Investment in American Infrastructure

[LFC]

I loathe Manchin so much right now. He's not a principled fighter, he's a f***ing child desperately trying to protect his own financial interests.

Why Manchin Tanked Everything
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) griped on Monday that the White House staff had done something to piss him off, resulting in him tanking his negotiations with Biden over the Build Back Better plan. The senator refused to elaborate on his complaint, saying only that “they know the real reason what happened.” What happened, according to Politico and the Hill, was “incivility” (a Very Valid Reason for killing Democrats’ last major shot at combating climate change indeed).

• Last week, Manchin had reportedly asked Biden to keep his name out of the President’s upcoming statement on delaying BBB and was infuriated when the White House put out the statement with his name anyway. The senator then told White House staffers he was done negotiating, according to Politico.

• Manchin, who “believes in civility above all things,” saw Biden’s statement as “a breach of process,” according to Hill columnist Steve Clemons, who cited both the senator’s associates and the White House.

• But let’s go ahead and look at Manchin’s long history of opposing climate change policies as he rakes in more campaign cash from oil, coal and gas industries than any other senator in this election cycle–instead of pretending this is all just about the West Virginia senator’s Staunch Principles and the White House not being nice enough to him.

Joe Manchin didn’t destroy BBB to please his corporate donors, he just has a difference of political philosophy. I have the brain of an amoeba
— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) December 20, 2021

Here's the offensive passage from the White House. Manchin is basically furious because Biden is speaking the truth in plain yet completely non-accusatory terms while he has been a slippery shit for months.

I had a productive call with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer earlier today. I briefed them on the most recent discussions that my staff and I have held with Senator Manchin about Build Back Better. In these discussions, Senator Manchin has reiterated his support for Build Back Better funding at the level of the framework plan I announced in September. I believe that we will bridge our differences and advance the Build Back Better plan, even in the face of fierce Republican opposition.

My team and I are having ongoing discussions with Senator Manchin; that work will continue next week. It takes time to finalize these agreements, prepare the legislative changes, and finish all the parliamentary and procedural steps needed to enable a Senate vote. We will advance this work together over the days and weeks ahead; Leader Schumer and I are determined to see the bill successfully on the floor as early as possible.

[Albert]

Dec 21, 2021 21:21:20 GMT Traveler said:

The progs played their cards exceedingly poorly when it came down to wire. Remember, if you want big things, you gotta have the votes. Dem woke policies lost winnable seats in 2020, and will lose many more next year. Talk about the gang that couldnt shoot straight.

No, as the Intercept noted, it was Biden and Pelosi who drank their own nostalgia addled kool-aide about 'deal-making', 'senate comradery' and their supposedly brilliant abilities in it, the power of vague gentleman's handshakes with bad faith actors, that they disregarded the obvious warning that the progressive crowd made about that the only way to get the reconciliation bill was to keep it tied to the IFB, the two track strategy. This was because big business desperately wanted the IFB and did not want the reconciliation bill in its entirety or large parts of it. They instructed their pocketed politicians to push for the former, and resist the latter. By decoupling the two bills, and passing the IFB, Biden immediately surrendered any leverage he had, and gave all the cards to the so-called moderates who never had much desire in BBB.

theintercept.com/2021/12/20/build-back-better-manchin-democrats/

(emphasis mine)

Ultimately, Biden and Pelosi pushed the progressive caucus to break with a two-track strategy they themselves had previously endorsed, based on a confidence in their own ability to move the final legislation through the process, born of decades of experience inside the system — experience that distorted their view of the situation and gave them an inflated sense of their own personal power absent sufficient leverage. They were successfully able to pressure Jayapal into going along, while the members of the Squad, peering in from the outside, could see the firm contours of the structure much more clearly. It’s impossible to know what would have happened in a counterfactual situation, in which progressives would have continued to hold the infrastructure bill as leverage. Jayapal argued the leverage wouldn’t have worked on Manchin; the infrastructure bill was much more of a priority to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. Yet the bipartisan bill was indeed something Manchin wanted, both for his state and for his reelection.

