Investment in American Infrastructure

[Traveler]

Sept 30, 2021 1:46:35 GMT jackd said:

Interesting historical statement. I've never seen any report authenticating that Manchin and Sinema were part of "the deal" that Sanders insists on. They certainly should have been for it to have any force but I don't think they were. Would appreciate any evidence to the contrary.

He did.  June 29:  

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) dropped a few hints on Tuesday morning about his thinking on the infrastructure deal.



“Take that victory and then let’s go,” Manchin told MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, referring to the bipartisan compromise on hard infrastructure. “We know [the Republicans] are not going to go to the human infrastructure because of the adjustments to the tax code.”



“We can still go through the process, knowing we probably will have to go to reconciliation and then do what we can afford to do,” he added.

Fucking bastard.

[Albert]

It's almost like all that useless babble over the years from centrists about how 'We don't need ideologues in this party, we need moderates and pragmatists who can get things done!' has proven to be completely useless and self-defeating. It turns out 'moderates' like Sinema and Manchin do have an ideology after all. Their *objective* ideology, as revealed through their actual behaviour and preferences, is an ideology of subservience to their donors. Their ideological commitment to these interests is so strong that they're literally willing to tank their own senate careers, Biden's entire presidency, throw the midterms, and squander the last chance Democrats will have to pass anything substantial or meaningful for the country or address any of the various crises besieging it

By the way, people like Chait are speculating that Manchin will likely lose the general election because WV has fundamentally changed post-2018, and post-Trump into a solid Trump state.

[Albert]

Sept 30, 2021 1:46:35 GMT jackd said:
Interesting historical statement. I've never seen any report authenticating that Manchin and Sinema were part of "the deal" that Sanders insists on. They certainly should have been for it to have any force but I don't think they were. Would appreciate any evidence to the contrary.

Why would Manchin and Sinema be in it? The left wing of the party was completely shut out of the infrastructure bill at the insistence of the centrists. The 'deal' was that the people like Sanders would be kept out of the infrastructure deal, and the centrists would be kept out of the BBB plan, and then they would be passed in tandem. The centrists got what they wanted: the left was largely kept out of the infrastructure plan. But now at the 11th hour, they want to renege on the understanding they had, and come back for the double, and have full say on the BBB, the ability to tank the bill entirely, or kill most of the key provisions in it, while also having gotten their way on the infrastructure bill.

Only a fool would acquiesce to their obvious and cynical power play.

[Traveler]

Well waddya know?  

Joe Manchin proposed a deal to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer this summer to limit the total cost of Democrats' sweeping spending bill to $1.5 trillion, according to a copy of the agreement obtained by POLITICO.

Manchin also suggested beginning debate no earlier than Oct. 1.

The West Virginia senator has been distributing the document to Democratic colleagues and leaders in recent days to underscore that he has outlined his red lines on President Joe Biden’s jobs and families plan. The one-page understanding is dated July 28, right before the Senate passed a bipartisan infrastructure bill that Manchin helped write and ahead of Senate passage of a budget setting up a spending bill as large as $3.5 trillion.

In the document, Manchin proposes raising the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, the top tax rate on income to 39.6 percent, raising the capital gains tax rate to 28 percent and says that any revenue from the bill “exceeding” $1.5 trillion will go to deficit reduction.

Manchin has repeatedly raised the deficit as one of his major concerns, and in this document he asks for the Federal Reserve to taper its quantitative easing program in the interest of relieving inflation concerns and asks that no funds in this bill be spent until previous Covid aid money is disbursed.

“Senator Manchin does not guarantee that he will vote for the final reconciliation legislation if it exceeds the conditions outlined in this agreement,” the paper reads in bold text.

Both Manchin and Schumer signed the document. Schumer appears to have written a note saying that he “will try to change Joe on some of these.”

So Manchin has been pretty upfront and consistent the whole time.  Seems that it's Schumer who misread him.  

[Albert]

Sept 30, 2021 17:11:26 GMT Traveler said:

Well waddya know?  

Joe Manchin proposed a deal to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer this summer to limit the total cost of Democrats' sweeping spending bill to $1.5 trillion, according to a copy of the agreement obtained by POLITICO.

Manchin also suggested beginning debate no earlier than Oct. 1.

