Investment in American Infrastructure

[LFC]

Jun 25, 2021 20:54:17 GMT indy said:

Why did Dems decide to hack out the hard infrastructure into a separate bill at all? If they were going to pass a reconciliation bill, why include Republicans? The only way this process makes sense is if moderate Dems insisted on it. And, you know, now the GOP has talking points about...well, whatever they're crying about...so those moderate Dems are the ones who got played.

I really don't get that position. Other than Manchin and Sinema who have egg on their face now that the bad faith screeching of the GOP is in full view I don't see how any other Dems got played. There were only two scenarios I can see happening.

1) (Didn't Happen) Dems go full speed ahead on just reconciliation.

2) (Existing) Dems give Manchin and Sinema a chance to work things out and Republicans to prove they want to actually accomplish something for the country. Republicans make a show, blow it up, refuse to vote for their own bill, and the Dems go full speed ahead on just reconciliation.

What part am I missing? It's certainly nothing to do with the MAGAts because they're automatons who were programmed long ago. As long as Manchin or Sinema don't burn it to the ground the Dems are in a better position for 2022 than if they took the go it alone approach. "The Republicans voted against their own bill but don't worry we got it done." It's certainly better than "We ignored the Republicans and got it done."

[jackd]

Indy,you were the one suggesting an empty shell. Clearly, if the House passes a complete bill and sends it to the 'Senate, there's no problem. Nancy Pelosi had stated she wasn't going to send the bipartisan bill to the floor until the reconciliation bill was passed in the Senate. The problem at the time she said that was that Manchin and Sinema were not publicly on board on reconciliation. Now they, or at least Manchin, apparently are. Whether they are if the bipartisan bill doesn't pass is unknown to me. This seems to be boiling down to the Republicans in the Senate refusing to pass the bipartisan bill and Democrats assuming they've got their Senators on board with the Reconciliation bill regardless. I hope they're right but, as my Dad used to say about fishing, it doesn't count until it's in the box.

[indy]

Jun 25, 2021 21:06:47 GMT LFC said:

Jun 25, 2021 20:54:17 GMT indy said:

Why did Dems decide to hack out the hard infrastructure into a separate bill at all? If they were going to pass a reconciliation bill, why include Republicans? The only way this process makes sense is if moderate Dems insisted on it. And, you know, now the GOP has talking points about...well, whatever they're crying about...so those moderate Dems are the ones who got played.

I really don't get that position. Other than Manchin and Sinema who have egg on their face now that the bad faith screeching of the GOP is in full view I don't see how any other Dems got played. There were only two scenarios I can see happening.

1) (Didn't Happen) Dems go full speed ahead on just reconciliation.

2) (Existing) Dems give Manchin and Sinema a chance to work things out and Republicans to prove they want to actually accomplish something for the country. Republicans make a show, blow it up, refuse to vote for their own bill, and the Dems go full speed ahead on just reconciliation.

What part am I missing? It's certainly nothing to do with the MAGAts because they're automatons who were programmed long ago. As long as Manchin or Sinema don't burn it to the ground the Dems are in a better position for 2022 than if they took the go it alone approach. "The Republicans voted against their own bill but don't worry we got it done." It's certainly better than "We ignored the Republicans and got it done."

Well, Manchin and Sinema (along with some others because there are more) is who I was referring to, so maybe moderate dems is the wrong moniker to use. MySpace Mob? Napster Posse? Something that is more properly reflective of people living in the past.

[indy]

Jun 25, 2021 21:08:54 GMT jackd said:

Indy,you were the one suggesting an empty shell. Clearly, if the House passes a complete bill and sends it to the 'Senate, there's no problem. Nancy Pelosi had stated she wasn't going to send the bipartisan bill to the floor until the reconciliation bill was passed in the Senate. The problem at the time she said that was that Manchin and Sinema were not publicly on board on reconciliation. Now they, or at least Manchin, apparently are. Whether they are if the bipartisan bill doesn't pass is unknown to me. This seems to be boiling down to the Republicans in the Senate refusing to pass the bipartisan bill and Democrats assuming they've got their Senators on board with the Reconciliation bill regardless. I hope they're right but, as my Dad used to say about fishing, it doesn't count until it's in the box.

