that there may be some limit to the conservative majority’s solicitude for religious conservatives.
Earlier in the pandemic, the Court handed down a pair of decisions that revolutionized its approach to religious liberty cases and granted churches and other houses of worship broad exemptions from public health orders intended to control the spread of Covid-19. The Court’s Friday evening decision in Does v. Mills, by contrast, appears to have been decided on the narrowest possible grounds. Though it is a loss for the religious right, it is not an especially significant one.
Maine requires nearly all health care workers to be vaccinated against Covid-19. It argues that this requirement is necessary because those workers are unusually likely to interact with patients who are vulnerable to the disease, and because the state’s health care system could potentially be disabled if too many health care workers are infected. The state does exempt a very narrow slice of health care workers, however: those who risk adverse health consequences if they are vaccinated, such as people with serious allergies to the vaccine.
The plaintiffs argued that religious objectors must be exempted from this requirement because the state also provided an exemption to people who could suffer health consequences if they are vaccinated — an argument that is, at least, plausible under the Court’s recent religion decisions. They were supported in an amicus brief by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, arguably the nation’s most sophisticated law firm representing religious right causes.
In a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Gorsuch essentially agrees with the plaintiffs, making the case for granting a religious exemption to the state’s vaccine mandate. Quoting Tandon
Newsom (2021), one of the Court’s two recent decisions granting places of worship an exemption from certain public health rules, Gorsuch claims that a law is constitutionally suspect “if it treats ‘any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.’”
Thus, under Gorsuch’s approach, the state must exempt religious objectors because it has a single exemption — again, for people who could suffer serious health consequences if they receive the vaccine.
Had Gorsuch’s approach prevailed, it’s likely that religious objectors would be exempted from nearly any law. Speed limits, for example, typically exempt police, ambulances, and other emergency vehicles responding to an emergency. Even laws banning homicide typically contain exemptions for self-defense. (Although, in fairness, Gorsuch concedes that a religious exemption is inappropriate when the “challenged law serves a compelling interest and represents the least restrictive means for doing so.” So Gorsuch probably would not allow religiously motivated murder.)
In any event, Gorsuch’s view did not prevail — though it is far from clear that it will not receive five votes in a future case. Though Justice Barrett joined a majority of the Court in allowing Maine’s vaccine mandate to take effect, her opinion (which is joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh) clarifies that she did so on exceedingly narrow grounds.
Essentially, Barrett argues that the Supreme Court has discretion to decide which cases it wants to hear. And her opinion suggests that she would exercise her discretion to not hear this particular case.
That’s consistent with an approach she laid out in a 2017 essay, where she argued that Supreme Court justices who encounter an argument that they think is legally valid but that would lead to disastrous results should exercise their discretion not to hear a case raising that argument.
For now, at least, the bottom line is that Maine’s vaccine mandate is in effect. Public-facing health care workers will need to receive the Covid-19 vaccine unless they have a medical excuse.
Again, it’s not a huge loss for the religious right. But the decision in Does suggests that there is, at least, some limit to the Court’s willingness to carve out legal exemptions for religious conservatives.
Spend November reading Such a Fun Age, a witty and biting social satire -
Left, Kiley Reid. Right, Such a Fun Age. | Left, David Goddard. Right, G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
Kiley Reid’s debut novel has one of literature’s cringiest Thanksgiving scenes.
The Vox Book Club is linking to Bookshop.org to support local and independent booksellers.
The American literary canon isn’t short on nightmarish Thanksgiving scenes, but I think the cringiest Thanksgiving I’ve ever read about appears at the climax of Kiley Reid’s witty and biting debut novel, Such a Fun Age.
That Thanksgiving begins with white liberal mom-fluencer Alix lying awake the night before dinner, proudly counting in her head the number of Black guests she’ll have at her table. There will be five of them, one of whom is her daughter’s babysitter. But unbeknownst to Alix (pronounced uh-leeks; notably, she is not French), someone else is going to arrive at her Thanksgiving dinner — an ex-boyfriend who once witnessed her do something that Alix feels perfectly justified in doing, but which she acknowledges could make some people think that she is racist. Everything will spiral from there.
If you’d like to experience this Thanksgiving dinner in its full horror, join the Vox Book Club as we spend November digging into the smart racial politics and social satire of Such a Fun Age. Then, at the end of the month, we’ll be meeting Reid live on Zoom, and you can RSVP here. In the meantime, subscribe to the Vox Book Club newsletter to make sure you don’t miss anything.