The West Virginia senator has been distributing the document to Democratic colleagues and leaders in recent days to underscore that he has outlined his red lines on President Joe Biden’s jobs and families plan. The one-page understanding is dated July 28, right before the Senate passed a bipartisan infrastructure bill that Manchin helped write and ahead of Senate passage of a budget setting up a spending bill as large as $3.5 trillion.

In the document, Manchin proposes raising the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, the top tax rate on income to 39.6 percent, raising the capital gains tax rate to 28 percent and says that any revenue from the bill “exceeding” $1.5 trillion will go to deficit reduction.

Manchin has repeatedly raised the deficit as one of his major concerns, and in this document he asks for the Federal Reserve to taper its quantitative easing program in the interest of relieving inflation concerns and asks that no funds in this bill be spent until previous Covid aid money is disbursed.

“Senator Manchin does not guarantee that he will vote for the final reconciliation legislation if it exceeds the conditions outlined in this agreement,” the paper reads in bold text.

Both Manchin and Schumer signed the document. Schumer appears to have written a note saying that he “will try to change Joe on some of these.”

So Manchin has been pretty upfront and consistent the whole time.  Seems that it's Schumer who misread him.  

No.

www.newsweek.com/joe-manchin-wanted-4-trillion-dollar-infrastructure-spending-eight-months-ago-senate-1634133

Just 8 months ago he was supposedly in favour of a 4 Trillion infrastructure deal. Why might that be? Because at that time, the left of the party - and Biden himself - entertained figures of 4-6T. So 4T was a way to whittle it down.

Once they agreed to 3.5T, he did his magic, and shifted the goalposts some more, to 1.5T, because that's where he always wanted to be.

He's basically been running out the clock. The right time to do this infrastructure bill was immediately after the pandemic bills, when Biden was still in his honeymoon period with the American public and enjoyed robust approval ratings. Instead, perhaps out of foolishness, Biden let himself be manipulated into squandering the goodwill he had with the American public, and allowed this thing to be kicked into the post-Afghanistan, pre-midterm period, at a time when his approval ratings have declined, and in a moment which has an incredibly tight window of opportunity and a high chance of failure.

It's essentially a relentless war of attrition. Conceding anything more to him is just a recipe for disaster.

The whole point of the 'tandem' strategy was that it was an implicit thread of mutually assured destruction. The 'moderates' can't pass anything on their own, and neither can the 'progressives', so they had to work together to pass both bills or pass nothing at all. The moderates have decided to call in on the threat in service of their donors in a cynical power play, and a failure to to deliver on the threat, would completely destroy any credibility the progressives or Biden have, and signal to the  moderates that they can always call all the shots by playing hardball.

There's a difference between compromising and giving up everything to the other party in the negotiations at the first sight of hard negotiations.

[Traveler]

Thanks, but that link is firewalled, so if you could extract the juicy bits, I would be grateful.  My post was in response to Jack's that Manchin made no agreement to the reconciliation bill.  Google sure let me down there.  

Bottom line, we get what we elect. Dems drop kicked it.  The "close races" they actually lost were blowouts. 


Soon coming time to emigrate.  Just when my business is taking off.   

[LFC]

Ugh, a rank opportunist and smarmy to boot. This is not a serious person though she's quite capable of doing serious damage.

Many Democrats have publicly expressed frustrations with Sinema for her position, and reporters tried pressing the Arizona Democrat on Wednesday.

NBC News reporter Frank Thorp asked Sinema what she would say to progressives “frustrated they don’t know where you are.”

Sinema mockingly responded, “I’m in the Senate.”

When asked again about progressives who who don’t know where she is either, Sinema again gave a wry response, saying, “I’m clearly right in front of the elevator.”

[Albert]

Sept 30, 2021 17:39:31 GMT Traveler said:

Thanks, but that link is firewalled, so if you could extract the juicy bits, I would be grateful.  My post was in response to Jack's that Manchin made no agreement to the reconciliation bill.  Google sure let me down there.  

Bottom line, we get what we elect. Dems drop kicked it.  The "close races" they actually lost were blowouts. 


Soon coming time to emigrate.  Just when my business is taking off.   

"Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) called for up to $4 trillion in infrastructure spending over 10 years in January as the Democrats were poised to take control of Congress and the White House.