This is the inevitable result of having an entire party system based around the desires of 80 year old gerontocrats who are mentally trapped in an imagine bygone era that will never return:

Nevermind the fact that almost no one in the general public knows anything about BBB or what's in it, because Biden made zero efforts to sell it to the public, rally them to his side, or explain what's in it, instead opting for a completely technocratic and bizarre strategy of passing the bill first and then retroactively selling it to the public. The shallow public support for this bill arises from the fact that the public was basically excluded from the process, making it even easier for opponents of the bill to kill it without repercussion.  

Biden has done a record low 10 press interviews - far lower than Trump or Obama - this year, barely putting any effort into communicating with the public, almost as if he's checked out of the job. For someone who was supposed to be an experienced hand with supposedly decades of experience in getting things done, he has a pretty pathetic grasp of politics. Even the most crazed and sinister Republican operatives understand the importance of mass public mobilization. The Heritage Foundation/wingnut went to work organizing Tea Party rallies immediately after the 2008 election, and spent 2 years creating the Tea Party movement from thin air, and then riling it up, before they rode the wave to congress in 2010.

[goldenvalley]

Dec 23, 2021 14:50:01 GMT Albert said:

No, as the Intercept noted, it was Biden and Pelosi who drank their own nostalgia addled kool-aide about 'deal-making', 'senate comradery' and their supposedly brilliant abilities in it, the power of vague gentleman's handshakes with bad faith actors, that they disregarded the obvious warning that the progressive crowd made about that the only way to get the reconciliation bill was to keep it tied to the IFB, the two track strategy. This was because big business desperately wanted the IFB and did not want the reconciliation bill in its entirety or large parts of it. They instructed their pocketed politicians to push for the former, and resist the latter. By decoupling the two bills, and passing the IFB, Biden immediately surrendered any leverage he had, and gave all the cards to the so-called moderates who never had much desire in BBB.

Nevermind the fact that almost no one in the general public knows anything about BBB or what's in it, because Biden made zero efforts to sell it to the public, rally them to his side, or explain what's in it, instead opting for a completely technocratic and bizarre strategy of passing the bill first and then retroactively selling it to the public. The shallow public support for this bill arises from the fact that the public was basically excluded from the process, making it even easier for opponents of the bill to kill it without repercussion.  

Biden has done a record low 10 press interviews - far lower than Trump or Obama - this year, barely putting any effort into communicating with the public, almost as if he's checked out of the job. For someone who was supposed to be an experienced hand with supposedly decades of experience in getting things done, he has a pretty pathetic grasp of politics. Even the most crazed and sinister Republican operatives understand the importance of mass public mobilization. The Heritage Foundation/wingnut went to work organizing Tea Party rallies immediately after the 2008 election, and spent 2 years creating the Tea Party movement from thin air, and then riling it up, before they rode the wave to congress in 2010.

Given that the Senate is split 50/50 (ostensibly at least) I just don't know what really could move the ball with Manchin.  Different rhetoric, more rhetoric, more or less press conferences...Manchin is a 90's guy and he likes to play to his constituency.  He knows they don't want undeserving, potential cheaters to get anything...and that they'd rather have no program at all than to have a program that lets a single person gain something for nothing.  Biden and Pelosi had to dance with Manchin to achieve anything and they tried.  He proved to be impervious to the "leverage" of holding up hard infrastructure over the BBB.  In the end, a bird in the hand, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, was too attractive to the House members that feared nothing would pass this year if they held out for BBB too. 

I don't see that public sentiment moves bills in Washington DC...only negative public sentiment has any impact.  I also don't see that most average folks have any clue what is going on in DC or their own state capitals most of the time.  They've tuned out and have been that way for years.  It takes a Trump to get folks riled up enough to pay attention and that is emotion based.

[Albert]

Dec 23, 2021 19:15:28 GMT goldenvalley said:

Dec 23, 2021 14:50:01 GMT Albert said:

No, as the Intercept noted, it was Biden and Pelosi who drank their own nostalgia addled kool-aide about 'deal-making', 'senate comradery' and their supposedly brilliant abilities in it, the power of vague gentleman's handshakes with bad faith actors, that they disregarded the obvious warning that the progressive crowd made about that the only way to get the reconciliation bill was to keep it tied to the IFB, the two track strategy. This was because big business desperately wanted the IFB and did not want the reconciliation bill in its entirety or large parts of it. They instructed their pocketed politicians to push for the former, and resist the latter. By decoupling the two bills, and passing the IFB, Biden immediately surrendered any leverage he had, and gave all the cards to the so-called moderates who never had much desire in BBB.

