Former Obama chief of staff David Axelrod says he is old enough to remember when $2 Trillion was a big number, <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/09/30/rep_ilhan_omar_infrastrcuture_bill_alone_is_less_than_10_of_bidens_agenda.html">in response to House progressives pushing for a $3.5 Trillion budget in addition to a $1 Trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill</a>. Conservative Democratic Sen. <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/09/30/sen_joe_manchin_explains_opposition_to_democratic_budget_moving_towards_an_entitlement_mentality.html">Joe Manchin says he won't go over $1.5 Trillion in the budget</a>. <blockquote>DAVID AXELROD: I remember when $2 Trillion or a trillion and a half would be pretty big and bold. All of a sudden, the biggest plans ever are not big and bold. I am very sympathetic to those who want to get as much as possible into this reconciliation bill. Progressives see this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and I think they are concerned about what happens after 2022, and whether they're going to have the ability to do some of the things that they want to do to strengthen the social safety net, and to deal with climate, and some of the other things that are in that bill. But you know, this is the legislative process. I do remember, Alison, 2010 and the Affordable Care Act, and there were those who said if you cannot get a public option as part of this bill, don't do anything. Let it die. And I've met so many people between then and now who were helped by that, who got coverage, whose lives were saved because of the bill that was passed, and I would have hated to tell them, hey, we could have helped you, but we couldn't get everything, so we did nothing. I can't believe that the Democratic members, progressive or moderate, want to go to the voters in 2022 and say, hey, we could have had the biggest infrastructure bill in history. We could have had a really historic reconciliation bill filled with education and health care and climate components that would have been a real step forward, but it wasn't everything we wanted, so we decided to do nothing. That's not a good platform, not for the president and not for them.</BLOCKQUOTE>