Ah OK. I was referring to using that as a vehicle for the bipartisan bill, not the reconciliation bill.

I have no idea obviously what the chances of a reconciliation bill are, regardless of whether or not Republicans actually join on passing the bipartisan bill. I do think this attempt for bipartisanship was a prerequisite to even get Manchin and the rest to the table to consider reconciliation. But even after they are at the table, anything can happen, so I didn't mean to imply I thought it was actually going to happen, only that there is a dance of some sort going on.

[jackd]

Now, President Biden is walking back his statement that he wouldn't sign one without the other. Republican Senate outrage seems to have gotten his attention. Also, Manchin recently made noises about the reconciliation bill being "too big". No telling where this ends up.

[LFC]

The Republican meltdown over Biden's support of passing both the bipartisan portion and a reconciliation bill has, predictably, been picked up and parroted by the media. Josh Marshall dissects the MSM's latest desperate need to pump up the supposed controversy that is not actually really much of a controversy at all. 

I’ve written over many years that despite the seesawing of control in Congress and executive branch, Washington remains wired for the GOP. We’re seeing another striking example of that in the way most establishment DC press outlets are are treating the brouhaha over President Biden’s alleged ‘veto threat’. We started with Biden stating openly what all the parties to the proposed bipartisan legislation know, which is that for Democrats it’s a package deal. Democrats know that. Republicans know that. The reporters know that. And yet the same folks have decided to take the feigned Republican freakout entirely at face value regardless. Politico of all places was closer to the mark on Friday when they noted that it took a day for Republicans to realize they were upset and what about.

And it’s actually accelerated over the weekend.

Yesterday the conventional wisdom among DC reporters was that yes this was all known. But Biden stated it too openly. So it was excessive candor that upset a fragile bipartisan coalition rather than any change of strategy or position. But hear Annie Linskey in the Post last night: “President Biden on Saturday reversed a stand he had taken forcefully just two days earlier …” The weekend clarification statement has now gone from being a fuzzy and ambiguous statement muddying up linkage to an abject surrender after a forceful assertion of a new policy.

Or Alayna Treene and Hans Nichols in Axios (emphasis added) …

The bipartisan deal — which Biden both endorsed and threatened to reject in the same breath — is hanging by a thread, just days after the group of 21 Democratic and Republican senators celebrated a deal.

Biden spoiled the party by saying he viewed the $579 billion package as linked to a second, potentially $6 trillion-dollar package Democrats want to pass through the partisan reconciliation process.

The president tried to clean up the mess in a rare Saturday statement that all but contradicted his Thursday threat. “The bottom line is this: I gave my word to support the infrastructure plan, and that’s what I intend to do,” he said.

This copy might as well be written by the RNC.

What is this about?

There are a lot of different factors. But the underlying dynamic is bothsidesist reporting philosophy and the inherent advantage it gives to whichever side of a debate lies more or more aggressively feigns outrage over fictive sleights.

[LFC]

TPM describes the situation and says that the narrative that Biden pulled a fast one was never true. I thought he and Pelosi had but didn't realize just how common the knowledge of how this was proceeding really was throughout all of Congress. This is a great explanation. It also shows that Collins is still a pandering piece of shit.

As you’ve likely seen, President Biden put out a statement yesterday to settle the waters over the mostly pretextual Republican freakout over his saying he’d only sign both the bipartisan mini-infrastructure deal and a larger reconciliation (i.e., 50 vote) package. A lot of people rushed forward to claim vindication that Biden had in fact turned the tables on Republicans or “upended” the deal by some last minute switcheroo. That’s not the case. It’s really better seen as a nicely crafted bit of snowflake therapy. In Biden’s new statement he restates what was clear a week ago, clear three days ago and remains clear today: for him it’s a package deal.