Nevermind the fact that almost no one in the general public knows anything about BBB or what's in it, because Biden made zero efforts to sell it to the public, rally them to his side, or explain what's in it, instead opting for a completely technocratic and bizarre strategy of passing the bill first and then retroactively selling it to the public. The shallow public support for this bill arises from the fact that the public was basically excluded from the process, making it even easier for opponents of the bill to kill it without repercussion.  

Biden has done a record low 10 press interviews - far lower than Trump or Obama - this year, barely putting any effort into communicating with the public, almost as if he's checked out of the job. For someone who was supposed to be an experienced hand with supposedly decades of experience in getting things done, he has a pretty pathetic grasp of politics. Even the most crazed and sinister Republican operatives understand the importance of mass public mobilization. The Heritage Foundation/wingnut went to work organizing Tea Party rallies immediately after the 2008 election, and spent 2 years creating the Tea Party movement from thin air, and then riling it up, before they rode the wave to congress in 2010.

Given that the Senate is split 50/50 (ostensibly at least) I just don't know what really could move the ball with Manchin.  Different rhetoric, more rhetoric, more or less press conferences...Manchin is a 90's guy and he likes to play to his constituency.  He knows they don't want undeserving, potential cheaters to get anything...and that they'd rather have no program at all than to have a program that lets a single person gain something for nothing.  Biden and Pelosi had to dance with Manchin to achieve anything and they tried.  He proved to be impervious to the "leverage" of holding up hard infrastructure over the BBB.  In the end, a bird in the hand, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, was too attractive to the House members that feared nothing would pass this year if they held out for BBB too. 

I don't see that public sentiment moves bills in Washington DC...only negative public sentiment has any impact.  I also don't see that most average folks have any clue what is going on in DC or their own state capitals most of the time.  They've tuned out and have been that way for years.  It takes a Trump to get folks riled up enough to pay attention and that is emotion based.

As I noted, Manchin and Sinema both desperately wanted to pass the IFB because it was extremely popular with various business constituencies, and both see it as helpful to their reelection prospects, should they pursue reelection, though it increasingly looks likely they might both retire to the 'private sector'.

The only hope they had was a) to keep the two bills tied together, and b) tour the country (during periods when Covid was temporarily repressed), and plaster all the airwaves with 2-3 of the most pivotal aspects of BBB, and build support for them. That would have placed pressure on Manchin, and made it much more difficult, as opposed to now where the support for BBB is so threadbare, Manchin can throw water on it and walk away without any fear of backlash. Even in a world without Manchin and Sinema and a Democratic supermajority, you *always* mobilize the public for major legislation, that's just politics 101.

Might he have still killed it? Maybe. But you'll never know until you try it. Modern day Democrats have a strange strategy of having a defeatist attitude, 'We've barely tried anything, and we're all out of ideas.', apparently forgetting that the most legislatively successful presidents (Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan) used an all-out approach, faced many set backs and failures on the way to getting what they want. Using an ultra-cautious 'the chances of success are low, so we shouldn't try anything' is a guaranteed surefire way to failure.

The GOP understands the utility and efficacy of doing the organizational of building grassroots support for their policies over many years, even if they initially fail. See the transition from Goldwater to Reagan, or Tea Party to Trump. The Democrats, moderates and progressives alike, live in a DC bubble, where they don't engage their own base, they in fact demobilize them, and then spend all their time trying to win the favour of pundits, commentariat types like your David Brooks and Ezra Kleins.

[jackd]

There is zero parallel between Biden's situation and that of Roosevelt, Johnson. Nixon, and Reagan.

[goldenvalley]

Dec 24, 2021 1:21:39 GMT Albert said:

Dec 23, 2021 19:15:28 GMT goldenvalley said:

Given that the Senate is split 50/50 (ostensibly at least) I just don't know what really could move the ball with Manchin.  Different rhetoric, more rhetoric, more or less press conferences...Manchin is a 90's guy and he likes to play to his constituency.  He knows they don't want undeserving, potential cheaters to get anything...and that they'd rather have no program at all than to have a program that lets a single person gain something for nothing.  Biden and Pelosi had to dance with Manchin to achieve anything and they tried.  He proved to be impervious to the "leverage" of holding up hard infrastructure over the BBB.  In the end, a bird in the hand, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, was too attractive to the House members that feared nothing would pass this year if they held out for BBB too. 