Friday, November 19: Discussion post on Such a Fun Age published to Vox.com
Tuesday, November 30, 5 pm Eastern: Virtual live event with author Kiley Reid. RSVP here. Reader questions are encouraged!
From The Hindu: Sports
T20 World Cup | Kohli’s hour of reckoning as India faces New Zealand in ‘virtual quarter-final’ - It won’t be easy against a quality New Zealand, which will come hard at India having also lost to Pakistan in their opening game
Sindhu loses in French Open semifinals - P.V. Sindu squandered a one-game advantage to lose against the world number 15 Takahashi.
T20 World Cup | Afghanistan seek return to winning ways against debutants Namibia - After handing defeats to Netherlands and Ireland in the qualifiers, Namibia has managed to script a memorable win over Scotland in their first Super 12 game
T20 World Cup | Boult hopes to swing it like Shaheen - “India brings a lot of challenges, quality batting lineup.”
T20 World Cup | Kohli slams ‘spineless people’ for abusing Shami, calls it pathetic - Shami, who endured an off day in India’s 10-wicket defeat, was trolled on Instagram for his Muslim identity
From The Hindu: National News
Warrant issued against IPS officer Param Bir Singh, second this week - On October 26, a court in neighbouring Thane had issued an non-bailable warrant against Param Bir Singh in connection with another extortion case registered against him
Huzurabad bypoll | 61.66% voter turnout till 3 p.m., polling percentage expected to surpass 2018 record - Minor skirmishes between the cadre of the ruling TRS and the BJP were reported from some villages
Political Line | Playing to the gallery - Here is the latest edition of the Political Line newsletter curated by Varghese K. George
Amit Shah seeks another term for BJP for continued development of Uttarakhand - Amit Shah asked people of Uttarakhand to give another opportunity to the Modi-Dhami team to “bring prosperity to every home”.
Innovation platform Plug and Play chooses Hyderabad for India foray - Leadership team met Minister KTR in Paris, official launch of centre in December
From BBC: Europe
La Palma volcano survivors shaken but determined to rebuild - A vast lava flow reshapes a Canary Islands landscape, but does not crush the locals’ hopes.
Fishing row a test of UK’s credibility - Macron - The French president says backtracking on Brexit commitments “is not a big sign of your credibility”.
G20: Climate and Covid top agenda as world leaders meet - The G20 leaders are holding their first face-to-face meeting since the start of the pandemic.
Biden: We were clumsy over France submarine row - The US president meets his French counterpart in the wake of a diplomatic row over a submarine deal.
Poland to build Belarus border wall to block migrant influx - The wall to curb a wave of migrants entering from Belarus has been approved by Poland’s parliament.
From Ars Technica
Lidar reveals hundreds of long-lost Maya and Olmec ceremonial centers - The sites suggest cultural links between the two Mesoamerican civilizations. - link
Spiders are much smarter than you think - Researchers are discovering surprising capabilities among a group of itsy-bitsy arachnids. - link
Fossil fuels doomed in New York as regulator blocks new gas power plants - New fossil fuel power plants are “inconsistent” with state climate law. - link
Microsoft reclaims title of most valuable public company after Apple falls - iPhone maker cedes top spot to its tech rival after weak earnings. - link
Pirate-site operator hacked MLB and tried to extort $150,000, feds say - Extorter threatened to reveal security flaw used for illegal streaming, FBI says. - link
From Jokes Subreddit
Two physicians boarded a flight out of Seattle. One sat in the window seat, the other sat in the middle seat. Just before takeoff, an attorney got on and took the aisle seat next to the two physicians. -
The attorney kicked off his shoes, wiggled his toes and was settling in when the physician in the window seat said," I think I’ll get up and get a coke."
“No problem,” said the attorney, “I’ll get it for you.”
While he was gone, one of the physicians picked up the attorney’s shoe and spat in it.
When he returned with the coke, the other physician said, “That looks good, I think I’ll have one too.”
Again, the attorney obligingly went to fetch it and while he was gone, the other physician picked up the other shoe and spat in it.
The attorney returned and they all sat back and enjoyed the flight. As the plane was landing, the attorney slipped his feet into his shoes and knew immediately what had happened.
“How long must this go on?” he asked. “This fighting between our professions? This hatred? This animosity? This spitting in shoes and pissing in cokes?”
What do you call a boat full of penises and potatoes? -
A dictatorship.
I actually told this joke to the lunch lady when I was in kindergarten, and she told it to the entire teachers lounge, so I became the Dick Joke Kid to all the teachers from age 6.