Indeed, there are only Democratic votes for a package deal. What he doesn’t do in his new statement is state the matter as what Senate Republicans chose to interpret, not altogether unreasonably, as a veto threat. But Biden doesn’t have to. That’s the magic of control of both houses of Congress. You don’t have to choose. The bills won’t even get a vote or make their way to Biden’s desk unless it’s a package deal.

The entire issue here, the entire core of the negotiation, actually has nothing to do with Republicans. It’s about negotiations and agreements between Democrats. The only reason Republicans are even involved in one of the two parts of the package is as a way to secure a deal among Democrats – specifically between Biden, Chuck Schumer and Manchin and Sinema.

Indeed, in his statement Biden makes the heart of the matter really clear. Linkage – the idea that both bills must happen together to gain the President’s support, or indeed the support of congressional Democrats – has nothing to do with Republicans. It doesn’t rely on their votes. It asks nothing of them. It’s an agreement between Democrats about legislation Republicans universally oppose. That’s the awkwardness of the Republicans’ position. They can’t point to any pledge Biden has reneged on or new condition he’s placed on them.

Like a number of other big wheel publications, The New York Times has leaned into Republicans’ puffed up plaints, even going so far as including the by-now notorious handwringing of Sen. Susan Collins: “We never had an inkling that there would be any kind of linkage.”

Byron York meanwhile got it half right when he said Biden’s statement “hasn’t really clarified anything, probably because he said what he meant the first time.” He did say what he meant the first. He also said what he meant the second time. Indeed, he said basically the same thing both times, only in a slightly different way. Which only reminds us that this entire brouhaha is semantic, pretextual and fundamentally made up.

[LFC]

McConnell is melting down, as expected, over the fact that the Democrats no longer really believe in him, his party, their good faith, or their claims of bipartisanship. They're going it mostly alone because Moscow Mitch has proven for over a decade that this is the most reasonable path to take. Ignoring MM defangs him so he has to puff out his throat pouch to look big and threatening but he's mostly being ignored.

[LFC]

Biden explains ... well, basic politics. The thought that this is anything new under the sun is absurd, no matter how many Republicans play the butthurt card. And several Republicans are now making their own conciliatory noises.

A few Republican senators on Sunday put their constant whining about Democrats’ commitment to passing both the bipartisan infrastructure deal and President Biden’s more progressive infrastructure priorities together through a reconciliation package aside, following Biden’s statement that clarified that he is not issuing the veto threat that Republicans have fear-mongered about for days.

In his statement, issued Saturday, Biden said that it was not his intent to “create the impression that I was issuing a veto threat on the very plan I had just agreed to” after saying last week that he would not sign the bipartisan bill unless he could do so in “tandem” with a reconciliation bill.

“So to be clear,” he continued, “our bipartisan agreement does not preclude Republicans from attempting to defeat my Families Plan; likewise, they should have no objections to my devoted efforts to pass that Families Plan and other proposals in tandem. We will let the American people—and the Congress—decide.”

Biden said that he “fully stands behind (the bipartisan infrastructure proposal) without reservation or hesitation,” and acknowledged that his demand had “understandably upset some Republicans” such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who painted the President’s declaration last week as an implicit veto threat.

Biden’s statement on Saturday restated that both the bipartisan infrastructure deal and the budget reconciliation are a package deal — in which there are only Democratic votes for with Democrats having control of both chambers of Congress.

Here’s how a few Republicans on Sunday responded to Biden’s new statement clearing up the brouhaha they created:

[jackd]

I'm afraid I can't buy the TPM "explanation" of Biden's remarks and how the initial ones were heard by Republicans and progressive Democrats alike. In today's New York Times Bret Stephens characterized it as Biden initially getting out over his skis. I think that's right. It's not as though President Biden hasn't "mis-spoken" before. It does seem the problem has been cured by his subsequent statement. Now it seems to be a question of whether Manchin and Sinema will agree to the reconciliation effort, at least as to its size.

