[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. Being August 1st, Democrats in Washington apparently decided that it's getting close enough to the November election, that they had to get more serious about trying to hold the House and Senate, so they finally came to a deal on what used to be called Joe Biden's Build Back Better Bill. Remember that? Now it's rebranded as the Inflation Reduction Act.

I think we can say no longer aims to make Biden the new FDR or the new LBJ. It does make potentially transformative investments in preventing climate change, adds incentives for more fossil fuel production too in the short run, makes corporations pay at least a minimum amount of tax, and allows Medicare to begin negotiating the price of prescription drugs for seniors. That's all if the bill passes, which we still don't know because even though Joe Manchin got on board, we don't know yet about Arizona Democrat Kyrsten Sinema.

We'll talk about the politics of Sinema and the bill and the midterms. We'll also talk about what's in and what's out of the original Build Back Better. We'll do this with USA Today Washington Bureau chief, Susan Page. She's also author of the books Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power, and The Matriarch: Barbara Bush and the Making of an American Dynasty. She's got a new one coming soon on TV journalist Barbara Walters. Susan, we always appreciate when you come on. Welcome back to WNYC.

Susan Page: Hey, Brian. It's always my pleasure.

Brian Lehrer: Let's start with what's in and what's out of this Inflation Reduction Act compared to Build Back Better. I think most of the press since Joe Manchin signed on is that it's going to be a big climate change bill. We're going to talk about that as a separate segment on our climate story of the week on tomorrow's show, but I'm interested in what's in it. There was going to be the seeds of a national childcare program in the original Build Back Better, is that in or is that out?

Susan Page: Out. It's not in.

Brian Lehrer: How about an expansion of elder care? More home health aides for more people who need it in their later years. Is that in or is that up?

Susan Page: That is out.

Brian Lehrer: How about paid family leave? This was supposed to be such a big part of it, that in a world in which we want people of all genders to be able to work easily. Unfortunately, we do know that that childcare responsibility still falls primarily to women and heterosexual managers. There's also taking care of elderly relatives that would have been covered by some of this paid family leave that a lot of countries that we like to compare ourselves to have, but we don't. Paid family leave, is that in or is that out?

Susan Page: That is out.

Brian Lehrer: All of these because of Joe Manchin?

Susan Page: All of these because of the narrow democratic margins in the House and the Senate. Manchin, of course, was the one who has been the biggest problem for Democrats. The fact is the bill that was called Build Back Better turned out to be an overreach in what Democrats can hope to do with this particular congressional line-up. This is still a major bill, and it's a surprising achievement, assuming it passes if it does, but it is not the bill that they were seeking a year ago.

Brian Lehrer: No more FDR, no more new LBJ for Joe Biden, at least for now?

Susan Page: Well, as I said, look at the enormous democratic majorities that FDR and LBJ had when they were passing their big initiatives and compare it to what Joe Biden faces now, where you flip four seats in the House and you've got Republicans in control and you've got a 50/50 Senate, could not be closer than that.

Brian Lehrer: Senator Manchin was on Meet the Press yesterday explaining the new title of the bill, the Inflation Reduction Act. The host Chuck Todd challenged him by saying, "Gee, economists from the Wharton School at Penn say it won't do anything for inflation." Here's Joe Manchin saying why it will.

Joe Manchin: If you're producing more and have more supply and that supply basically satisfies demand and then the prices come down because there's more people shopping for the products, that's capitalism, that's who we are.

Brian Lehrer: Susan, can you take us further into that? How will this bill, if it passes, increase production of what that might bring down prices?

Susan Page: It is designed to increase production on the energy front, both in fossil fuels and also in clean energy sources. It is the biggest bill we've ever had when it comes to trying to do some of those things. It would, for instance, codify something the Trump administration did call one federal decision, that means that if you want to build a pipeline, or you want to build a nuclear power plant, or you want to build other things involved, projects involving energy, you just have to go to one federal agency to get approval, not a lot of them. That would make both kinds of energy faster in production.

It would also put on a speedier track 25 energy projects that President Biden would identify. These are carefully divided between fossil fuel and clean energy, five fossil fuel projects, six projects without fossil fuels, and then some to mine minerals. Those are the things that would increase production. Of course, energy has been one of the big factors in inflation, although it hasn't been the only one. Food, groceries, they've been a big factor too.

