4533

Why would they? The big bill was proposed by Biden, and the progressives like the big bill, and if the Senate Democratic majority were committed to passing Biden’s agenda, the progressives would be happy.

4534

They would do it for the exact same reason they’re doing it now.

Because there is a section of policy that they want, but for which they are unable to get 50 votes in the senate.

The filibuster isn’t what is preventing those policy points from being passed… they can’t even get a straight majority of support for those points.

So, even in the absence of a filibuster, in order to pass those points, they would need to do what they’re doing now.

4535

In other words, when you say:

…what you mean is, you don’t agree that that could happen.

4536

Timex said “Progressives”, but in this particular examples, he meant to say Manchin and Sinema, I think. Then it makes sense.

EDIT: Well, kind of, meaning they would be the reason for all the other democrats to try to horsetrade onto bigger bills.

4537

It doesn’t make sense if you’ve granted these two conditions:

In this perfect world, there are no Manchins or Sinemas. There is a majority of Democrats willing to pass the President’s agenda, and a majority can rule.

What’s happening now is happening because of Manchin and Sinema. That’s it.

4538

This is a nice thought, but our legislative branch has shown very clear dysfunction repeatedly over the last decade. The only reason anything like this even has a chance to get done is because of this fleeting opportunity where Democrats have control over both houses. And still, here we have popular and important legislation teetering very precariously on the edge of defeat. Sure the news media likes to ratchet up the drama and overreact to every last detail, but the fact that everyone knows if it doesn’t get done now there is a strong chance that it doesn’t get done ever does not instill me with confidence that the system is working as intended.

4539

Ah, I see what the disconnect is. You are assuming a situation where the Democratic party is monolithic, and you have perfect agreement between the two wings of the party.

I do not believe that is a realistic expectation.

And, without that, even if the democrats have a majority (which they do currently) and if the filibuster did not exist, you would still have the situation we see today.

Groups like the Progressives would not want to pass a bunch of individual bills, because the result of that would be equivalent to what you’d have today if they just passed the infrastructure bill, plus whatever they can get manchin and sinema to agree to. You’d pass the stuff that the majority agrees on, but would not pass the stuff that the progressives want but that the moderates don’t.

To be clear, this same thing would be the case for stuff the moderates wanted, that the progressives don’t… I’m just using the progressives as an example, because we’re seeing that happen right now.

4540

And yet, this is the situation you expect every time you complain that the Dems aren’t all falling in lockstep to pass whatever Manchin says he’ll accept.

There is a middle ground between “everything in one bill” and “every thing gets its own bill”. It would still be possible - preferable even - to have bills that cover things one group wants and the other doesn’t but can live with if they get their pony.

4541

Yes, because I think they should pass the parts they agree with.
To be clear, I think they SHOULD do what is suggested, with them passing small laws. I think that government would be, overall, more productive in such an environment, because I think that there’s a huge amount of governance which enjoys broad, even bipartisan support.

But I don’t think that’s what would happen, even without the filibuster.

4543

This has nothing to do with falling in lockstep with Manchin, though. This is about the Progs voting down a bill that has stuff they want because the Senate isn’t falling in lockstep with a bigger bill that has lots of other stuff the Progs want.

4544

Objection, it’s a threat to vote it down. They didn’t actually vote it down.

Now, it strengthens their bargaining power if you believe the threat is real, so I guess it’s a good thing that you do.

4545

Sustained.

my bad, you are correct.

4546

This is true, it’s possible that it is a bluff.

4547

No, I’m assuming this:

Not monolithic; just broad agreement, a kind of broad agreement that doesn’t exist today. Certainly there are some things that could be passed on their own in such an environment. The ACA was passed largely on its own in such an environment.

4548

Sure, but you are assuming monolithic agreement of the entire democratic party on, really, a huge amount of policy.

I mean, I think that someone like Manchin would consider himself to be committed to advancing Biden’s agenda, but his interpretation of how best to do that is different from someone like AOC.

4549

[quote=“Timex, post:4548, topic:150842”]
I mean, I think that someone like Manchin would consider himself to be committed to advancing Biden’s agenda…
[/quote]p

I don’t care how he considers himself, he’s refusing to support things Biden has actually proposed. He’s not committed to advancing Biden’s agenda, by definition.

4550

Biden did not put forth a specific piece of legislature to vote on, as that’s not his job.

Indeed, no one has actually put forth a concrete piece of legislation yet, have they?

I think that it is somewhat unrealistic to believe that you will have a situation where every single member of the democratic party in the Senate would agree on any legislative implementation, based simply on it containing the same high level talking points presented by the President.

Indeed, I feel like that would be something of a dereliction of duty on their part.

Also, while the focus here is on the progressive caucus in the house, and two senators, as you yourself have pointed out before, the Democratic party is very much not monolithic.

Let us imagine, if you will, that we remove the entire Senate from the equation… let us pretend that the Senate operates in lock step, and the filibuster is removed entirely, and let us imagine that they pass literally everything that the progressive want. What was the cost there, like 6 trillion dollars? Something like that, right?

Ok, so let us imagine that is passed, but in small pieces, with each individual chunk passed separately.

Do you believe that all of those parts would pass in the house? They currently have an 8 seat majority (although I think in practice, right now, that’s less?) So if 5 Dems vote no, something will fail to pass.

Do you think that they would be able to pass all of that stuff, without objection from 5 members? I do not believe that is a realistic expectation.

Of course, in that world, it may also be the case that the progressives (or any small group) would lose some power, as you would likely be able to get enough bipartisan support to overcome it. A big reason the Progressives have as much power as they do right now, is that the GOP is absolutely refusing to support the bipartisan bill at all in the house, despite its bipartisan support in the senate.

4551

This is just a rhetorical dodge.

Here’s Biden proposing stuff:

Here’s Biden saying he’ll except less in the bipartisan bill but only if the budget reconciliation bill contains the rest and it passes:

Here’s Manchin saying he’s not on board with Biden’s agenda:

I think we’re through, really. Have a great day.

4552
4553

Well boo hoo. What type of cheese, would you like with your whine? None of this stuff matters, nor the often bias polls showing how wildly popular all these programs are with the public.

All that matters are the votes in the House and the Senate and here Gerson is exactly correct this is the slimmest majority in the history of the Republic.

They didn’t have to do it this way, they choose to do this because of the arrogance of the progressive wing they assumed everyone with D behind their name supported all their program or could get reelected supporting the programs.

The Parlimentary said you have at least two reconciliation bills per fiscal year… They already had one this year for Covid. That leaves them 5 bills they could have passed through reconciliation between last summer and the mid-term election So one bill on green energy, one on children (child tax credit, child care, pre-K) one for young adults, (community college, $15/hour , retraining, student debt relief)
one for the elder (family leave, elder care credits, ACA expansion), and one more. Of course, they would have had to get their act together and pass something yesterday (Sept 30), so now they only have 4 bills.

Or they could have tried much smaller bills, say child tax credits, or green energy credits, or job retraining, knowing that not all of the programs would have the votes and be satisfied with 5 substantial programs

But no, we want it all and we want now, we may never have power again said the progressive wing.

So we fucking sacrifice a much-needed infrastructure bill, because a progressive can’t get every wet dream program they’ve ever dreamed off passed.

But more importantly, this will hurt the election chances for Democrats, and we giving control of Congress back to the Trumpist.