[LFC]

Jun 28, 2021 17:38:55 GMT jackd said:

I'm afraid I can't buy the TPM "explanation" of Biden's remarks and how the initial ones were heard by Republicans and progressive Democrats alike. In today's New York Times Bret Stephens characterized it as Biden initially getting out over his skis. I think that's right. It's not as though President Biden hasn't "mis-spoken" before. It does seem the problem has been cured by his subsequent statement.

It's all in the hands of Congressional Democrats. He said he'd sign the bill if it reaches his desk. Pelosi said it won't reach his desk without a corresponding reconciliation bill. I literally see nothing here that isn't pretty standard political machinations. The thought that this is some big scandal is ridiculous.

Jun 28, 2021 17:38:55 GMT jackd said:

Now it seems to be a question of whether Manchin and Sinema will agree to the reconciliation effort, at least as to its size.

But hasn't that always been the question literally for months?

On a follow-up TPM reports that Moscow Mitch just tipped his hand by demanding that the Democrats commit to not using reconciliation to pass their priorities. That's pretty brazen even for the High Priest of Hypocrisy. So the MSM fell into it, reported that it was all about surprise linkage, and MM just confirmed that it's really about his demand that he be allowed to set the Democrats' agenda. It's like a bad joke.

Thanks, Mitch!

No, really. Thanks to Mitch McConnell for confirming how he suckered most of the big DC publications with the faux drama over President Biden’s ‘veto threat’. The word from the bigs over the weekend was that yes, all knew that Democrats were proceeding with the two bills in tandem, that the two were linked. It was just that Biden made this too clear by saying he would not sign the bipartisan mini-bill if only that one came to his desk.

But now McConnell is helpfully clarifying that in fact he is objecting to what everyone knew in advance and that even he spoke about numerous times on the record.

McConnell is now insisting that Democrats commit to not passing a reconciliation bill or making any commitments within the Democratic caucus – between Democrats – to do both as the cost of Republicans sticking with the bipartisan mini-bill. In other words, he is confirming that the whole ‘linkage’ freakout was no more than pretextual nonsense used with the aim of using the mini-bill as a wedge not to find common ground where the two parties could but to sabotage the rest of the President’s agenda.

These worthies, with generous hearts, stepped forward to take McConnell’s claims of being stunned, hoodwinked, done dirty at face value and now he repays them like this. You hate to see it.

[Deleted]

Democrats should agree to McConnell's condition, with one of their own. No Republican Senator should use or threaten to use or even mention the word filibuster under any circumstance for the next 4 years. If both parties agree then Bob's your uncle.

[LFC]

Jun 28, 2021 18:59:02 GMT @probabilistic3 said:

No Republican Senator should use or threaten to use or even mention the word filibuster under any circumstance for the next 4 years.

I have video of Mitch McConnell should he lose the minority veto power of the filibuster.

[goldenvalley]

Once again the 24/7 news cycle precludes thoughtful reporting and knowledge that political theater is just that…theater. Sitting back to watch as the events unfold is simply not an option ever considered in the drive to get the latest gossip and spun statements in the air and online.

[LFC]

More from TPM on the Republicans' faux outrage including quotes from multiple Congressional GOPers, including Moscow Mitch, who knew that both bills were being pushed all along. Now MM is demanding that the Dems don't pass a reconciliation bill with their own priorities.

At a June 15 press conference, McConnell was explicitly asked if it gave him “pause” that Democrats intended to pursue their own agenda after reaching the bipartisan deal.

“Well, I think the majority leader has indicated there will be a reconciliation effort,” McConnell said. “I think what they’re wrestling with is what will it contain. So we are anticipating, at some point, getting a reconciliation bill.”

Even way back in mid-May, a whole different set of Republican negotiators — since replaced after those talks stalled out — acknowledged the legitimacy of Democrats using reconciliation to pass more of their own infrastructure priorities after Biden told them he planned to.