Brian Lehrer: On the question of whether this will pass the Senate, even with Joe Manchin, they need at least one more holdout Democrat, at least a holdout from the old Build Back Better version of this bill to get on board, and that is Arizona Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema. Manchin could not tell the Meet the Press audience that she's on board, but he did say this about Senator Kyrsten Sinema.

Joe Manchin: She basically insisted that no tax increases, and we've done that. She was very very adamant about that. I support and I agree with her. She was also very instrumental in making sure that we had drug prices that Medicare could compete on certain drugs to bring it down so that there wouldn't be an impact on individuals on Medicare across. She's done all of this and she has a tremendous amount of input in this piece of legislation. I would like to think she would be favorable towards it, but I respect her decision. She'll make her own decision based on the contents.

Brian Lehrer: Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia in NBC's Meet the Press yesterday. We're talking about it with Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today. Listeners, we can take a few phone calls on anything national politics related to this bill, and the midterms, which we'll get to. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or tweet @BrianLehrer.

The very first part of that Manchin clip that we just played, Susan, is I think the controversial part, where he says, Senator Sinema basically insisted on no tax increases. The Republicans are saying there is a tax increase in this bill. The Democrats, including Manchin are saying "No, there's no tax increase. We just closed a loophole on corporations." Can you explain what it is?

Susan Page: Yes. Brian, welcome to Washington. Obviously, it is a tax increase, even if they were closing a loophole, it has the effect of raising taxes. It's a tax increase. There's something else that I think Manchin acknowledged that he has not actually talked to Senator Sinema since this came out. He said one thing that is not accurate, he said Senator Sinema had a big effect on who weighed in their provisions. She was part of shaping this bill. That's not exactly true, only two people shape this bill, and that was Senator Schumer and Senator Manchin.

Senator Sinema said she was surprised when this version came out, surprised that this bill was getting revived. I think that probably wasn't happy news for her not to have been consulted. That's I think one reason that she hasn't weighed in yet on whether she'll support it. She might demand some fix on the tax issues that she has cared about. She has been opposed to raising what's called carried interest, which I cannot explain to you except I know that hedge fund owners like it a lot.

It's something that's helpful to those in that field, and she has been a defender of that provision. We'll see if that gets adjusted as this tries to get through the Senate because of course, as you say, they have not one vote to spare on this measure.

Brian Lehrer: What's the timeline on this? When do you think I'll be able to ask you back on the show and say, "Okay, Susan Page, Kyrsten Sinema, is she in or is she out?"

Susan page: Congress always acts in such a predictable and quick way. It's a wonderful place to work because they always do what they say, and I'm saying that sarcastically. What they say is that he might bring it to the floor, Senator Schumer says he might bring it to the floor this week. That's pretty quick. There are some technical provisions that have to be looked at before. It can be brought forward and then you're going to have that wonderful process we call vote-a-rama, where any Senator can put forward any amendment and force a vote on it. Democrats are hoping to get a vote on this by the end of this week or by next week and we'll see if they can meet that timetable.

Brian Lehrer: As far as that loophole, the way I described it in the intro, tell me if this is right, the way I understand it is it would be a 15% corporate minimum tax for corporations of a certain size. I've already read one article that says that sounds great on paper, make sure that really big companies aren't avoiding all their taxes by locating their headquarters in another country or something like that. It would actually affect very few companies. What do you know?

Susan page: I believe that's right, in effect, of course, only the biggest companies. One thing we've found with big companies is that they have a lot of tax lawyers on their payroll. They are sometimes very skilled in figuring how to avoid efforts to increase their tax burden.

Brian Lehrer: We will see what actually happens with that even if it does pass. How about the Medicare prescription drug negotiation? This has been something that as you know they've been talking about in Washington forever and ever and ever. Medicare has not been allowed to negotiate price with prescription drug makers. Republicans have resisted it for a long time. They say Medicare has too much clout in the market. Of course, the pharmaceutical companies want to maintain all the clout for themselves when they sell all these pharmaceuticals to many seniors in this country. What is changing under this bill if it passes?

Susan page: To allow Medicare to negotiate prices on medication is just a huge deal. It'd be a huge money saver for the government. It could save seniors a lot of money on their prescriptions. The argument that big pharma makes, which I have seen in an ad on an hourly basis, if you have TV on, explaining their point of view, is that it will hurt efforts to find new drugs. This is a provision that has long been sought after, it's long been a liberal cause. It's one of the fact that we don't allow the government to negotiate. The prices of prescription is one reason that Americans pay so much higher drug prices than, say, folks in Canada.

