I agree that the IRS should be reinforced and given support in recovering unpaid taxes. I doubt we will get enough to substantially fund an economic boom based on redistribution to the poorer sectors.

Most estimates of the 'tax gap' land between $300B and $400B a year, with a slight upward trend in recent years following the undermanning of the IRS. Some projections of a future loss over the next ten years thus max out at $5 Trillion ($500B x 10 yrs) - some more liberal economists project a radical upturn in avoidance and so land at the $7 Trillion number you cited. But that is an 'optimistic' projection, and it's over ten years, not one as you imply.

Finally, the idea of perfect tax collection is a fantasy, no matter how well the IRS might perform, so the $5T or $7T over the next decade certainly isn't just waiting to drop into a happy Democratic government's hands just by boosting the audit rate.

Real tax increases on actual wealth (not income) are the more likely way to fund a general reduction of the Inequality Gap that plagues our society increasingly since the 1980s. There is a constituency for that kind of radical thinking, on the Warren/Sanders wing of the Dems, but it's hard to say what kind of support it will get from the centrists, especially in the next two years of a nearly split Congress.

I hope you’re right about Biden’s prospects. The primary mission of the Republicans is to make Biden fail. Making it harder to vote is their target of opportunity.

“His job appear to try with without accomplishing much.”

That’s your job description! Pot....kettle black..

C'mon, man! That is just as preposterous as, "It didn't matter (to 400,000 dead Americans) that it was Trump in office because they're all big money candidates."

Progressives voting against making progress just because the proposed legislation doesn't pass some imaginary litmus test is simply nonsense.

What would you have Biden do differently? I mean, besides resigning/killing himself so that we can have a One Demand-style re-election, right?

Reaganism has infected the body politic for 40 years now. "Big Money Bernie" moved the Overton Window enough that what's politically possible can now be achieved -- Hillary or any Repug wouldn't have gotten this far.

To quote a favorite troll phrase that you like to use,

Get real.
Get Credible.

Spouting foolishness like this completely kills your argument, just saying.

Well...I ain't gonna comment on no deal I might have made with somebody that might have a "bifurcated tail"...

But you should hear me work that Bass Guitar!

https://youtu.be/mYOz0XWs7Ps?t=57

(sound of MtnCaddy, cracking himself up in Country-Cali)

*Now that Trump is no longer President we can go back to capitalizing "President."

To any and all giving thought to experimenting with cannabis or hallucinogens, I'll be there for you! Phone consultation will be available if and when you decide to check out the dark side of the Force.

As I've said before, these substances are way more cerebral than alcohol, and can be transformative when used properly.

Note to CW, I'm spreading the word, Left Coast style wink wink.

i don't think he called you a manchin fan, but a version of manchin himself.

JL

You are speaking for me! I love that I'm not the only Biden fan around here anymore.

I would like to see more thought on how many bills the Senate can consider at once, and which ones should be sacrificed to the cause of giving Manchin the cover to change his mind about the filibuster.

And will they be sacrificed? What I mean is, if a Senate bill is defeated on a floor vote or a filibuster drop-box full of 'no' emails from the minority party, can it be brought back for a second go-round after the majority party changes the rules on what constitutes a filibuster?

I like the proposed reform whereby a filibusterer has not only to speak continuously, but must speak on topic or be ruled out of order by the chair. That is, none of this 'reading the phone book' nonsense that reporters are already trying to revive from the earlier era of civil rights filibusters. It has to be about the bill in question, and it has to be non-repetitive, and it has to be continuous with no bathroom breaks. If the senator has something to say to the senate, he may say it for as long as he needs, but the courtesy will only extend so far and then cloture will be invoked and the bill will come to a vote.

That's bleeping plenty of minority rights being represented.

Before I forget, I think your Here to Help was very incisive, one of my favorite columns of yours.

I think the courting of both Manchin and Sinema in re the filibuster is a process designed to give them political cover in their red and purple states, respectively. They can "hold out to the bitter end" and thence "give in" when Repug obstructionism is more glaringly obvious.

Yeppers, that's the $64,000 question.

I've always been critical of Obama bending over backwards/negotiating against himself in a vain attempt to be "bi-partisan." In fact, I believe that he did so to enhance his chances of reelection. This worked for Obama but not for the bulk of America. In fact, Progressive disappointment likely depressed Obama's poll numbers.

Joe was there and appears to have learned that lesson. I think Joe is going to continue to at least feign resistance to dumping the filibuster, whilst maneuvering the Repugs into increasingly untenable political territory.

Then he can throw up his hands and say, I tried and tried to work with the Republicans but they keep obstructing The People's Business, so I have no choice regarding the filibuster.