“I mean, why wouldn’t we work with the President of the United States to improve our infrastructure or make any other improvements in the country?” Sen. Shelley Moore-Capito (R-WV), previously the head GOP negotiator, said according to an ABC reporter. “I mean, we know that they have that option,” she said of reconciliation, adding: “We used that option in 2017.”

[LFC]

WTF is wrong with Democrats? If you can't grasp that at this point you're in the midst of all-out trench warfare and Republicans have intentionally nuked bipartisanship then you really should just leave office and allow a realist to take your seat.

It’s the classic criticism of Democratic politicians: while Republicans tear up the rulebook and prioritize winning over all else, Democrats insist on teamwork even with bad-faith actors.

To put it more succinctly: Republicans are Lucy and Democrats, Charlie Brown. No matter how many times she snatches the football away, Charlie Brown obligingly kicks, getting a body full of bruises for trusting someone who has only ever shown that she can’t be trusted.

And this time it's not even Manchin or Sinema.

But old habits die hard.

For instance: Earlier this week, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), a member of the Senate Budget Committee handling reconciliation, suggested that if the bipartisan negotiations fall through, Democrats will just wrap the bipartisan deal, concessions to the GOP and all, into their reconciliation bill — a package not expected to get any Republican votes.

“We would say, ‘okay you killed the bipartisan deal. But okay, you gave us some good ideas,” he told reporters. “And you’re going to see your priorities included here in reconciliation.”

TPM reached out to Kaine’s office to see if the senator was just speculating, or if that option was on the table should bipartisan talks fail.

“Senator Kaine was saying that if Republicans are unwilling to help pass a bipartisan infrastructure package, then Democrats will take the burden to do a comprehensive infrastructure package on their shoulders and ensure that investments in critical areas like broadband, roads, bridges, water infrastructure and other needs are incorporated into a reconciliation bill,” a Kaine spokesperson said. “Just as he and his Democratic colleagues did when passing the American Rescue Plan, Senator Kaine wants to ensure that this reconciliation package includes priorities from Democrats and Republicans across the country.”

[goldenvalley]

Jul 6, 2021 14:28:46 GMT LFC said:

WTF is wrong with Democrats? If you can't grasp that at this point you're in the midst of all-out trench warfare and Republicans have intentionally nuked bipartisanship then you really should just leave office and allow a realist to take your seat.

It’s the classic criticism of Democratic politicians: while Republicans tear up the rulebook and prioritize winning over all else, Democrats insist on teamwork even with bad-faith actors.

To put it more succinctly: Republicans are Lucy and Democrats, Charlie Brown. No matter how many times she snatches the football away, Charlie Brown obligingly kicks, getting a body full of bruises for trusting someone who has only ever shown that she can’t be trusted.

And this time it's not even Manchin or Sinema.

But old habits die hard.

For instance: Earlier this week, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), a member of the Senate Budget Committee handling reconciliation, suggested that if the bipartisan negotiations fall through, Democrats will just wrap the bipartisan deal, concessions to the GOP and all, into their reconciliation bill — a package not expected to get any Republican votes.

“We would say, ‘okay you killed the bipartisan deal. But okay, you gave us some good ideas,” he told reporters. “And you’re going to see your priorities included here in reconciliation.”

TPM reached out to Kaine’s office to see if the senator was just speculating, or if that option was on the table should bipartisan talks fail.

“Senator Kaine was saying that if Republicans are unwilling to help pass a bipartisan infrastructure package, then Democrats will take the burden to do a comprehensive infrastructure package on their shoulders and ensure that investments in critical areas like broadband, roads, bridges, water infrastructure and other needs are incorporated into a reconciliation bill,” a Kaine spokesperson said. “Just as he and his Democratic colleagues did when passing the American Rescue Plan, Senator Kaine wants to ensure that this reconciliation package includes priorities from Democrats and Republicans across the country.”

