With Manchin It's Simple, Don't Let the Media Tell You Otherwise
If the budget resolution runs into problems, it's very likely that Joe Manchin had something to do with it. Why? It's simple: money.
With the lowball, bipartisan infrastructure bill stripped of many of the meaningful inclusions that were set on improving both quality of life and the strategy to address the climate crisis, a $3.5 trillion budget resolution was announced last week.
The proposed resolution aims to direct federal funding towards family-service programs, addressing climate change, housing, immigration, and health care. A big part of it includes an expansion of Medicare to include vision, hearing, and dental benefits as well as lower eligibility.
It also qualifies for reconciliation, which requires a simple majority vote unlike the bipartisan infrastructure bill that will need 10 Republican votes.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders initially pushed for an ambitious $6 trillion resolution which ultimately resulted in both the Medicare expansion and the $3.5 trillion price tag.
In terms of climate change— which every summer becomes more and more prevalent in the public consciousness with each year surpassing the last in volume of odd and extreme weather— the budget resolution focuses on goals of investing in clean energy and jobs, cutting emissions by at least 50% by the year 2030, as well as moving towards a clean energy standard, i.e. having a carbon-free electric grid by 2035 that will be powered by solar, wind, and other forms of clean energy.
Of course, anything that challenges the old way of doing things will be regarded with an arms-crossed sneer and dismissal of such change. And with the “moderate Democrats” and the Republicans, everything— even if for good— is an uphill battle.
Everyone in Washington seems to publicly declare they want to thwart climate change to some degree, but when the opportunity presents itself to sacrifice outdated forms of profit accumulation for more environmentally sustainable options that will disrupt the outdated business practices, true colors become clearly visible.
Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) expressed concern over the stances against big oil, an industry that’s donations the Senator benefits from greatly.
“Anybody moving in a direction where they think they can walk away and not have any fossil [fuel] in play, that’s just wrong,” said Manchin. And on the topic of banning fossil fuels, the Senator said: “It can’t happen and it doesn’t do a darn thing but makes the world worse.”
Why would someone twist themselves into a pretzel to argue that banning fossil fuels makes the world worse? Short answer that we’re all aware of: money.
A few weeks back, leaked clips courtesy of Greenpeace surfaced of an Exxon lobbyist describing the company’s strategies for baiting politicians with money and fighting against climate-centered legislation in defense of industry profits. In the conversation, the lobbyist also noted that the company’s public support for a carbon tax only exists because they know it won’t become law and that a list of senators, headlined by “kingmaker” Joe Manchin, are critical pieces for maintaining their overall business model.
The list of senators also includes: Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Chris Coons (D-DE), Jon Tester (D-MT), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), John Barrasso (R-WY), Steve Daines (R-MT), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Marco Rubio (R-FL).
It was one of those explicit deliveries of information we kind of already knew or had an idea of, but when solidified so suddenly into hardened fact, it walloped the public on the head with a crack. Though, they likely didn’t know it.
What ensued, of course, was silence from the corporate media— those proverbial sounds of crickets filled the blank space yet again.
Those leaks were released on a Monday— the same week people were still pointing at the Pacific Northwest lipping the words “heat dome” in utter disbelief that Portland, Oregon could reach 116 degrees— and that following Friday, in morbid irony, brought with it the images of fire in the Gulf of Mexico after a Petroleos Mexicanos undersea gas line ruptured.
That kind of instance— wrapped in its cinematic and horrifying extravagance— was harder to brush under the rug. But like anything else in this country, people had their lives to worry about and focus on, and life certainly moved onward through that holiday weekend and into the next week. For many, questions and concerns regarding oil companies' role in the climate crisis have to be suspended once again.
Even so, the corporate media may point out the flaming portal-looking mass in the middle of a large body of water, but they will also hardly make much effort to establish connections to and condemn the very industries and leaders that have pushed us off this ledge.