Manchin, who is considered a moderate or conservative Democrat, made the comments on the Inside West Virginia Politics news program a few days before President Joe Biden was sworn into office.

On Wednesday, Manchin issued a statement saying he couldn't support the proposed $3.5 trillion infrastructure package, which Democrats had hoped to pass using the budget reconciliation process.

Manchin said at the time: "The most important thing? Do infrastructure. Spend $2, $3, $4 trillion over a 10-year period on infrastructure."

"A lot of people have lost their jobs and those jobs aren't coming back. They need a place to work," the senator said.

Manchin's remarks were reported by Business Insider on January 19 and some Twitter users highlighted the senator's previous comments after he came out in opposition to the Democrats' infrastructure bill.

That bill would spend $3.5 trillion over 10 years on infrastructure, including so-called "human infrastructure" such as childcare and measures on climate change.

Basically, he was deliberately leading them on and misrepresenting his own position. How do you get from "You know, America desperately needs a broadly defined infrastructure plan that creates jobs and addresses other problems, somewhere in the range of 2-4 Trillion over 10 years, I don't really care about the specific figure." to "Anything more than 1.5T is completely unacceptable.", within 8 months?

[goldenvalley]

Sept 30, 2021 18:43:10 GMT goldenvalley said:

Sept 30, 2021 17:24:58 GMT Albert said:

...The right time to do this infrastructure bill was immediately after the pandemic bills, when Biden was still in his honeymoon period with the American public and enjoyed robust approval ratings. Instead, perhaps out of foolishness, Biden let himself be manipulated into squandering the goodwill he had with the American public, and allowed this thing to be kicked into the post-Afghanistan, pre-midterm period, at a time when his approval ratings have declined, and in a moment which has an incredibly tight window of opportunity and a high chance of failure.

It's essentially a relentless war of attrition....

Heartily agree with this.  Biden messed up in a way that he didn't with the Covid relief bill.  He seemed confident then that he need not negotiate with Republicans on that one and he apparently had already talked Manchin into supporting it at the same time Republicans were making their lowball proposal.   I suspect somehow he thought he could work that magic again, getting the "progressives" to back off but didn't count on Manchin's attitude being serious rather than performative.  And Sinema...whole 'nother story.  

Legislation is about perception and timing. Biden lost the window of opportunity, so he lost the good will feelings that existed before Delta variant dominated & the media went whole hog on chaos in the withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Now the timing is bad too. If this tandem strategy passed earlier the folks back home could see the benefits at work just as primary electioneering was happening.  Voters would have been happy with Dems and vote for them, but now that the primary election is closer and the "moderates" will blame the progressives and Biden for being profligate and claim toughness and fiscal responsibility. 

[LFC]

[jackd]

Kelly Ripa at Talking Points Memo says today that negotiations are "resurrected" and that Manchin confirmed before Reporters that his "starting point" is 1.5 T. Durbin says, now that we have the "secret memo" (Manchin and Schumer) that Manchin's number "will be changed". I wonder if Kelly knows what she's talking about because that seems 180 degrees from what was being reported yesterday and this morning.

[LFC]

Sept 30, 2021 21:49:34 GMT jackd said:

Kelly Ripa at Talking Points Memo says today that negotiations are "resurrected" and that Manchin confirmed before Reporters that his "starting point" is 1.5 T. Durbin says, now that we have the "secret memo" (Manchin and Schumer) that Manchin's number "will be changed". I wonder if Kelly knows what she's talking about because that seems 180 degrees from what was being reported yesterday and this morning.

It's certainly far more specific than anything Manchin has been willing to state publicly despite being willing to talk to the press on a near constant basis. (And "Kelly Ripa." That's pretty funny.)

[jackd]

Yup, my bad on the name; a brain fart. The 180 degree change is still there. Yesterday it was 1.5 period; no negotiations. But the 1.5 had been clearly stated and progressives were demanding Manchin give them a new number without being willing to suggest one themselves. If these statements about the "starting point" and such were in a press conference, as reported, I'll be very interested in watching it or reading the transcript. Glad I gave you a laugh.

[LFC]

Sept 30, 2021 22:15:35 GMT jackd said:

Yup, my bad on the name; a brain fart. Glad I gave you a laugh.