I think they're trying to go over the heads of the Washington DC politicians to the voters to build up local public support.  Then they can point to the polling and say the constituents want this so you should vote for the bills and if you don't, then the constituents will be less likely to re-elect you.  It's a miscalculation. The desire to stick it to the Dems is too great.

[LFC]

Greg Sargent discussed some moderate Dems rumbling about reducing the cost of the infrastructure bill. He wants them pushed to justify reducing or eliminating specific funding provisions for their reduction, not just a mindless "I don't like that number" reduction. Makes sense. Anything else is intellectually lazy and politically cowardly. He also warned them to remember 2010 and the Affordable Care Act where mindless spending level demands caused a number of problems.

According to reports, the negotiations among Senate Democrats over President Biden’s infrastructure and jobs plans are running into some turbulence. Moderate Democrats want to cut the spending levels on the plans far below what the progressives want.

So let’s lay down a marker: If moderates are going to push for a dramatic downscaling, they should not be allowed to get away with doing so arbitrarily. They should be willing to declare exactly what they think should not be funded, defend it and say specifically what would be wrong with spending more.

Axios and Bloomberg report that some moderates on the Senate Budget Committee — which is drawing up plans for a “reconciliation” bill to pass the “human infrastructure” portion of Biden’s agenda — want to limit that spending to around $3 trillion or $3.5 trillion. That’s substantially short of the amount that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the committee chair, wants.

This disagreement is not unexpected. It is a natural outgrowth of the committee’s effort to fix on an amount of spending that can win all 50 Senate Democrats — and pass with no Republican support — moderates and progressives included.

The reconciliation bill — which would include investments in climate, children and families, education and health care — is proceeding on a separate track from the bipartisan Senate bill, which includes $579 billion in new spending on “hard” infrastructure.

Ultimately what ends up in the reconciliation bill will also be determined by whether the bipartisan one passes; if not, everything will end up in it. However that is destined to play out, a resolution laying out the top-line spending levels in the reconciliation measure will soon come up for a vote.

According to Bloomberg, senators like Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine, both Democrats of Virginia, want to keep the spending in the reconciliation bill down.

Obviously it’s unlikely that Sanders will get the $6 trillion in spending he wants. But if moderates do insist on bringing down the levels to their preferred degree, they cannot be permitted to do so arbitrarily, on the grounds that big expenditures just seem bad, so Democrats mustn’t do them.

We’ve been down this road before. As journalist Jonathan Cohn recounts in his monumental history of the Affordable Care Act, when Democrats were negotiating the bill in 2010, Senate and House moderates placed limits on spending levels they would countenance that seemed largely arbitrary.

Similarly, they also placed largely arbitrary limits on how much in tax increases on the wealthy they’d tolerate to pay for that spending.

“Conservative and moderate Democrats were desperate to hold down the 10-year budget figure, because they thought a big number would sound like ‘too much government’ and spook their voters,” Cohn told me.

Importantly, this had serious adverse consequences — not just policy consequences, but political ones, too. The seemingly arbitrary limit on spending, Cohn recounts, ended up translating most prominently into insufficient subsidies for coverage on the health insurance exchanges.

“You can draw a straight line from those decisions to some of the ACA's biggest political problems,” Cohn told me. “The lower subsidies left many middle-class people paying more for their coverage, contributing to the sense of ‘rate shock’ that dogged the program.”

[jackd]

You can't always get what you want.

[LFC]

Senate Democrats have reached a deal.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced last night that the Democratic senators involved in hammering out a reconciliation bill for infrastructure (and a lot of other stuff) landed on a $3.5 trillion proposal.

∙ Schumer stated that “every major program” that Biden originally proposed in his infrastructure plan is funded “in a robust way.”
∙ Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), a key centrist in the negotiations, said the bill would be “fully paid for.”
∙ Senate Budget Committee chair Bernie Sanders (I-VT) declared that the budget was “the most significant piece of legislation passed since the Great Depression.”
∙ The next step is getting all 50 Senate Democrats on board
∙ Beyond the topline number, most of the details of the proposal are still unknown.
∙ Biden will discuss the proposal with the senators today during a caucus lunch.