I don't see that public sentiment moves bills in Washington DC...only negative public sentiment has any impact.  I also don't see that most average folks have any clue what is going on in DC or their own state capitals most of the time.  They've tuned out and have been that way for years.  It takes a Trump to get folks riled up enough to pay attention and that is emotion based.

The GOP understands the utility and efficacy of doing the organizational of building grassroots support for their policies over many years, even if they initially fail. See the transition from Goldwater to Reagan, or Tea Party to Trump. The Democrats, moderates and progressives alike, live in a DC bubble, where they don't engage their own base, they in fact demobilize them, and then spend all their time trying to win the favour of pundits, commentariat types like your David Brooks and Ezra Kleins.

I agree the GOP understands the utility of riling up the base with emotion packed grievance politics.  Negativity is powerful. Communists--bad.  Taxes--bad. Muslims--bad. Entitlements, welfare--bad!  CRT (whatever that is)--bad!

Building something positive takes time. Obamacare wasn't popular until people saw that it worked (and it should have included a public option but that is unpopular).  The Tea Party was Astroturf.  The real public snoozed through the creation of that and didn't wake up until a few years later and then mobilized to keep Trump and company from killing it.

[Albert]

Dec 24, 2021 1:33:07 GMT jackd said:

There is zero parallel between Biden's situation and that of Roosevelt, Johnson. Nixon, and Reagan.

The parallel is obvious. Those four understood the importance of selling their programs to the public, and worked diligently to that aim, while Biden has mostly been missing in action from his own presidency. Reagan and Nixon in particular even understood that polls are not some Rosetta Stone of politics and are actually quite shallow and ephemeral, and that you can even change public opinion on fundamental things with concerted effort over time.

Biden's theory of politics is that you don't engage with the public at all, come up with a super convoluted bill with the help of the think tank world, make no effort to explain it to the public, you pass it in Congress, and then columnists at the Atlantic and the New York Times hail it as historic, and then somehow this will trickle down to the rest of the country, and voters who were apathetic beforehand will somehow magically come to see the boons of the bills and reward the Democrats at the midterms. Needless to say, none of that is going to happen.

Dec 24, 2021 3:00:33 GMT goldenvalley said:

Dec 24, 2021 1:21:39 GMT Albert said:

The GOP understands the utility and efficacy of doing the organizational of building grassroots support for their policies over many years, even if they initially fail. See the transition from Goldwater to Reagan, or Tea Party to Trump. The Democrats, moderates and progressives alike, live in a DC bubble, where they don't engage their own base, they in fact demobilize them, and then spend all their time trying to win the favour of pundits, commentariat types like your David Brooks and Ezra Kleins.

I agree the GOP understands the utility of riling up the base with emotion packed grievance politics.  Negativity is powerful. Communists--bad.  Taxes--bad. Muslims--bad. Entitlements, welfare--bad!  CRT (whatever that is)--bad!

Building something positive takes time. Obamacare wasn't popular until people saw that it worked (and it should have included a public option but that is unpopular).  The Tea Party was Astroturf.  The real public snoozed through the creation of that and didn't wake up until a few years later and then mobilized to keep Trump and company from killing it.

Mass mobilizations can take a positive valence or a negative one.

Obamacare is a pretty poor example, precisely because it's a technocratic scam that does *not* work. It's essentially the old Romney/Heritage Foundation Plan that they cooked up in the 80s when there were *mild* rumblings that someone like Ted Kennedy or someone might go for some form of government funded healthcare. So this was their 'reasonable' right wing market-friendly proposal to undercut that and 'solve' the problem of American healthcare on terms that were favourable to big business.

Obamacare does not provide universal coverage, it lets tens of millions of people fall through the cracks, and it does not confront the fundamental problem of American healthcare which is astronomic costs that are ever increasing, and mass inefficiencies inherent to American healthcare that are literally the result of private administrators doing fake work. Substandard outcomes for twice the price of peer nations basically, without even covering everyone. Obamacare was based on the delusion that somehow you could both allow the private healthcare system to keep reaping its rapacious profits and somehow provide affordable healthcare to people. You can't. There is a fundamental contradiction between those aims, and something has to give. Not only that, but Obamacare kept healthcare tied to employment, and we all saw the folly of that when the pandemic basically made tens of millions of Americans unemployed.