Brian Lehrer: Dan in Hartsdale, you're on WNYC with Susan Page from USA Today. Hi, Dan.

Dan: Hi. This is an incredibly naive question that I have, but why is it that the media never asks a Republican-- I understand that they're lockstep and all of that, except like Susan Collins or Mitt Romney. Why doesn't a reporter ever ask one of them specifically why they would vote against this kind of legislation?

Brian Lehrer: Great question and one we've talked about on the show, but a great question to renew for this new more moderate version of the bill that got Joe Manchin to sign on. Is there a Susan Collins possibility? Is there a Mitt Romney possibility here? Might some of the Republican senators up for reelection this year being what this bill would do for prescription drugs for seniors and some of the other things we've been talking about, feel the pressure to vote for it instead of 50 automatic Republican no votes on a democratic bill?

Susan page: I do think reporters ask Republicans how they will vote on this bill. So far, there has been no sign that any Republican Senator will be willing to cross over and support this bill, which would mean it wouldn't depend on Manchin, it wouldn't depend on Sinema. They would argue that they think this bill costs too much, that they disagree with some of the policies in the bill.

Some of them oppose, for instance, the Medicare provisions. Many of them oppose the tax provisions, whether you describe it as closing a loophole or raising taxes, but there is also the fact that we are just in a time where we have divided into tribes and it is very, very hard to get a member of the Senate to cross over to the other side. This is not a time where bipartisanship is quite the exception and not the rule.

Brian Lehrer: I believe the Republican position is that this bill is cynically misnamed by the Democrats, the Inflation Reduction Act. Instead of talking about the things that we opened the segment with that were in the original Build Back Better, oh, National Childcare Program for the first time, a national elder care program for the first time, paid parental leave, paid family leave for the first time, which would reduce some of the race and class economic differences disparities in this country. Now we're talking about reducing inflation, which is more of a shorter-term goal, but the Republicans say--

I saw Chuck Grassley's statement saying, "Wait, Inflation Reduction Act, something that throws hundreds of billions of dollars more into the economy, that would be inflationary, not deflationary. Something that raises taxes on those big corporations in a time of a recession, at least two-quarters of contraction in a row, which technically by some measures counts as a recession. That's going to hurt job growth. This is the wrong time for that. This doesn't fight inflation, this fuels inflation. That's the Republican position and I guess they've got 50 out of 50 senators on board with that, huh?

Susan page: Yes. Although, I'm not sure I believe that the name of the bill is the driver of positions on it, but yes, there's a difference of opinion on what the economic impact would be of this bill. Democrats would respond that it does help the economy, it will help the economy. On most bills, and there have been a couple exceptions, the CHIPS bill that passed, for instance, passed on a bipartisan basis. On most of these matters that come up in the past-

Brian Lehrer: It's for CHIPS-

Susan page: -couple years--

Brian Lehrer: -production, making computer chips in this country.

Susan page: That's an important bill and one that passed in a bipartisan way. It's such the exception that it's-- I'm not sure to what degree the provisions of a bill matter more than just which side you're on.

Brian Lehrer: That's life in 2022. Michael in Manhattan, you're on WNYC with Susan Page. Hi, Michael.

Michael: Hi. To me, the political story of the last two years has been that the Democrats, when they won in 2020, they treated it as if they had 60 votes in the Senate. Ms. Page alluded to this earlier when she talked about Build Back Better's overreach. They acted like they came into office with 60 votes and a national mandate. They didn't have that. They didn't have anything close to that. They had the slimmest majority possible. They just shot themselves in the foot when they did things like they tied the infrastructure bill to Build Back Better.

Instead of passing an infrastructure bill within the first few months in a bipartisan way, and they could have said, "Look, you elected us. We're in the majority, we're governing responsibly." Instead, they tied it to Build Back Better, and the Republicans and Mitch McConnell just waited them out. Eventually, it took them a year to pass infrastructure and they looked foolish doing it instead of claiming victory.

Again, I, Brian, was asking all these questions about is this in the bill, is that in the bill? Because I know you were referencing Build Back Better, but Build Back Better was never realistic. I'm a left-leaning person. I would love for all of those things and Build Back Better to be reality. I voted for Joe Biden because Biden knew the Senate, he knew Joe Manchin, I thought he would be realistic.