Take the victory lap, no excuses required!

[jackd]

Don't think I can take another step; totally worn out just trying to follow the action from afar.

[goldenvalley]

Oct 1, 2021 1:49:31 GMT jackd said:

Don't think I can take another step; totally worn out just trying to follow the action from afar.

Sausage making is tiring.

[AnBr]

Sept 30, 2021 14:17:33 GMT LFC said:

Heeeeeeere we go. From June...

Manchin said Sunday the success of both pieces of legislation hinges on a willingness to compromise and trust among Democrats.

Just like the Teatards, Compromise means 100% his way.

[Traveler]

Seems like the logjam may indeed be breaking.  Manchin's tax concepts and drug plan are considerably better than what the Dems cooked up so far.  Of course, the drug thingie will run afoul of Sinemma.  But now that Manchin is starting to flex, I doubt she will hold out.  Especially now that her drug-sourced  financing is out on the street for all to see.  

Fact is, what is the rush?  Pelosi already broke her "promise" to the effing house moderates.  There will be no vote on the approved 1.1T bill until they get reconciliation hammered out. They can bitch all they want.  

Plus they need to raise the debt limit under reconciliation.  IIRC, they had two cuts at reconciliation this year.  They haven't used any yet.   So stop on the BBB palaver for a couple of weeks to hash this out, and pass the debt limit raise now, as that needs to take priority.   

Am I wrong on this?  

[goldenvalley]

Oct 1, 2021 16:02:07 GMT Traveler said:

Seems like the logjam may indeed be breaking.  Manchin's tax concepts and drug plan are considerably better than what the Dems cooked up so far.  Of course, the drug thingie will run afoul of Sinemma.  But now that Manchin is starting to flex, I doubt she will hold out.  Especially now that her drug-sourced  financing is out on the street for all to see.  

Fact is, what is the rush?  Pelosi already broke her "promise" to the effing house moderates.  There will be no vote on the approved 1.1T bill until they get reconciliation hammered out. They can bitch all they want.  

Plus they need to raise the debt limit under reconciliation.  IIRC, they had two cuts at reconciliation this year.  They haven't used any yet.   So stop on the BBB palaver for a couple of weeks to hash this out, and pass the debt limit raise now, as that needs to take priority.   

Am I wrong on this?  

Not wrong.  Other than the part where the country can't pay its bills the rest can wait.  The only rush was for Biden to take advantage of the era of good feeling that he had going earlier in the year. The deadlines set by Pelosi  are artificial and designed to get people to move instead of dithering around forever.  The media makes a BFD about it all because they seek excitement.  

[Bact PhD]

Oct 1, 2021 16:02:07 GMT Traveler said:

Plus they need to raise the debt limit under reconciliation.  IIRC, they had two cuts at reconciliation this year.  They haven't used any yet.   So stop on the BBB palaver for a couple of weeks to hash this out, and pass the debt limit raise now, as that needs to take priority.   

Am I wrong on this?  

The trouble is, the Dems did use one of their reconciliation cracks to get the American Rescue Plan passed back in March, IIRC. So there's only one shot left, and MM damn well knows it. If that last shot has to get burned on the debt limit ceiling, it's all good as far as he's concerned (wicked evil grin).

[jackd]

I think that was in FY 2021 and we're now in 2022 which began April 1, 2021 so they have two available.

[LFC]

Oct 1, 2021 21:20:27 GMT jackd said:

I think that was in FY 2021 and we're now in 2022 which began April 1, 2021 so they have two available.

The fiscal year for all sorts of updates like tax values (standard deduction, tax brackets, annual gift exclusion, estate tax exclusion, etc.) ends September 30. I'm pretty sure it is for federal spending as well. Is the April 1 date (soooooo appropriate) the congressional schedule?

[LFC]

Josh Marshall just tore into the New York Times who seems to have traded all political of its acumen for sensationalism. He says the "doom and gloom" opinion is fine since it's just that, an opinion, but there are some real bone-headed errors that fall into Chuck Todd territory. I don't know quite happened to the NYT but since their stunning journalistic failures during W's Iraq War they just can't seem to get back on their feet in terms of sharp, insightful journalism.