Obamacare wasn't merely unpopular because of GOP smears, it was unpopular because it was a poor mediocre piece of legislation by a disinterested president. It polled at 40-45% approval throughout Obama's entire presidency. It only got to a mediocre 50% approval when Trump tied dismantling it and 'repealing and replacing it' with nothing, and only then did American public opinion rally around the two or three things in Obamacare that are decent: Medicaid expansion, preexisting conditions, etc. But it's never going to achieve a high approval level, because Obamacare does not meaningfully address any of the fundamental problems in American healthcare. This is in stark contrast to various other countries who adopted some form of universal healthcare in the post-war era, including countries like Canada, UK, Germany, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. all of which have differing models (some governmental, others public-private hybrid), all of their healthcare systems have high levels of approval, regardless of political polarization in their societies, because their healthcare systems actually work and deliver. Obamacare does not.

It was political capital wasted on a mediocre program. If you're going to do that, you may as well stick your neck out for a program that has the possibility of actually delivering and shoring up public support over time.

[jackd]

The lack of parallel with Roosevelt and Johnson is particularly glaring. Both had significant majorities in Congress and in Johnson's case, when dealing with southern defection on civil rights, he had a Republican Party willing to work with him. Imagine that today!

[goldenvalley]

European countries were flat on their backs post WWII and had no problem accepting socialized or universal medicine. They had no illusions that prevented acceptance. The magic "market" of capitalism has been a religion in the US for generations.  Anything socialist/communist/Marxist is bad, that is part of the religion. Individual achievement is the only thing that matters.  Those who can't afford good medical care don't deserve it.  That is also part of the religion. It's tragic and it has stood in the way of real progress for people for generations.  All the efforts to put forth a good comprehensive health care system will fail until the religion loses its hold on people.  I hope the experience with Covid will change attitudes but it is a faint hope.

[pnwguy]

Dec 24, 2021 16:04:07 GMT goldenvalley said:

European countries were flat on their backs post WWII and had no problem accepting socialized or universal medicine. They had no illusions that prevented acceptance. The magic "market" of capitalism has been a religion in the US for generations.  Anything socialist/communist/Marxist is bad, that is part of the religion. Individual achievement is the only thing that matters.  Those who can't afford good medical care don't deserve it.  That is also part of the religion. It's tragic and it has stood in the way of real progress for people for generations.  All the efforts to put forth a good comprehensive health care system will fail until the religion loses its hold on people.  I hope the experience with Covid will change attitudes but it is a faint hope.

Hosanna to the gods of the market...

[goldenvalley]

A further thought on swinging big with economic plans...it won't work until voting rights are secured, partisan gerrymandering is derailed, and legislative bodies aren't allowed to throw out election results it doesn't like.  The way to move away from the gerontocracy, if you wish to call it that, is to make sure everyone can and does vote and that the votes actually count towards picking a person who is not part of that gerontocracy.  I see many 20 and 30 somethings passionate about climate change but it won't matter if their vote is gerrymandered out of significance.  

[AnBr]

Dec 25, 2021 2:18:58 GMT goldenvalley said:

A further thought on swinging big with economic plans...it won't work until voting rights are secured, partisan gerrymandering is derailed, and legislative bodies aren't allowed to throw out election results it doesn't like.  The way to move away from the gerontocracy, if you wish to call it that, is to make sure everyone can and does vote and that the votes actually count towards picking a person who is not part of that gerontocracy.  I see many 20 and 30 somethings passionate about climate change but it won't matter if their vote is gerrymandered out of significance.  

This, so much this. Easy to play "Monday Morning Quarterback" without recognizing political realities. As long as Moscow Mitch pulls the strings of the Republicans in the Senate little of significance will be passed, whether tied with something popular or severed or how it is championed from the bully pulpit. It is the same naïve assumption that all of the Sanders dead-enders made of assuming that all we need to make everything magically better is to just elect the right president. A solid majority (where monkey wrenches like Manchin or Sinema are nearly irrelevant) in both houses of Congress will bring us a lot closer to the desired goals than anything a President with the current Congress can ever hope to do. A super majority could even weather another tRump.

