4250

The problem for Manchin is that he has to play ball at some point to keep that influence. If he actually kills the spending bills himself, at that point he might as well switch parties as he’ll be a pariah in his own party.

Sinema’s attention seeking antics seems fitting of reps from purple states, who are going to have outsized importance anyway.

4251

Manchin and Sinema know these things. THey’ve chosen not to care.

4252

I was listening to NPR during the last weeks when they’ve had a series of stories on what’s in the infrastructure bill. (The $1 trillion compromise bill that passed the Senate). Nearly all of the stories when talking to experts agreed that it has this provision that was really needed, and it’s getting enough funding to get this thing started, but it will need more funding to finish it or to continue it after X years. I think that’s fine. That’s better than not starting those programs (to start building a new bridge, for instance). I’m sure the funding to complete that bridge or whatever will come from somewhere once it’s started.

So I’m hoping the same is true for Climate Change proposals. As long as they can get enough to get much needed well designed programs started, it’s still better than what we’ve got now.

4253

The crazy part is that the Senate itself is already a big sop to the minority, even without the filibuster, to the point that it will cause a constitutional crisis in less than 20 years-- by which time something like 30% of the country’s population will be represented by 70% of the Senators if current demographic trends continue (if I’m remembering the statistic right-- it’s truly flabbergasting).

4254

The annoying thing about Senators is that states are arbitrary political units. It’s the most “HRE”-like aspect of the US political system.

4255

Exactly take the win, today. Projects aren’t going to be finished by Nov but the sooner they start and people are hired at good paying union jobs. The more Democrats can run on helping the poor and middle class, the better it will be for their chances of keeping control.

If you can get Manchin and Sinema in something for reconization, that is a bonus

4256

When the negotiating tactic is “I get exactly what I want or everybody gets nothing” isn’t exactly a method how to win friends.

4257

Have any of you people ever been in a negotiation? Lol.

4258

Politics isn’t like business.

This is Manchin’s Wall Street Journal manifesto (in parts):

Instead of rushing to spend trillions on new government programs and additional stimulus funding, Congress should hit a strategic pause on the budget-reconciliation legislation. A pause is warranted because it will provide more clarity on the trajectory of the pandemic, and it will allow us to determine whether inflation is transitory or not. While some have suggested this reconciliation legislation must be passed now, I believe that making budgetary decisions under artificial political deadlines never leads to good policy or sound decisions. I have always said if I can’t explain it, I can’t vote for it, and I can’t explain why my Democratic colleagues are rushing to spend $3.5 trillion.

Another reason to pause: We must allow for a complete reporting and analysis of the implications a multitrillion-dollar bill will have for this generation and the next. Such a strategic pause will allow every member of Congress to use the transparent committee process to debate: What should we fund, and what can we simply not afford?

I, for one, won’t support a $3.5 trillion bill, or anywhere near that level of additional spending, without greater clarity about why Congress chooses to ignore the serious effects inflation and debt have on existing government programs. This is even more important now as the Social Security and Medicare Trustees have sounded the alarm that these life-saving programs will be insolvent and benefits could start to be reduced as soon as 2026 for Medicare and 2033, a year earlier than previously projected, for Social Security.

Establishing an artificial $3.5 trillion spending number and then reverse-engineering the partisan social priorities that should be funded isn’t how you make good policy. Undoubtedly some will argue that bold social-policy action must be taken now. While I share the belief that we should help those who need it the most, we must also be honest about the present economic reality.

In 2017, my Republican friends used the privileged legislative procedure of budget reconciliation to rush through a partisan tax bill that added more than $1 trillion to the national debt and put investors ahead of workers. Then, Democrats rightfully criticized this budgetary tactic. Now, my Democratic friends want to use this same budgetary tactic to push through sweeping legislation to make “historic investments.” Respectfully, it was wrong when the Republicans did it, and it is wrong now. If we want to invest in America, a goal I support, then let’s take the time to get it right and determine what is absolutely necessary.

By placing a strategic pause on this budgetary proposal, by significantly reducing the size of any possible reconciliation bill to only what America can afford and needs to spend, we can and will build a better and stronger nation for all our families.

His public position essentially is NO filibuster reform and NO budget reconciliation (the only way to get around the filibuster). Frankly his position is essentially that of a Republican. He even calls out the Democrats for being “partisan” and totally ignores the Republican Overton window framing of every political conflict with their iron clad stonewalling.

He might well believe what he says about inflation - there are lots of serious people that don’t understand inflation on both sides, and inflation isn’t a problem until it is (and vice versa) - but if he does he’s basically signaling that he doesn’t believe in the current bill at all, and wants to shrink it to some small fraction of what it is now.

And he’s more likely to get his way than any other senator, because he’s Joe Manchin, quixotic Democrat from West Virginia. But this is negotiation in only the most threadbare sense, it’s the FPTP, winner-take-all American political system at its logical conclusion, where a lynchpin political figure has all the power and intends to use it. But if he actually believes that NO bill is better than any bill, and sinks the legislation, he might as well switch parties.

4259

I believe some of the progressives, at least in the House, might feel the same way that no deal is better than just Manchin’s deal, at least as a long-term play.

4260

Consdering, they got 19 Republican Senators to vote for the bill, I’m not sure why the Democrats need all the progressives. The were 10 house members who vote for impeachment, it is pitifully small number, but it should be enough to have the infrastructure pass the house.

4261

Problem is, from all the reports I’ve heard, no House Republicans will vote for the infrastructure bill, because reasons. Also, Pelosi controls the agenda, right? She’d have to throw the progressive caucus under the bus to even hold that vote.

4262

They are up to 5 so far… I don’t think finding another five should be that hard.

4264

Yeah, they should just mint the coin, stamp an ∞ on it, and it never needs to be mentioned again.

4265

Yes, everybody know this. Manchin isn’t going to vote for the reconciliation bill as it is currently conceived. What nobody knows is, how much is he willing to vote for, and for what things?

Everybody is guessing, sure, but guessing that Pelosi can’t get the votes she needs for the bipartisan bill is IMO a bad bed. As I said before, you can’t really expect the progressives in the House to signal that they’re going to vote for that bill while there is no movement at all on the other one.

4266

I don’t think we’d be allowed to mint a coin for future debt, but we could for all current debt, which would reset the debt ceiling amount to 0 I believe.

I do get the sense that if there is no movement, progressives will be willing to vote no on both bills. They’re not bluffing, especially since they can vote for things later.

4267

I mean, we’ve been here before.

4268

I think people just like to hem and haw over “what the progressives are going to do,” partly because it’s compelling drama and partly because (in my opinion) it lets them get in a few digs at a caucus they are already predisposed to dislike. But history shows they are always willing to do the thing that helps some people instead of torpedoing it and helping no people.

4269

This, plus they usually want to get re-elected, and pissing off both the Democratic establishment and a good number of their own constituents is a poor way to approach that.

4270

It also just frames doing anything as an act of radical political ambition.