 Alright folks, so I want to give you an update to the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package that Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party is currently putting together. If you're wondering why I have an image of some random person behind me, well, you shouldn't really know who this person is. None of us should know who this person is or be concerned with who this individual is. But for those of you who don't recognize this phase, this is the Senate parliamentarian and her face is here because she represents a new chapter in the never-ending saga of will they or won't they pass the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package. Now before I describe how the Senate parliamentarian comes into play, I want to give you a general update. Not much has changed. I mean, I shouldn't say that. Things have changed, but the overall trajectory that we're on I don't necessarily think has shifted that dramatically. We're seeing this game of chicken between corporate Democrats and progressive Democrats. Corporate Democrats want the bipartisan infrastructure proposal that the Senate passed and they need leftists to support it. But leftists don't really like that, but they want the reconciliation proposal, which contains a lot of really important things that would actually help the American people. So basically we have corporate Democrats like Kirsten Sinema Joe Manchin, some individuals in the House of Representatives aligning with Kirsten Sinema Joe Manchin, such as Kurt Schrader, Kathleen Rice, and they don't like certain elements of the reconciliation proposal, but they really want the bipartisan infrastructure deal to go through because that's essentially a corporate giveaway to their donors. Now on the other side, you have leftists saying we don't really care about the bipartisan infrastructure deal. We just want what's in the reconciliation package. So if you deny us that or try to water it down more, we're voting no on the bipartisan infrastructure deal. So you have this back and forth and nothing really has changed. That dynamic is still there. However, on the 27th of September, that's the deadline. That's when Nancy Pelosi agreed to allow a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure in the House. And I don't know what's going to happen because the reconciliation package hasn't been finished yet. They're still working out the details. So to allow a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure deal without the reconciliation deal simultaneously, I don't think leftists are going to go for that, at least they've been saying that they're not going to go for that. So I hope that they hold strong and they vote no on the bipartisan infrastructure deal if they don't get what they want in that $3.5 trillion reconciliation proposal. So that's basically where we're at now when it comes to negotiations. However, in the Senate, the parliamentarian is basically reviewing all of the policies and she has decided that, you know what, the immigration reform that you included in that $3.5 trillion reconciliation proposal, it's actually not appropriate because it's not necessarily related to the budget. So because that's the case, I'm recommending that you do not include that. And because the Senate parliamentarian has said this, well, all of a sudden the media and some Democrats are pretending as if her word is final, when in fact, that's not the case. So Politico broke the story of reporting. Democrats have been, quote, blocked from including immigration reform in their reconciliation bill, which was described as, quote, a blow to the party's efforts to enact immigration reform. They add immediately after the news broke, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday evening that Democrats are deeply disappointed in the decision, but plan to meet with the Senate parliamentarian in the coming days and pursue other options. Oh, shit. Here we go again. Now you probably already know what I'm going to say here because we had this conversation before when the Senate parliamentarian said that you can't include a minimum wage increase in the last proposal that was passed using budget reconciliation. So you know, you might know what I'm going to say, but if you don't, spoiler alert, what the Senate parliamentarian says doesn't matter. It's not like she's blocking Democrats from including the immigration reform aspect in their $3.5 trillion reconciliation proposal. This is merely a recommendation. The Senate parliamentarian can easily be overrided or fired, but it doesn't really matter. Like this isn't necessarily a news story, but the way that it's being portrayed to people is as if, oh, well, this is just a roadblock in Democrats' plans to pursue immigration reform when that's not actually the case. I'll give you an example, not just the political article, but this CNN segment where they made it seem as if, oh, well, this is it. This is the end of the line. Immigration reform can't be included in the reconciliation bill. Take a look. We learned, Maggie, that the Biden administration, obviously, overnight is having another issue that kind of contributes to the domestic agenda hits that he's been taking. Senate Democrats, they're not going to be able to include a pathway to legalization for millions of immigrants in their huge, their $3.5 trillion bill after some new guidance from the Senate parliamentarian. Where does this put them? So they're going to attempt to try to revisit this, Breonna. There are going to be, there's I think four different efforts that pro-immigration reform advocates have been making in terms of the Senate parliamentarian. They are going to come back at this. The White House made clear they're going to come back at this on other pieces, but certainly it is a hit. And it is also just a reminder that this White House is playing this sort of triangulation move of, you know, we're not going to have Congress, we're not going to push Congress to pass legislation. We are going to try other maneuvers because the majority is so slim and because there are so many members who might not go along with this, it avoids putting pressure on them. But at the end of the day, a key piece of immigration reform still doesn't get done. It's a blow anyway you look at it, even for the people who say they were expecting it. Yeah, this, look, this is, this is key, John, to President Biden's agenda. He wants to move this thing along. And here you see that roadblocks are coming up against it. They absolutely are. I think it shows the limits to larding up what you can pass in reconciliation. I don't think folks should get over themselves and say, you know, the Biden agenda is doomed, but there are some serious hurdles and this dream has a deadline on it. And the Biden Biden administration needs to be totally focused on passing this. You can't make the perfect family. They're good. I think they know that they need to start acting that way. That last line was basically directed right at progressives. Look, you're getting some stuff, right? So shut the fuck up, take your crumbs and just give the corporate Democrats what