Unfortunately we have a Catch-22. To secure voting rights we need that Congress. To get that Congress we need to secure voting rights. We also need to recognize that the order of the most urgent needs is not exactly the same as the order required to achieve those goals, i.e. climate change action is probably the single most important thing for the survival of civilization, but any effort will fail until other goals are met like voting rights. Yes this realization is depressing, but it is the reality we have.

[Albert]

'Voting rights' are just a mirage, because if you actually examine the rhetoric and the actions of the leadership of the democratic party, they certainly don't *act* as if it's an existential struggle that is going to exclude them from the system for decades to come. They are completely nonchalant and lackadaisical about it. It's just rhetoric to rile up the base, and give the illusion that they're working on some historic protection of Democracy, but their actions completely belie that.

This is all the way back from earlier this year:

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/democrats-voting-rights-filibuster/618964/

We're halfway through to the mid-terms, and there has been virtually no movement on it. 'Save voting rights' has become to the Democratic Party base what 'Repealing Obamacare' was to the GOP base for years. It's something that excites the base, but party elders do not actually care about or treat seriously. But it certainly gives the impression that they're taking on a historic task: Saving Democracy!

[jackd]

You've heard, perhaps, of Senator Manchin and the filibuster?

[goldenvalley]

Dec 26, 2021 4:34:22 GMT Albert said:

'Voting rights' are just a mirage, because if you actually examine the rhetoric and the actions of the leadership of the democratic party, they certainly don't *act* as if it's an existential struggle that is going to exclude them from the system for decades to come. They are completely nonchalant and lackadaisical about it. It's just rhetoric to rile up the base, and give the illusion that they're working on some historic protection of Democracy, but their actions completely belie that.

This is all the way back from earlier this year:

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/democrats-voting-rights-filibuster/618964/

We're halfway through to the mid-terms, and there has been virtually no movement on it. 'Save voting rights' has become to the Democratic Party base what 'Repealing Obamacare' was to the GOP base for years. It's something that excites the base, but party elders do not actually care about or treat seriously. But it certainly gives the impression that they're taking on a historic task: Saving Democracy!

I think the Democrats made a miscalculation in thinking that if they could get some economic stuff passed people would love them and then they could turn to voting rights. They had the For the People Act that was actually introduced in 2019, written before states started trying to overturn whole elections by giving legislatures the power to do so. But they didn't realize that the Republicans in the Senate would decide that unity was the most important aspect for their "work" this term and everything would be filibustered. That decision was evident when few voted for impeachment.   But even if they turned to voting rights first, see jackd's comments on filibuster.  Things cannot get done in a 50/50 split when one side has decided to oppose most everything suggested by the other side and a few use the sanctity of the filibuster as an excuse not to join their own side. 

[LFC]

Another Republican wanting credit for the bill she voted against. What a piece of shit.

Yet Another GOPer Tries To Take Credit For Infrastructure Funds She Voted Against

Rep. Ashley Hinton (R-IA) on Wednesday proudly announced that “we” have secured new “game-changing” federal funding to upgrade dams along the Upper Mississippi River that came from the bipartisan infrastructure bill — aka the “partisan, socialist spending spree” that she tried to shoot down when it was up for a vote.

[LFC]

I think it's abundantly clear that Manchin long ago decided to destroy even the smallest version of Build Back Better that might be proposed. At this point he's gleefully killing time to kill the policy.

A buoyant Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is back in the Senate Thursday after collaborating with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Senate Republicans to uphold the filibuster and block voting rights legislation.

Less than pleased with the pressure campaign his fellow Democrats mounted against him, he’s sliding back into his old role smoothly: chief antagonist to Democrats’ attempts to pass the Build Back Better reconciliation bill.

When asked if his old offer to the White House was still on the table, he cheerfully said no.

“I’m hoping to talk to everybody — we’ll just start with a clean sheet of paper and start over,” he told reporters. “We’ll just be starting from scratch, whenever we start.”

At this point, Manchin could craft the reconciliation bill any way he wanted. He could stuff it with goodies for West Virginia, demand it be renamed the “Joe Manchin Is The World’s Sexiest Man Act.” Instead, he’s choosing to start over. After forcing months of delay, he will apparently burn more clock. It sure seems like he’s trying to drag the process out so long that Republicans retake at least one chamber of Congress, killing the bill for good.

“It’s not just this vote,” an angry Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said Wednesday after Manchin and Sinema killed the filibuster reform. “These are people who I think have undermined the President of the United States. They have forced us to go through five months of discussions which have gotten absolutely nowhere.”

