$3.5 Trillion is Actually Cheap
Democrats, including President Biden, have failed miserably at selling the Build Back Better Act - because of the letter "T". Here's how they need to Message It Better
Publisher’s Riff
Democratic Party leaders know by now that everyone knows they suck at three main things: 1) accepting the fact that they are the multi-racial party of Black, Brown, Indigenous and Asian voters, and that a some White voters occasionally join in, too; 2) pitching major policy proposals in a clear, crisp and punchy way that a broader, low-literate public immediately grasps enough to completely tune-out eventual bullshit Republican counters; and 3) defending themselves or pivoting into a counterattack on Sunday talk shows.
These three persistent failures of Democratic leadership are rarely addressed or fixed as a result of both arrogance and an inept, but well-paid army of consultants and strategists who, as we speak, prepare to enter yet another cycle of “midterm” House and Senate races arguing that they’ll lose because of “historical trends” … even as they still fundraise and get paid to win elections.
This same level of professional political malfeasance is playing out in the fight to pass President Biden’s proposed Build Back Better Act. Democrats have completely failed at selling it and should have come up with another name in the first place.
The “Social Safety Net” Bill
Let’s be real: most Americans aren’t watching the legislative process in Congress all that closely to begin with. They’ve mostly relied on soundbite clips they catch in quick visual morsels throughout the day or many draw their information from news feeds … or bots posing as news feeds on social media. As Pew Research recently shows, half of all Americans get their news on social media now and a third are, unfortunately, drawing their news from Facebook …
As a result, most Americans only hear the price-tag of the Biden proposal: $3.5 trillion. The added “T” is a figure most Americans are still not accustomed to when considering how government spends and how much. “Trillion” seems like a near impossible and astronomical number. Since there has been so much focus on the price-tag, most Americans don’t even know that the proposed “Build Back Better” Act is the same $3.5 trillion bill. News coverage carries on about 1) “Build Back Better” and the “reconciliation” bill (which, like, “what’s that?” most Americans are going to ask), and 2) the $3.5 trillion bill as two separate tracks of activity when they’re one in the same. We saw this same trick pulled in the false distinction made between the “Affordable Care Act” and “Obamacare” - no difference at all between the two, but cleverly pulled in separate directions to fool the electorate.
That price-tag has also been used to describe the bill as a major “social safety net” investment - and, from experience, we know that most White voters have visceral reactions to anything that hints at an “entitlement” scheme … for mostly Black people. The dog whistling is activated and public support, particularly White public support (which policymakers still prioritize) erodes, as this latest Quinnipiac University poll exhibits …
But, if it’s the bill described as an investment for roads, bridges, broadband and other brick-and-mortar infrastructure, White voters are largely all in …
… But, once you start asking about money to help human beings with direct investments and direct cash assistance ….
Democrats need to, first, immediately pivot to a conversation about the Build Back Better Act as a “transformational” or “21st century investment” bill. Build Back Better probably shouldn’t have been picked in the first place: the state of things for a while were never “better,” so what exactly are you building back to? Why not “Build a New America Act” or aspirational language that doesn’t have us going back to anything, but moves us forward. An “American Transformation Act” could have even been pushed as the necessary “top of the century downpayment” needed to get the country through what we expect will be a rather rocky and uncertain rest of the century. Eliminate references to it as “the social safety net” bill so as to curtail any racial dog whistling conversation about “entitlements” (translated: economic handouts to Black people). Make sure this is framed as an “investment” that everyone benefits from and opens up new possibilites. This opens up the conversation for Americans to finally understand what’s in the proposal.
What’s In “Build Back Better” Anyway?
Most recent polls indicate most Americans support the “Build Back Better” plan. But, let’s keep being real: ask Americans what’s in the Build Back Better plan and most are lying if they tell you they know exactly what it is or what’s proposed in it. They just know it’s some hyped-up bill of “social safety net” stuff that’s going to cost $3.5 trillion. Democrats, especially the President, have not forced any forceful cadence to the conversation while corporate media and Republicans tag team the proposal into oblivion as the too-costly “$3.5 trillion” bill.
It will be necessary to make Build Back Better actually better accessible for the average voter to understand, and to make the connection between those proposals and how they will work for individuals and households. Democrats have yet to answer in clear national terms: “what, specifically, does this bill do for my family and myself?” Well, glad you asked, friend, because it gives you and your kids …
Two-years of free community college
Double the Pell Grant money for regular college
Money for child care and automatic pre-K for your kids
Dental, hearing and vision healthcare for everyone
Monthly child tax credit payments of about $250 to $300 per month per kid
Cheaper prescription drug prices
12 weeks of paid family and medical leave
An actual planet to live on because we’re going to use this to fight climate change
That flow or rhythm of thought is not processing easily into the minds of Americans who are still stuck, largely, on the $3.5 trillion price tag. Democrats need to sell this like it’s that dream job everyone wants.
But: $3.5 Trillion Isn’t All That Much
No, in the grander scheme of things, it’s actually pretty cheap. What’s really insane about this is that President Biden and Democrats are actually proposing a $3.5 trillion spend over 10 years. That’s right: over 10 years. But, news organizations are not saying that much, if at all, about that spread of years and Democrats themselves aren’t countering the price-tag conversation with full-blown honesty that says “whoa, whoa, this doesn’t event scratch the surface, this is just a start.”
It really is. The $3.5 trillion over 10 years is really just $350 billion per year. That’s barely 1 percent of all Gross Domestic Product, or the money the nation’s economy generates. It’s not one massive $3.5 trillion appropriation being blown on a bunch of “social safety net” (translated White voter backlash speak: “welfare”) programs in the course of the next fiscal year.
Additionally, that $350 billion a year over 10 years is a very small amount being used to address accumulated crises plaguing the country at an annual estimated costs surpassing $10 trillion - that’s nearly half national GDP. So, we’re just spending $350 billion a year to tackle a nearly $11 trillion annual problem that adds up like this …
A student loan crisis that’s $1.73 trillion
A child care crisis costing the economy $60 billion a year
A massive health care crisis that costs nearly $4 trillion a year;
A dental crisis that costs $100 billion a year
A hearing loss crisis that costs $194 billion a year
A prescription drug crisis that costing $330 billion a year
Lack of Paid Family and Medical Leave that ends up costing $23 billion per year
Rising crime, including violent crime, that costs us $2.6 trillion a year
And, accumulated climate crisis disasters that are causing a $100 billion a year.
The $3.5 trillion dollar is not much. The proposal may barely skim the surface of the magnitude of problems the nation faces. This is simply an investment to help stabilize these problems. Harder work lies ahead