What makes the peek-a-boo styled focus on these climate issues even more infuriating than just downplaying the global existential crisis at hand, is that they have done it for decades and they will continue to do so for as long as they possibly can, even as it grows more and more pathetic.
Last year, leaked documents indicated Exxon’s plans to ramp up annual emissions of carbon-dioxide by an amount equal to Greece’s entire output.
Exxon condemned those leaks in their gargantuan effort of avoiding public scrutiny and legal penalty for their role in the climate crisis— a crisis that will cost hundreds of billions in adaptation, mitigation, and other means of lessening the already-destructive effects that will implicate lives and livelihoods.
Dozens of municipalities, counties, and states have sued big oil companies like Exxon seeking compensation for adaptation. This includes Minnesota’s decision to sue Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries Inc., and the American Petroleum Institute for the withholding “critical information” about fossil fuels and their effect on the climate.
Again, because coverage of these lawsuits and leaks is so sparse, the corporate media falls short of informing people of the simple problem that has created a complex monster of a crisis: prioritizing profits and capital over sustainability.
So why would we expect this to change?
The media, with its phony smiles, continues to substantiate the myth that Manchin has to be such a stickler because of the conservative constituency of West Virginia— even as their rich Republican Governor Jim Justice as motioned to the left of West Virginia’s Democratic Senator in his notable calls for a large stimulus package back at the beginning of the Biden administration.
The economic crisis of the pandemic had defied the fallacies about working class West Virginia that allow Manchin to posture shamelessly, and Justice realized that in an appeal to the struggles of the state’s ordinary people. Another way to put it was that hard reality— especially in the form of financial struggle— dispelled the bullshit narratives that rationalize aiming for profits over what is right.
What is really silly is the weaponization of fear that moving towards cleaner energy will result in job losses. Implementing jobs in the green infrastructure sector could, in fact, create about 41,000 jobs in West Virginia where fossil fuel sectors rule with very little unionization rates.
And yet the media is always reasoning why Manchin acts with such needless disruption, so much so that Manchin’s absurdity is accepted. It’s the same thing with Sinema and others, as well— they let it slide.
As a result, important stories that paint the real (and, frankly, simple) story are ignored.
Reports surfaced days after Manchin’s adamant defense of fossil fuels indicating that a Texas fundraiser organized by donors from the big oil and natural gas industries was to be held this last Friday, and the event’s invitation notes that it aims at "supporting" Manchin, who is "a longtime friend, since his days as Governor of West Virginia."
The invitation refers to Manchin’s role as chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, calling him “our bipartisan Senate Leader for energy.” It also suggest that anyone who plans to attend should donate $5,000 to Manchin’s leadership PAC and an additional $5,800 to his yet-to-be-announced re-election campaign that would take place in 2024.
The donors consisted of both those who historically give to Democrats and those who give to Republicans, but a noticeable chunk of attendees have historically padded conservatives’ pockets.
But none of this was focused on in the media.
One of the most effective forms of propaganda in news dissemination is choosing not to cover a particular story or give it adequate attention. The corporate media— as part of a news monopoly— has obfuscated and flailed, for too long, in regards to the pressing realities of our time, and as such, have contributed heavily to the lack of action taken against this climate crisis.
Why should the world suffer because the alternative wasn’t profitable?
If the budget resolution gets cut down or if there are any roadblocks, there is a very high likelihood Manchin played a key role in it. And with Manchin and resistance to addressing the climate crisis, it's always money at play. Don't let the media tell you otherwise.
While The Huxleyan intends to remain free to the public, there are paid subscription offers (which would be more of a donation than receiving access to anything in particular) at $5/month, or $45/year. As always, donations are welcome and appreciated via Venmo (@john-pongratz). Again, as those are just options, everything remains free. Thank you for reading and be sure to subscribe, comment, and share!
Manchin appears to be bought and paid for… perhaps the mid-term elections will make him irrelevant… 15 minutes of fame vs. 2 years of infamy.