He's the Ben Nelson of his day, only worse.

[AnBr]

Bernie Sanders Is Mad as Hell at Sinema and Manchin's ‘Sabotage’ of Biden’s Agenda

Speaking about President Joe Biden’s stalled legislative agenda, Sen. Bernie Sanders accused Democratic Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin of using “sabotage” to block both Build Back Better and legislation that would shore up voting rights against Republican voter suppression. The GOP meanwhile, he said, is “laughing all the way to election day.”

“You got 50 Republicans who don’t want to do anything except criticize the president,” Sanders said on CNN’s State of the Union. “You have, sadly enough, two Democrats who choose to work with the Republicans rather than the president and who have sabotaged the president’s efforts to address the needs of working families in this country. Is it frustrating? It sure is.”

[goldenvalley]

I'm sure some sort of conspiratorial theory will arise to explain how a bridge in Pittsburgh goes down on the very day the President is visiting there to talk about infrastructure.  But I post this because of the age of the bridge and its reported condition:

Gainey told reporters that the bridge, which was built in 1970, was last inspected in September 2021. It’s not immediately clear whether any issues were reported during the most recent inspection.

The bridge — which has been estimated to carry about 14,500 vehicles a day — has been rated in poor condition in inspections dating back to 2011, according to the U.S. Transportation Department’s National Bridge Inventory. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation notes that a poor rating of a state bridge means that “deterioration of primary structural elements has advanced.” A September 2019 inspection of the city-owned Fern Hollow Bridge found that both its superstructure and deck were in poor condition.

How lucky have we been that bridges aren't falling down all over the country?  And how long will that luck hold out?

[goldenvalley]

In all the caterwauling about the infrastructure bill being too big or BBB being too big no one mentions a key component to spending federal money...appropriations and a budget.

Nearly three months after President Biden signed a roughly $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill into law, federal transportation officials say much of their work is on hold — stuck in limbo as a result of an unresolved congressional fight over federal spending.
The result is billions of dollars unable to be spent, blunting the immediate impact of one of President Biden’s signature accomplishments.

“A significant portion of our highway, transit and safety programs are limited” by caps in the existing federal budget, said Carlos Monje Jr., the Transportation Department’s third-highest-ranking official. “Without congressional actions, we aren’t going to be able to move on many of the new programs funded in the bill.” 

-snip-

The issues stem from what Monje called a “wonderful dance” between lawmakers who authorize federal spending and those who appropriate the money. The infrastructure bill authorized the money to be spent, but in many cases, it still needs a second round of approval in the form of an appropriation. Congress hasn’t been able to agree on spending for the budget year that began in October, and instead has been rolling forward last year’s appropriations. That approach does not include the increase in transportation spending.

The continuing resolution passed last August or September will expire mid February.  Without a budget or another continuing resolution all infrastructure spending will stop.  Meanwhile back in DC, Congress is arguing.

Yet lawmakers long have been divided over the specifics of the budget. Democrats hope to approve massive boosts to federal domestic agencies, no longer capped by a law that limited such spending for a decade. To that end, Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.), the House’s top appropriator, led her party toward approving about a dozen spending bills that financed Biden’s proposals to expand federal health care, education and science programs.

But the appropriations process became bogged down in the evenly divided Senate. Republicans, led by Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), have rejected the scope of Democrats’ spending plans, opposed some of Democrats’ policy priorities and sought, instead, to boost the budget at the Pentagon.

Talks between the two sides have continued into this year, according to congressional aides, who in recent days have expressed optimism about a deal. Absent an agreement, Congress would need to adopt another short-term measure — further delaying parts of the infrastructure law.

Yeah the Pentagon needs more money...

[LFC]

Manchin declares BBB dead. Gee, what a shock.

“What Build Back Better bill?” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said incredulously when asked by reporters Tuesday about progress on the legislation.

“I don’t know what you all are talking about,” he continued. “No, no, no — it’s dead.”

And with that, Manchin drove a spike into the heart of President Joe Biden’s signature legislation, which he had already shot down late last year.

After dragging negotiations out for months, he left the bargaining table in December, later citing his anger with how he’d been treated by White House staffers.

Awesome, so he killed it and admitted that he's a f***ing butthurt little child who should never have been allowed to hold his office.