they want. No. And that entire conversation was infuriating to me because what the Senate parliamentarian says, that's not the final word. I mean, do we ever hear about the importance of the Senate parliamentarian when Republicans are in control? When Donald Trump was empowered, did you hear once about the Senate parliamentarian from any news outlet? Of course you didn't. But Democrats and the media, they're using this as a kind of scapegoat, but this entire conversation is a red herring and it doesn't matter. The Biden administration can easily override the Senate parliamentarian. The VP can override the Senate parliamentarian. But the only reason why this feels as if we're getting blocked from including immigration in the reconciliation bill is because we know the Biden administration doesn't want to override the parliamentarian, which is stupid. But listen to what the CNN host said. Quote, they're going. They're not going to be able to include a pathway that legalization for millions of immigrants. And then she says, after some new guidance from the Senate parliamentarian. So like it's it's given away in their own language, right? Oh, well, they're not going to be able to include immigration because of this guidance. What does the guidance mean? Like, look up the definition of guidance. It doesn't mean that this is like the law of the land. This is an unelected official. What she says, it's not law. So I just don't understand why they're choosing to portray this this way. The other person, Maggie Haberman said, it's a blow anyway. You look at it even for the people who say that they were expecting it. No, it's not. Who cares what the Senate parliamentarian says override what she says rather than just suggesting that this is it. And the Senate parliamentarians were just final CNN should be educating their audience about the reality of the situation. And the reality is that Democrats, they hold control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. This is only an obstacle if they allow it to be an obstacle. And Ilhan Omar was absolutely correct when she tweeted this out. This ruling by the parliamentarian is only a recommendation. Senator Schumer and the White House can and should ignore it. We can't miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to do the right thing. And she's exactly right. The Democratic Party is trying to use the parliamentarian as a scapegoat, as their sort of excuse as to why they didn't accomplish immigration reform if they aren't indeed able to get it done before 2022 and 2024. But that's all it is. That's an excuse as this meme from Go Left puts it. This is basically the Senate parliamentarians authority. And if you're wondering what specifically the role of the Senate parliamentarian is, this article from Common Dreams breaks it down. So Jake Johnson explains in a three-page opinion, Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth McDonough advised against the inclusion of Democrats immigration proposal in the emerging reconciliation package, arguing the measure amounts to a policy change that substantially outweighs the budgetary impact of that change. Under current Senate rules, which the parliamentarian is tasked with interpreting, all provisions of a reconciliation bill must have a direct and not merely incidental impact on the federal budget, a highly subjective criterion that most recently sparked intense debate in the context of a proposal to raise long stagnant minimum wage. The Democratic majority is using the arcane reconciliation process to work around the Senate's 60-vote filibuster rule, which a number of conservative Democrats are refusing to repeal. Last week, McDonough heard arguments from both Democrats and Republicans on the immigration proposal, which would establish a path to citizenship for around 8 million dreamers, farm workers, temporary protected status recipients, and essential workers. Democrats contend that by making millions of people newly eligible for public programs, the change would have a substantial impact on the federal budget, an argument that policy experts have echoed. And that's the extent of it. It's a recommendation, as Ilhan Omar put it. It doesn't matter at the end of the day. So the mere fact that we're even hearing about the Senate parliamentarian at this point, when most people who heard about the Senate parliamentarian for the first time now know that she doesn't matter, it just shows that there's a failure on the mainstream media to educate people. Don't let the Democrats get away with this. You should be blasting Democrats like Chuck Schumer who view this ruling as disappointing. Who cares what the Senate parliamentarian says? Again, let me throw the meme up on the screen another time. That's the roadblock presented by the Senate parliamentarian. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Now ask yourself this. When the Senate parliamentarian previously ruled against what the Republican party wanted, what do you think they did? Do you think that they talked about how disappointed they were that this was the outcome? No, that's not what they did. They did what you'd expect a party in power to do who wants to get things accomplished. They overrode the Senate parliamentarian. Jake Johnson explains on Twitter, Representative Rashida Tlaib alluded to Republicans 2001 decision to fire then parliamentarian Robert Dove after he insisted a pair of recommendations that threaten the GOP's tax cuts for the rich. Quote, an unelected person isn't a real barrier to the much needed investments we were elected to make. Thlybe wrote, ignore this ruling or get a new one. The GOP didn't hesitate when they pushed their corporate agenda. Exactly. If this Senate parliamentarian doesn't think that immigration should be included in the budget reconciliation process because it doesn't directly impact the federal budget, find someone who thinks it does impact the federal budget directly. This isn't that difficult of an issue. And anytime we hear about the Senate parliamentarian's rulings, remind people that this does not matter. What the Senate parliamentarian says is nothing more than a recommendation and a recommendation that can indeed be overridden. The reason why it's not being overridden is because Biden doesn't want to do this. They didn't want to do this before when it came to the minimum wage and their unwillingness to override the parliamentarian now. It doesn't necessarily signal that they've been blocked from doing this. It signals that they don't actually want to be serious when it comes to passing immigration reform. Now, Democrats are saying that they're going to pursue alternate paths. That's what Chuck Schumer is saying. Okay, maybe they'll attach this to some other bill or proposal, but either way, if they don't get it done and that reconciliation bill passes and it excludes immigration reform, this is a failure on Democrats, not on Republicans, not on the Senate parliamentarian, but on Democrats who didn't want to actually fight when this isn't even that much of a fight. Fire the parliamentarian! Stop talking about the Senate parliamentarian for the love of God!