The Democrats are lucky to have Joe Manchin in the Senate. He won in a state that Trump won by 40 points. It's the only reason why they have a majority in the Senate, is because they have those 50 votes. I don't understand why the Democrats-- I like Bernie Sanders. I think he's right about a lot of things, but there's just a realism, there's a realistic approach that the Democrats just squandered.

They could have done all these things. They could have done infrastructure, they could have done the bill that they're doing now, and they could have looked like people who know how to govern responsibly and get things done. Instead, it's taken them two years to get these things done, and relative to their expectations, they've just looked foolish. The fact of the matter is Manchin has been talking about inflation for a year and he was right about it. Inflation wasn't just going to go away. To me, the big story of the last two years is that the Democrats came out swinging like they had 60 votes the way Obama actually did have 60 votes in 2008 and they made themselves look bad, unfortunately.

Brian Lehrer: Michael, I'm curious for you, when Biden was first elected and first inaugurated and we were at the height of the pandemic and there was massive pandemic-related unemployment from the lockdowns and everything, and the need, as people saw it, to isolate ourselves to try to stop the spread. There was massive death happening, especially among the senior population. I think they gambled that paid family leave in particular, paid childcare in particular so people could start to get back to work was going to be a consensus position. In fact, I think those things to this day poll very well in the United States. Did you think at the start that they were politically unrealistic items?

Michael: Yes, because things like gun control poll really well in the United States, things like abortion rights poll really well in the United States, but that's not how we make legislation, we make legislation with 50 senators or 60 and you need 60. The thing that I had the most hope about Biden was that he was a long-term member of the Senate. He's been in the Senate since he's 29 years old, 30 years old. He's a long-time- [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: He would have his feet on the ground in terms of political reality, is that right?

Michael: He knew these people. He's known Joe Manchin for decades. The Democrats just kept saying, "Oh, if it wasn't for Joe Manchin, we would be able to--" but this is the realistic part, Joe Manchin is the sitting Senator from West Virginia. West Virginia was won by Donald Trump by 40 points. The fact that we have a Democratic Senator from West Virginia, to me, is miraculous. It's the only reason why we have 50 votes in the Senate to begin with. [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: Michael, I got to leave it there for time, but thank you so much. Do call us again. Susan, what about his analysis? The heart of it really is, hey, come on, Joe Biden knew who Joe Manchin was. He blew it by not putting something forward that was politically realistic at the start.

Susan page: I think Michael should have his own podcast because that was I think a very smart analysis of what's going on. The only thing I would say is the White House is recalibrating. Democrats, after that overreach of Build Back Better, they came up with this new reconciliation bill out of the blue. I think it was a surprise to even others in the Senate that they were able to get a bill that is still a significant bill that has a very good chance of getting through the Senate and being enacted into law.

They did have passed the CHIPS bill. I agree that Democrats had a lot of exuberance having defeated Donald Trump for a second term that overread the mandate that they had, but they're not doing nothing. I think we make a mistake if we think this is not a big achievement because it is not as big as Build Back Better.

Brian Lehrer: Last question, you are the author of the book Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power. She may learn the lesson of losing power this November, or maybe that's just the conventional wisdom and the Democrats can hold the House and Senate majorities. Has the Supreme Court ruling on abortion or this new agreement with Joe Manchin in the Senate, if it actually becomes law, or anything else changed that outlook recently, do you think?

Susan page: We have a new poll out yesterday that shows Democrats really getting energized by the abortion issue in the week since the decision was handed down. Democrats now say abortion is the number one issue on their minds. Two thirds of Democrats say it makes them more likely to go to vote. That's a good sign for Democrats, but can Democrats hold the House? History says they can. Republicans only need to gain four seats to win control of the House. I think any honest analysis says they're going to get the majority, the question is whether they get a small majority or a big one.

Brian Lehrer: Susan Page, USA Today Washington Bureau chief, author of Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power and The Matriarch: Barbara Bush and the Making of An American Dynasty. She's got a new one coming soon on TV journalist Barbara Walters. When's your Barbara Walter's book coming out?

Susan page: Hey, next year, Brian, and I'm in the market for any Barbara Walters stories people have.

Brian Lehrer: Hey, in New York, people might have a few, so contact Susan Page with USA Today with your Barbara Walters stories if you have one and obviously we'll have you on for a book interview at that time, and since it's not till next year, a bunch of times between now and then. Susan, thanks so much.

Susan page: Thank you, Brian.

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.