[pnwguy]

Feb 1, 2022 18:27:22 GMT LFC said:

Manchin declares BBB dead. Gee, what a shock.
]Awesome, so he killed it and admitted that he's a f***ing butthurt little child who should never have been allowed to hold his office.

But he represents the most Trumpian state. What better way to hold his office by acting like Trump. "See, I'm just as petulant and childish as the Dear Leader!"

[LFC]

Sen. Joe Manchin, the most corrupt Democrat in Congress? I've only read about the first third and I'm revolted. Unfortunately watching Manchin in action I'm not surprised.

As governor, Joe Manchin supported an unusual detail in a clean energy bill that was moving through the West Virginia Legislature in 2009.

The provision classified waste coal as an alternative energy.

The muddy mix of discarded coal and rocks is one of the most carbon-intensive fuels in America. And Manchin’s family business stood to benefit financially when it was reclassified as something akin to solar, wind and hydropower.

Selling the scrap coal has earned Manchin millions of dollars over three decades, and he has used his political positions to protect the fuel — and a single power plant in West Virginia that burns it — from laws and regulations that also threatened his family business.

It continues today.

Only now Manchin has enormous influence over federal climate policy. He is using his chair role of the energy committee — and role as maverick Democrat – to shape environmental policy across the states.

His opposition in December to a sweeping $1.7 trillion social spending bill known as Build Back Better ruptured one of the most ambitious climate packages in U.S. history.

Then last week Manchin offered what stands to be his final word on the bill: “It’s dead,” he said.

Manchin’s political power over the clean energy sector has national implications today. But he has wielded his influence for years. And one of his main goals has always been to protect coal.

He will literally let the world burn for money.

[LFC]

Cawthorn goes typical Republican, trying to take credit for the very thing he voted against. He got called out on it by an opposition group which is not good when you already have 7 primary challengers for your seat.

Rep. Madison Cawthorn’s (R-NC) photo-op touting the infrastructure funding for his district that came from the bipartisan infrastructure package (BIF) didn’t go quite as planned on Thursday.

A video published by American Muckrakers PAC, a Cawthorn opposition group, shows the GOP lawmaker being confronted by a person off-screen who asked him point-blank if he actually voted for the funds.

“This particular appropriation we advocated for in the appropriations [inaudible], but the larger bill we voted against,” Cawthorn replied as he posed with a giant check in front of the cameras.

“Did you vote for it, though?” the questioner pressed.

“As I just said, I think the larger bill we voted against,” the Republican replied tersely.

Cawthorn, who’s running for reelection against seven primary challengers, finds himself positively drowning in bad headlines lately: He was charged with driving with a revoked license earlier this month in his third traffic violation, he’s come under fire from members of his own party after he went off on a deranged tirade against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a group of North Carolina voters are still trying to get him disqualified from office over his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, even after a Trump-appointed judge blocked their effort.

[LFC]

The Inflation Reduction Act passed the House. The funny part is how Republicans are twisting themselves in knots (a.k.a. lying) to try to score some kind of political points.

Republicans’ False IRS Claims

During the hours of debate ahead of the vote, many Republicans coalesced behind the same (false) talking point: that the bill will mean the employment of 87,000 new, armed IRS agents who will target middle-income families.

The 87,000 number comes from a 2021 Treasury Department report, specific to previous legislation, which estimated that funding from the Biden administration would allow the hiring of 86,852 full-time IRS employees by 2031.

Despite the Republican spin, not all of those employees will be working in enforcement, but will be spread across various departments. The IRS has been hollowed out and is struggling to shoulder its workload. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen also directed the agency this week not to increase its audit rate on households making less than $400,000 a year.

There was much back and forth between House members on the non-issue. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) first made the false claim, at high volume.

A chuckling Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) called it a “totally fabricated number.” “And that they’re armed?” he began.

“I know that Ms. Boebert would like everybody to be armed, as they are in her restaurant, but that’s not what IRS agents do,” he quipped.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, sent out a statement responding to the claims Friday morning.

“Given the social media chatter we’re already seeing, it’s all too easy to imagine individuals using these conspiracy theories as justification for violence against public servants and their families,” he said. “It’s unbelievable that we even need to say this, but there are not going to be 87,000 armed IRS agents going door-to-door with assault weapons.”