The note of profound pessimism about the future of Biden’s agenda is one I do not share. But I don’t want to dwell on that because that’s a subjective read of a future none of us can see. The week has been filled with bleak moments and there’s been enough reversals of fortune that I won’t gainsay anyone’s pessimism.

But look at just the factual analysis here. The president’s goal throughout has been both bills. They both have to pass. The last week has appeared to be on a steady course toward decoupling the two bills, passing the BIF bill and then facing negotiations over a reconciliation bill with no leverage at all over the two Senate holdouts who seem increasingly happy to let the reconciliation bill die on the vine. This is far from over. But what really happened is that the threat to kill the BIF bill got the two holdouts or at least Joe Manchin to actually start negotiating. What the Times calls a “significant setback” and a “humiliating blow” is actually the two bills being recoupled which has been the White House’s aim literally for the entire time.

Reporters often overstate the importance of self-imposed deadlines. In this case, blowing this deadline is perfectly fine on all counts. But the confusion or willful confusion runs much much deeper.

Again, I want to be clear. I’m not saying everything is perfect here for the Democrats or the White House. Far from it. It’s not a great thing to be so far over the barrel that simply getting the opposite side to agree to negotiate is a big win. But the outcome of yesterday is that first good news supporters of the President’s agenda have gotten in days. Not seeing that means having a profoundly distorted understanding of the most basic dynamics at play here.

There’s another point that is critical to understand. It’s one I’ve stressed several times over recent days. The House leadership was not whipping the BIF vote. Jim Clyburn, Majority Whip, made that clear again and again. The White House made clear that coupling the two bills was their policy and that they and the House Progressive Caucus were on the same side. In other words, the White House wasn’t whipping the votes for the BIF either. Please tell me this tells you something!

You can’t ‘revolt’ by doing something no one in authority ever told you not to do.

The White House and the leadership definitely want the BIF to pass. They want it to pass both because they want it to pass for policy reasons but also because it’s key to the passage of the reconciliation bill. The reconciliation bill is not going to be $3.5 trillion. Once there’s a global deal on what it will be there’s going to be some hard conversations to get everyone to vote for both given that the reconciliation number is less than many wanted. But that’s not where we were last night.

The problem was that the Senate hold outs weren’t negotiating at all. Last night wasn’t a setback at all. The deadline for the BIF vote was never something that House leadership or the White House wanted in the first place. It was forced on them. The threat to kill the BIF got the Senate hold outs to the negotiating table. That’s not a “humiliating” setback. That’s things actually getting back on track.

This is all a pretty serious misunderstanding about what the President’s agenda even is apparently, who the factions are in the President’s party and how they relate to each other. The author of the Times piece seems to have the idea that the President is trying to mediate between his party’s ‘moderates’ and ‘progressives’ and things got off track because the ‘progressives’ rebelled. As we’ve discussed a hundred times, that’s not what’s happening. Virtually the entire party is united on a plan and a couple senators and a handful of reps are holding out. The key drama of the past week was that the rest of the party was saying, ‘Fine, you won’t accept $3.5 trillion. Tell us what your counter is. Then we’ll discuss.’ The answer they were getting was. ‘No. Just pass our bill. Then we’ll see what happens.’

[Albert]

Oct 1, 2021 21:36:55 GMT LFC said:

Josh Marshall just tore into the New York Times who seems to have traded all political of its acumen for sensationalism. He says the "doom and gloom" opinion is fine since it's just that, an opinion, but there are some real bone-headed errors that fall into Chuck Todd territory. I don't know quite happened to the NYT but since their stunning journalistic failures during W's Iraq War they just can't seem to get back on their feet in terms of sharp, insightful journalism.

I have to admit, I am somewhat puzzled by the fawning over Josh Marshall on this board. Not only was he himself an Iraq War booster in the early stages of it, but I have just always found him to be a mediocre, centrist hack, with an undeserved sense of arrogance. I have never found him offering anything remotely insightful, and on any given issue I can tell what bland offering he'll serve up without reading it. There are American centrists I can admire despite their blind spots, but I don't include Marshall in that company.

For all the disdain of a guy like Chuck Todd (which I fully share), in my mind, Marshall is hardly any better.

[jackd]

Aside from disliking Josh Marshall, do you disagree with his comments re the New York Times?