Meanwhile, GOP senators are still playing the phony outrage game over Democrats doing both a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a reconciliation bill on their own–a move Republicans were well aware would happen in advance despite their current bellyaching.

Republicans are, as expected, looking to bail on the "bipartisan" deal because it doesn't let them control everything else the Democrats do. Suck it up, buttercups. You're the ones who gave us Trump, Trump proved to be a train wreck, we then we had another election, and elections have consequences.

There were a few short, golden hours after the news broke that the White House and a bipartisan team of senators had come to an infrastructure framework agreement where the Republicans involved eagerly supported it.

“I think the overall integrity of the plan has been kept intact, and we’re working out a few questions on the payfors now, but I intend to support it,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told TPM when the deal was made in late June.

He added that he did not think the ongoing payfor debate was robust enough to derail the deal, saying “the priorities for projects and the underlying framework is a solid framework and I’m glad President Biden has come out and said that he would support it.”

Since then, the bipartisan plan has teetered on the brink of collapse on a weekly basis, as many of the Republicans involved in forging it seek a way out.

Everybody who said the Republicans were bargaining in bad faith, even the so-called "moderate" ones, is being proven correct. They just can't help themselves. Not getting things done that help the nation is part and parcel of being Republican now.

[LFC]

Time to shit or get off the pot, Republicans. Don't like it? Feeling rushed? Too f***ing bad. You spent a quarter century burning your trustworthiness to the ground. You don't get to pick it up out of the burning ashes like it never happened.

The Republican plan in the Senate for months has been to cause delay and create uncertainty. As Democrats got behind a global reconciliation outline last week, Republicans insisted they needed more time to finalize the bipartisan mini-bill. Now Chuck Schumer says it’s got to come to a vote this week. No more delays. We’re live-blogging that story is it unfolds on Capitol Hill.

[LFC]

TPM's headline says it all.

GOPers: We Need More Time To Stall Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill!

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) joins the chorus of Republicans complaining about the Wednesday vote that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) scheduled to move the bipartisan infrastructure bill to debate.

Per Bloomberg News:

Erik Wasson
@elwasson
INFRASTRUCTURE: @sensusancollins tell me that Schumer should call off Wednesday cloture vote since no way gang can get bill done by then

Collins’ demand for more time is not surprising. Some of her Republican colleagues said last week they won’t vote to proceed to debate on the measure before the bill’s text is finished. Schumer set the cloture vote deadline earlier this month, signaling he knows full well that without a deadline, Republicans will try to chew up calendar time with the bipartisan bill.

Schumer isn't going to be their chump and allow them to drag this out for another 6 months. If they want this they have to compromise, something they've already clearly refused to do on funding. And if they don't want to compromise then there's no reason to continue talking to them. Just dump the bill and head for reconciliation while saying, "Hey, we tried but they just couldn't get their act together."

[LFC]

Josh Marshall gives his take on the current bipartisan squabbling vs. the Democratic reconciliation bill. In full:

The insider sheets this morning paint Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats in a pretty tough bind, with Republicans holding most or all of the cards. Schumer is creating a put up or shut up moment for the bipartisan mini-bill by scheduling the first of several votes on the deal for this Wednesday. If Republicans don’t produce 10 votes, either 500 billion or a trillion of ‘hard’ infrastructure falls by the wayside and that in turn endangers the series of compromises that gets all 50 Democratic Senators lined up for the big infrastructure reconciliation package where most of the big progressive priorities are housed.

But this misstates the dynamics at play or rather places the initiative or leverage in Republican hands more than it is. Coverage in the big outfits like the Post seems entirely oblivious to this part of the story and takes Republican stalling tactics at face value, as no more than good faith efforts to write legislative language. Let’s start with the reality that this will be a months long, really complicated process. Democrats have to carry all of it alone with Republicans trying to upend it at every stage. Schumer is pressing forward aggressively now both because Republicans don’t hold the deciding hand here and to ensure that they don’t.

