Bipartisan Infrastructure/3.5T Reconciliation/Gov Funding/Debt Ceiling (1 Viewer)

[coldseat]

Thought it would be good to have a place to discuss all the drama on Capitol Hill and whether Democrats will get any of this signed. Given that Republican have abandoned any responsibility of doing anything for the good of country it's on Dems to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. But as with the reconciliation bill, moderates are opposing this.

I'm really trying hard to understand why Manchin and Sinema are making the reconciliation bill process so difficult and how they think that benefits them? As far as I can see, all it's doing is raising the ire of the majority of democrats towards them. It's been well known for a long time now that both the Infrastructure bill and reconciliation bill were tied together. They worked so hard to get and "Bipartisan" Infrastructure bill together (because it was oh so important to them to work together) and passed in the Senate, but now want to slow drag and bulk on the reconciliation bill (by not being able to negotiate with members of their own party)? There by, Putting both bills passage at risk and tanking both the Biden agenda and any hope of winning Congress in 2022? Make it make sense!

I suspect they'll get it done in the end because the implication of failure are really bad. But why make it so dysfunctional?

The drama and diplomacy are set to intensify over the next 24 hours, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) scrambles to keep her fractious, narrow majority intact and send the first of two major economic initiatives to Biden’s desk. In a sign of the stakes, the president even canceled a planned Wednesday trip to Chicago so that he could stay in Washington and attempt to spare his agenda from collapse.
Democrats generally support the infrastructure package, which proposes major new investments in the country’s aging roads, bridges, pipes, ports and Internet connections. But the bill has become a critical political bargaining chip for liberal-leaning lawmakers, who have threatened to scuttle it to preserve the breadth of a second, roughly $3.5 trillion economic package.
What is in and out of the bipartisan infrastructure bill?
That latter proposal aims to expand Medicare, invest new sums to combat climate change, offer free prekindergarten and community college to all students and extend new aid to low-income families — all financed through taxes increases on wealthy Americans and corporations. Liberals fear it is likely to be slashed in scope dramatically by moderates, including Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), unless they hold up the infrastructure package the duo helped negotiate — leading to the stalemate that plagues the party on the eve of the House vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/09/29/biden-pelosi-democrats-infrastructure/

 

[MT15]

All good, SFL, there were two in two different threads.

 

[MT15]

I am not an economic policy nerd, but I believe Moody’s has good news about Biden’s plans:

https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-of-the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-and-build-back-better-framework.pdf

 

[zztop]

some may find this interesting

Congress designates Interstate 14 across five states with I-14 corridor through San Angelo

The I-14 Corridor across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia will be built primarily by incrementally upgrading existing highways.

www.gosanangelo.com

The newly designated I-14 route runs from Midland-Odessa across Central Texas then to Alexandria, Louisiana, Laurel, Mississippi, Montgomery, Alabama, and Columbus, Georgia before terminating at Augusta, Georgia.

I-14 will be built primarily by incrementally upgrading existing highways in each of the states.

 

[porculator]

some may find this interesting

Congress designates Interstate 14 across five states with I-14 corridor through San Angelo

The I-14 Corridor across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia will be built primarily by incrementally upgrading existing highways.

www.gosanangelo.com

The newly designated I-14 route runs from Midland-Odessa across Central Texas then to Alexandria, Louisiana, Laurel, Mississippi, Montgomery, Alabama, and Columbus, Georgia before terminating at Augusta, Georgia.

I-14 will be built primarily by incrementally upgrading existing highways in each of the states.

Sure would have appreciated that when working at Ft Polk

 

[zztop]

oh look who is now complaining about 2, after getting it whittled down from 4

Manchin hits Dems' $2T bill as too costly, talks to Biden

Sen. Joe Manchin is signaling anew Monday that he’s still not ready to back his party’s $2 trillion social and environment legislation as party leaders scramble for a pathway to advance the long-stalled package — preferably by Christmas.

apnews.com

 

[TampaJoe]

oh look who is now complaining about 2, after getting it whittled down from 4

Manchin hits Dems' $2T bill as too costly, talks to Biden

Sen. Joe Manchin is signaling anew Monday that he’s still not ready to back his party’s $2 trillion social and environment legislation as party leaders scramble for a pathway to advance the long-stalled package — preferably by Christmas.

apnews.com

Opinion: According to the CBO it’s still at 4T taking into consideration that no one expects some of the entitlement spending programs to end in a year. They were in the original at ten years. They just shortened to length of the programs to make the numbers work cosmetically. No one really expects Congress to take these benefits away once granted. This is just a realistic cost projection. Not much has changed.

 

[SamAndreas]

Opinion: According to the CBO it’s still at 4T taking into consideration that no one expects some of the entitlement spending programs to end in a year. They were in the original at ten years. They just shortened to length of the programs to make the numbers work cosmetically. No one really expects Congress to take these benefits away once granted. This is just a realistic cost projection. Not much has changed.

It's good to see you Joe. I expect you're right, creative math is what happened.

I remember Manchin saying his limit was 1.5 trillion months ago. I would imagine that's still his limit now. So the Senate will pare it down to 1.5 trillion, pass it. Then the House will have to vote again.



