https://nypost.com/2020/12/08/bernie-sanders-admits-democrats-stalled-covid-19-relief/
“That’s right!” Sanders (I-Vt.) responded, confirming it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were to blame for months of inaction.
MATTHEWS: Nancy Pelosi admits why she stalled COVID relief bill, and it should outrage every American
Pelosi was questioned during the press briefing as to what made her suddenly change her mind. “What has shifted now, when they’re on board with this piece that’s come out of the Senate?”, asked one.
The House Speaker appeared agitated by the question. Making animated finger-pointing gestures, Pelosi admitted she wanted to wait until after the election when presumably Joe Biden would be declared the winner of the presidential race.
I just read both of those articles and the writers both *totally spun* what was actually stated.
In the first article, the original "debate" about the second stimulus package was over the size of the stimulus. The Democrats wanted a *larger* bill than Mnuchin and the Whitehouse (not the Senate mind you), that would do *more* for Covid relief, and the Whitehouse negotiators wouldn't do that.
Bernie lamented in that first article because in hindsight, it would have been a lot better to agree to the original offer from the Whitehouse, because the final 'bill' that was actually agreed to in the Senate was actually much *smaller* than what the Whitehouse was discussing originally. Why? Because the GOP in the *Senate* wouldn't even do what the President originally called for to start with!
With 20/20 hindsight, it would have indeed been much better to accept the original offer from the Whitehouse and let the President lean on the Senate to pass the Whitehouse offer because the original Whitehouse offer was *larger* than what the Senate ultimately agreed to. It would have setup a "conflict" between the Whitehouse and Senate and had the Whitehouse won that battle, it would probably have resulted in a better stimulus package. All of that is 20/20 hindsight however. The problem is that the Democrats wanted *more* relief than what either the Whitehouse wanted, or what the Senate would agree to. The smaller size of the final second stimulus package was directly related to the *Republican Senate* who would not even agree to what the Whitehouse had already agreed to and wanted. We saw the same problem play out when Trump asked to have the per person stimulus increased to 2000 per person. The GOP Senate *refused* to agree to it but the house *immediately* agreed to it and signed a bill the next day.
In retrospect there was no guarantee that the original Whitechouse proposal would have received Senate approval however, so it's all speculation at best case. The undeniable loss for the Democrats however is that they ended up getting *less* than the original offer, but that may have ended up being the case even if they had agreed to the original Whitehouse proposal because the Whitehouse and Senate tend to *conflict* over financial issues anyway.
Either way you look at it however, the Democrats wanted *more* help for US citizens and states than either the GOP Whitehouse *or* the GOP Senate.
The second article borders on pure slander. The writer completely twisted the meaning of Pelosi's comment. A reporter asked her:
“What has shifted now, when they’re on board with this piece that’s come out of the Senate?”
Note that by this time, much had changed, and things had become almost desperate due to the length of time that had passed without a stimulus, and we were far beyond the election by then. Her response to that question:
“Perhaps you missed what I said earlier,” she snapped at the reporter. “Joe Biden committed to ending and crushing the virus and having a Build Back Better America initiative. A vaccine — answer to our prayers, an answer to our prayers — of 95% effectiveness in terms of Pfizer and Moderna, and there may be others coming forward. That makes — that is a total game-changer: a new president and a vaccine.”
Her willingness to accept *anything* at that point was due to the fact that things were now *desperate* and she would be able to negotiate with a *new Democratic President* for *more* stimulus later on, so she was willing to get whatever she could get now, and negotiate with a new President later on.
The writer of that article *blatantly* twisted the meaning of her statement. We were *already a month past* the election, and she never stated that she dragged her feet until after the election with the express intent of making Trump look bad as the writer tried to claim.
The proof that this was *not* the case is that when Trump said he wouldn't sign the bill the Senate came up with unless it included a 2000 per person stimulus it was *Pelosi* and the Democrats who *agreed* with Trump and passed a bill immediately. The GOP Senate however *refused*.
There's no guarantee that the Senate would have even agreed to Trumps original offer either, but in retrospect it would have been "better" politically had the Democrats agreed to the earlier and bigger bill and let the Whitehouse fight the Senate. If they didn't agree to the Whitehouse's original offer, she could have publicly accused the GOP of not negotiating in good faith. That would have been a political win and made the GOP look bad. Maybe it would have resulted in a bigger second stimulus but maybe not.. Who knows?