In The Words Of Dan Rather … A BFD!

On Tuesday, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).  It wasn’t everything we had hoped for, as compromises had to be made in order to get West Virginia’s Joe Manchin on board, but it was, as Dan Rather tells us, a BFD … I’ll let Dan ‘splain that one!


But Republicans fail the future (and the present)

Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner

President Joe Biden has signed into law a bill that is, to quote former President Barack Obama, a “BFD.” In other words, a “big deal” with a colorful adjective sandwiched in between for emphasis. It was Obama’s way of paying homage to Biden’s whispered comment (caught on mic) from back in 2010 with the passage of the Affordable Care Act.  

With apologies to decorum, Obama’s summation is warranted.

The bill is called the Inflation Reduction Act, which most economists think is an accurate description. Inflation reduction is a worthy goal, but what is even more noteworthy — rising to the level of historic — is how the legislation intends to accomplish that feat. It is a compendium of long-desired action on the part of Democrats around health care costs, taxes, and climate change (representing the most ambitious climate measures ever enacted by Congress).

The details are varied and have been covered admirably in other publications. Were they everything that most Democrats sought? No. But they were significant. Once again, a BFD.

For the sake of this column, however, let us focus less on the policy than on the politics, and specifically the fact that this bill squeaked through on a purely party-line vote. All Democrats in the House and Senate voted “yea.” All Republicans who voted (four representatives did not) voted “nay.” All of them.

Perhaps we have become inured to this unblinking partisanship. Chalk it up to cynicism, to pure party politics, to the zero-sum game that seems to rule Washington, particularly from Republicans when Democrats are in the majority. Obstruct. Delay. Obfuscate. That is the playbook. But while extreme partisanship might explain the actions, it certainly does not excuse them.

This bill aimed to tackle tough challenges, particularly climate change. And on this issue in particular the politics of our time should not be measured in some temporal tally of wins and losses for congressional seats; this is about wins and losses for the habitability of our planet.

This isn’t about four-year election cycles. It is about epochs measured in millennia.

Those are the stakes. And on this score, most prominent Republican elected officials seem eager to deny reality. And the few who don’t fall into that camp are apparently satisfied with doing nothing.

There may not be a more serious yardstick by which to measure our political era than this failure. As we have often cautioned here, the future of American democracy is at risk these days. But, let us be clear, so is the future of planet Earth. Perhaps even more so.

When I tweeted the above, I expected to get a decent response; I never expected this level of engagement, but it makes sense. Unlike the politicians, according to polls, most Americans understand the peril and want action.

In this upside-down reality, questions emerge that demand answers and accountability:

  • How can a politician who doesn’t take climate change seriously be taken seriously?
  • How can someone who fails to protect our nation from the increasing threat of natural disasters be considered a voice to heed on national security?
  • How can someone who denies this reality be considered a credible judge of the truth?

This is not a debate about policy. “How should we tackle this existential threat?” is a legitimate question on which fair minds can disagree. Should it be tax cuts for business or government regulation? Or both? A carbon tax or subsidies for new technologies? Is nuclear energy a viable option? Should we invest more in electric cars or public transportation? Let’s have a vigorous debate. Go at it. There is no monopoly on wisdom. And the country needs a strong two-party system, with a Congress of conscience on both sides of the aisle, to have such debates.

But debate whether we should do ANYTHING??? Really????

(Perhaps from the all caps and the number of question marks you can sense my feelings.)

This bill was a major step forward on addressing climate change. It’s not nearly enough. But it is something. A lot. A BFD. So say the scientists. It’s a foundation upon which to build.

But it was also a test of the seriousness of the Republican Party on the most serious of issues. It is a test they failed. All of them in Congress.

That is not political spin. It’s the truth. Just ask Mother Earth. She’s screaming out for all to hear. Maybe at some point the politicians who refuse to listen to her pleas will be forced to answer why, and not be taken seriously until they can answer in accordance with reality.

15 thoughts on “In The Words Of Dan Rather … A BFD!

  1. I daresay that many (most?) of the Repukes in office today will NOT be around when the full and “unpleasant” effects of climate change are undeniably manifested … so what do they care?

    One might reply that they would AT LEAST consider their progeny, but that is wishful thinking. It has been proven time and again –especially over the most recent years– that these folk care about absolutely NOTHING but increasing their financial status via “donations” from a segment of the population who are FAR more interested in increasing/maintaining their financial holdings than how the “climate” affects U.S. citizens-at-large.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You are probably right that the majority won’t be around when humans run out of the resources they need to survive, but their grandchildren and/or great-grandchildren will be. Thing is, they think some miracle will happen to postpone or eradicate the inevitable. They don’t understand and therefore don’t believe the science, and they pooh-pooh the warnings of future unsustainability of the planet for human life. But in truth, nuclear annihilation is almost as likely as the environmental doomsday, and the politicians of today hold that key in their little grubby paws. But alas … to far too many, the only thing that matters is $$$$$$$$. The future will pay the price for today’s perfidy.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Jill, the three questions he poses need answers from those who voted no. One more is how can someone vote no when his or her state will benefit from said legislation? I am long tired of this zero-sum BS that goes on. I do not like this “lock step” voting that is a poor excuse for governance. When the ACA passed, no Republican voted for it, but it followed open conferences where input could be offered and includes elements of a Republican idea. But, they wanted to say they did not vote for it. It was not perfect, but VP Biden called it a BFD.

    Disappointing is a term I use often when I speak to staff of Republican Congressional reps and senators. Dems are not perfect, but at least they are voting on policy issues. We need Republicans to be better than they are acting. And, we need answers to Dan Rather’s three questions. Keith

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: In The Words Of Dan Rather … A BFD! | Ned Hamson's Second Line View of the News

    • Oh my … sounds like something to read one night when I’m all nice and calm and need a bit of a spark to make me grit my teeth and utter numerous expletives! I might try one volume, though, just to see where these people are coming from. Not the same place I come from, needless to say!

      Liked by 1 person

      • I daresay their heads would spin and explode, if they ever read the last volume of my trilogy to find out an independently minded gay woman becomes pregnant through the deep love between her and her female spouse. And then I told them part of the inspiration was the Immaculate Conception of Blessed Virgin Mary (and a diluted version of The Holy Spirit)- Yep, my books are filled with sneaky Christian undertones
        (Sneaks away, giggling)

        Liked by 1 person

        • Heh heh … no doubt! Why do you think they’re already exploding about women like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Liz Cheney (although none of them are gay, to the best of my knowledge)? They cannot stand the idea that women just might be fully equal to men when it comes to intelligence, compassion, abilities, etc. We’re only lacking one thing, and that really is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things! Yep, you are one sneaky dude!

          Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.