6085

Making a provision only last a set number of years in order to limit the cost is not a budgetary gimmick. It is actual budgeting.

You can certainly argue about whether it is the best way to meet the budget target, but it isn’t a dishonest trick.

6086

I agree with you that he could have worded that better. What do you think of the overall idea? The link to his WaPo article back in October goes into greater detail.

6087

I thought the reconciliation bill could only fund programs up to 10 years maximum. Is that considered making the changes “permanent?”

I guess negotiating with Mancin only makes sense if you think he is negotiating in good faith. And it’s not clear he is.

6088

I think the overall idea is fine. The problem is that the good social spending measures are the ones that Manchin seems least inclined to support, e.g. the fully refundable expanded CTC.

Generally, yes. It’s quite hard to end a program after tens of millions of people have benefited from it for ten years. That’s mostly why the ACA has turned out to be repeal-proof, at least so far.

Remember that no Congress can tie the hands of any future Congress. There’s no such thing as a permanent appropriation. Everything has to be reauthorized at some point; and any Congress can end any program at any time, assuming they have the votes.

6089

I’m not finding any hard-and-fast rule on this.

6090

Right now if you want anything at you, you have to take Manchin at his word. Just be sure to do an all out blitz to go after him in the 2024 primary.

6091

The ACA was not passed through reconciliation and did not have a sunset.

6092

I think final Senate passage was through reconciliation because of the election of Scott Brown. I don’t know whether it had a sunset or not, but it can be effectively hobbled at any time by any Congress through e.g. ending the appropriation for subsidies.

The idea behind passing it quickly, early in Obama’s term, was to have the longest possible time — two presidential terms — to protect it from repeal, after which it would be nearly impossible to repeal because people are accustomed to it and rely on it.

6093

That part might have worked. The ACA was saved by one thumbs-down.

Unfortunately, that thumbs down and a stash of RWBY fanfic inspired a future Arizona Senator.

6094

The ACA passed through a regular vote. A separate bill was then passed through reconcilliation that amended the ACA in some ways. The “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010”.

The two step was part of an overall plan, not dissimilar in concept to the BIL/BBB two step plan.

6095

Ah, that makes sense.

6096

The idea of a “permanent” program is kind of a mirage. A current Congress cannot tie the hands of a future Congress. There are programs, such as Medicare, that are authorized on an “ongoing” basis without need for re-authorization, but even in that scenario, those programs are not “fully permanent.” First, those programs will only continue as long as Congress appropriates money to fund them. Should Congress cut off appropriations, the programs lose money and essentially stop functioning. Second, Congress can, at any time they have the votes to do so, change the law of the programs. Congress can terminate a program, expand or reduce eligibility, change the criteria, etc.

What’s happening here is related to the concept of “sunsetting” a law for budgetary reasons to shoehorn the law into reconciliation. Reconciliation requires a bill to be “revenue neutral” over a 10 year time horizon (or at least it did back in the 2000s). The first time I recall hearing about this was the George W. Bush tax cuts and other programs in the early to mid 2000s, when the GOP put “sunset” provisions into their tax cuts (ie the tax cut ends after a certain number of years to keep the budgetary cost down during the 10 year window that applies to reconciliation.) They did this with the full knowledge they intended to scream about a “FISCAL CLIFF!!!” a few years down the road and extend the tax cuts (which they in fact did). Similar mechanisms were used for the GOP tax cut in 2017-2018, with those tax cuts “expiring” in 2025 (the GOP fully intends to keep them, if they can, in 2025).

Sunsetting laws can be a perfectly valid technique but as used in those examples, and as used in BBB, it’s just a gimmick to try to shoehorn a larger financial impact into the narrow constraints of reconciliation. The fact that Congress is straightjacketed by reconciliation is a consequence of our idiotic filibuster rules, so I get the desire to work around the constraint, but it is still a gimmick.

I’ve been saying for months now the Dems, facing Manchin’s unwillingness to support the entire BBB package, should narrow the package to a few core programs. Now, one of the 3 I consider core (the refundable tax credit) is apparently a no-go with Manchin. Given that, in theory the question then becomes, is it worth narrowing BBB down to just two priorities (climate change related spending, and increased ACA subsidies)? But before we get to that, I have a further question of whether Manchin can be trusted to vote on ANY BBB, even if we accommodate every single point he keeps adding to the mix. He’s been incredible unreliable on this with him making these statements of what he will accept and apparently making all kinds of overtures and promises to other Dems, but then not actually ever delivering a Yes vote or a firm commitment. So I dunno.

Probably the best course is to narrow the proposal down to what Manchin will accept and see if he will agree but that basically makes Manchin the King of Congress, and I can see why the Dems balk at that. On the other hand, if no effort is made, the Dems get nothing further. So a weak BBB with only 2 core programs (plus apparently Manchin supports the pre-K proposal which I consider a lesser priority than several he has vetoed) is what is possible? I mean, assuming it is possible. Eh, its the kind of thing that makes me want to throw up my hands but I think before we do that, the “best” option out of a menu of shit options is to bow and scrape to Manchin, throw everything but his 3 proposals under the bus, and see if he will deign to agree to that. Its demoralizing and demeaning but the majority of the American people who actually want BBB are essentially powerless in our own “democracy” due to a combination of shitty institutions, shitty media, shitty politicians, the shitty GOP, and shitty “Centrists”. It’s all shit.

6097

At this point take what you can get, but have a long memory, and longer knives in 2024 for the two backstabbing Senators.

6098

Reconciliation in the first place is kind of gimmick. The jimmying around with timeframes isn’t so much some new, strange or outrageous thing when it comes to congress. It’s more an artifact of our screwed up system. Back when the whole Manchin dollar limit was announced cutting timeframes was an obvious approach discussed in a lot of places including here if I’m not mistaken.

6099

I appreciate this post. Thank you.

6100

I have every expectation that the democrats will take what they can get with the BBB. If Manchin would simply write a damn bill that he would agree to it will likely be passed in no time. His game still appears to be “present me with my ideal bill” without telling anyone what his ideal bill is. So democrats have to again spend months coming up with proposals for him to say “that’s not quite right” or “well we can’t do that now because inflation/ukraine/war on christmas/whatever” to.

6101

It may be that Manchin wants the climate stuff because it’s full of free money for coal miners who are sick and ex coal miners who need new jobs and doesn’t actually end subsidies for fossil fuels. If he wants it badly enough, maybe he can be brought around by a simple package of that plus the CTC and the ACA subsidies. It’s hard to argue that that package isn’t genuine meaningful to most of his WV constituents.

6102

I think it is a trick. If the legislation passed the Dems would tout the accomplishment as though it was a forever thing when in reality they would all know it was actually temporary, subject to being defunded at any time. Would they tell their constituents it was set up that way?

Programs worth passing should be set up and funded as though they were continuing.

But, I understand this is now how government operates.

6103

The democrats aren’t shouting it from the rooftops but it’s not exactly a secret. The time frames for programs are not hidden in any way. Nor is the desire that the programs become popular and that they will one day be signed into a normal bill rather than have to be enacted through reconciliation. The obsession with a single top line sum number was not the Democrat’s idea.

6104

IMO it is worth moving heaven and earth to get some kind of meaningful climate change legislation done.