If Republicans won’t produce 10 votes for the bipartisan mini-bill, Democrats can simply pile that money into the reconciliation bill. While no one wants to say that out loud or say it too loudly, that looks like what they will do. (Bernie Sanders said it out loud yesterday.) Senate Democrats who feel a bipartisan package is a critical box to check will decide that that box has been checked, that Republicans sprinkled the mini-bill with bipartisan sparkly dust irrevocably even if fewer than ten of them or even none end up voting for it. “Good luck getting moderate Democrats in the House and Senate” to go for that, says Punchbowl’s morning newsletter. But my reporting and conversations with players in the process says that they eventually will.

Now, do it easily? No. But that’s not really the point. This is about who’s controlling the process. The central issue is whether Republicans are in charge of a central choke point that can derail or indefinitely delay the President’s entire infrastructure agenda. If everything is contingent on the bipartisan mini-bill and that only proceeds at the ever-receding point in future when Republicans are finally ready, then this is all a charade with Democrats playing the fools for Mitch McConnell. Democrats need to be able to say ‘We’ve got a reconciliation bill and a bipartisan mini-bill. We’re passing the first on our own. You can join us on the second or we can do that on our own too. Your choice. Both are getting passed either way.’

As I said, this is all about who’s controlling the process, who controls the timing. That’s why Schumer is insisting on moving ahead with the mini-bill this week. It’s a put up or shut up moment. It’s about maintaining control of the process. What Schumer and his colleagues have to finesse is that this all works as long moderates in the House and Senate don’t think any breakdown with the mini-bill is the fault of progressive Democrats. So far there’s little sign of that.

It’s always important to remember that this is fundamentally a negotiation between and among Democrats. It’s all about getting to 50 votes, holding every member of the Senate caucus on board and avoiding any stray stragglers in the House. Republicans are more pieces on the chess board than anyone playing the game. The whole drama over recent months has been about Republicans trying to use delaying tactics and the opaque nature of the Senate to promote themselves from pieces on the board to players at the table and Democrats attempts to prevent that. So far they have avoided that and last week’s compromise agreement on a $3.5 trillion reconciliation framework was a key part of that. Keeping that on track is what this week is about.

[jackd]

It's the only game available so they are trying to use it.

[Traveler]

Well we got some new developments yesterday. First, Manchin and Sinemma are on board with Schumer's take.  

It hasn’t all been smooth, and even some of his members had second thoughts on Tuesday. During a party lunch, Manchin debated Schumer about the merits of delaying the vote for a day or two past Wednesday while the bill is finalized and the two men had a one-one-one conversation afterward, according to attendees. Manchin’s request for a delay was first reported by CNN.

But Warner and Tester backed Schumer up, the attendees said. And by the time the lunch was over, Manchin appeared swayed by Schumer’s strategy and told reporters afterward that he respects the Democratic leader's commitment to the group’s work.

“Chuck has a strategy he’s working on, and I trust him when he tells me: 'Hey, we’re going to pass this bill. I want it to pass',” Manchin said. “I believe him.”

Bottom line, Manchin may well be on board with reconciliation if the POG bails on the bipartisan bill. Right now, that is his only focus.

Next, we see Biden marshalling the progs.  

President Joe Biden’s ability to navigate the diverse factions within his party will be put to the test this week, when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is expected to force a procedural vote on the bipartisan bill no one has seen. While many expect the Senate’s vote on the bipartisan deal to fail on Wednesday, negotiators continued to furiously work Tuesday to reach an agreement on how to pay for the package, which focuses on physical infrastructure.

Though the White House says it’s in constant contact with Pelosi and her team, passing nearly $4 trillion in spending for infrastructure projects, elder and child care, and paid leave remains a difficult task in a House where Democrats have just four votes to spare.

Now if those aholes would just take what they can get...