It will still be the biggest thing they've ever done insofar as social spending.

 

[MT15]

I wonder why they ever started talking about the 10-year cost in the first place. It provides bad optics, IMO. It makes the bill look bigger when it is compared to other expenditures, especially when those other expenditures might be annual outlays.

 

[SamAndreas]

I wonder why they ever started talking about the 10-year cost in the first place. It provides bad optics, IMO. It makes the bill look bigger when it is compared to other expenditures, especially when those other expenditures might be annual outlays.

I don't now why they decided on 10 year cost window, but I do know when they decided to do it that way, it was 1974. That was when they passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act.

 

[Taurus]

I wonder why they ever started talking about the 10-year cost in the first place. It provides bad optics, IMO. It makes the bill look bigger when it is compared to other expenditures, especially when those other expenditures might be annual outlays.

Yeah, I mean, if they did the military budget like that we'd see some real reductions. Can you imagine Congress voting on a seven trillion defense spending bill?

 

[TampaJoe]

Yeah, I mean, if they did the military budget like that we'd see some real reductions. Can you imagine Congress voting on a seven trillion defense spending bill?

Opinion: The difference is this. When it comes to entitlement spending, once established it never goes away. It gets renewed because no one in Congress wants to vote to eliminate a benefit once that benefit is given. Plus, the gutless wonders they are, these types of expenditures don’t fall under the discretionary budget. We just continue to fund them without question. Hellava way to run a business but politicians don’t think about money or cost. Defense falls under discretionary spending. Somebody has to make a case for it year to year. Once entitlement programs get established we keep them forever like luggage.

 

[zztop]

Opinion: According to the CBO it’s still at 4T taking into consideration that no one expects some of the entitlement spending programs to end in a year. They were in the original at ten years. They just shortened to length of the programs to make the numbers work cosmetically. No one really expects Congress to take these benefits away once granted. This is just a realistic cost projection. Not much has changed.

My issue is originally he was talking one way, then suddenly something happened and changed his tune, then dug his heels in and basically obstructed progress. There was a lot of compromises made to get him on board, and now it seems like he wants even more compromises. This is how he was talking earlier this year:

In January, Manchin said he'd back up to $4 trillion in infrastructure spending, as then-president-elect Joe Biden laid out his plans for office.

"The most important thing? Do infrastructure. Spend $2, $3, $4 trillion over a 10-year period on infrastructure," Manchin told Inside West Virginia Politics in January.

He reaffirmed his support for a larger package in April, as Senate Republicans readied their own much smaller infrastructure package.

"We're going to do whatever it takes. If it takes $4 trillion, I'd do $4 trillion, but we have to pay for it," Manchin told reporters at the time, saying that he would go big if the situation warranted it.

The document obtained by Politico is dated July 28, meaning that it came about two weeks after Senate Democrats announced their $3.5 trillion reconciliation deal. Ahead of that deal, Manchin said any Democratic-only plan would need to be fully paid for, and not require borrowing money

 

[SamAndreas]

My issue is originally he was talking one way, then suddenly something happened and changed his tune, then dug his heels in and basically obstructed progress. There was a lot of compromises made to get him on board, and now it seems like he wants even more compromises. This is how he was talking earlier this year:

In January, Manchin said he'd back up to $4 trillion in infrastructure spending, as then-president-elect Joe Biden laid out his plans for office.

"The most important thing? Do infrastructure. Spend $2, $3, $4 trillion over a 10-year period on infrastructure," Manchin told Inside West Virginia Politics in January.

He reaffirmed his support for a larger package in April, as Senate Republicans readied their own much smaller infrastructure package.

"We're going to do whatever it takes. If it takes $4 trillion, I'd do $4 trillion, but we have to pay for it," Manchin told reporters at the time, saying that he would go big if the situation warranted it.

The document obtained by Politico is dated July 28, meaning that it came about two weeks after Senate Democrats announced their $3.5 trillion reconciliation deal. Ahead of that deal, Manchin said any Democratic-only plan would need to be fully paid for, and not require borrowing money

ZZtop I can clear that up, Manchin viewed the American Rescue Plan signed into law last spring as infrastructure spending. That was 1.9 trillion.

The highway infrastructure bill last month was an additional 1.2 trillion.

If the Biden's build back better bill goes thorough at 1.5 trillion, that all adds up to 4.5 trillion. So Manchin feels like he's already given a half trillion ground above that 4 trillion figure he tossed out last January.

 

[zztop]

ZZtop I can clear that up, Manchin viewed the American Rescue Plan signed into law last spring as infrastructure spending. That was 1.9 trillion.

The highway infrastructure bill last month was an additional 1.2 trillion.

If the Biden's build back better bill goes thorough at 1.5 trillion, that all adds up to 4.5 trillion. So Manchin feels like he's already given a half trillion ground above that 4 trillion figure he tossed out last January.

hmm that is some creative thinking he has if that is the case. I still think he is a smelly turd though. Latest example:

• Manchin has all but sunk the Democratic aim of approving Biden's economic agenda by year's end.
• He raised last-minute concerns about the 10-year cost of a program giving checks to families.
• A group of Democratic senators is drafting a short-term extension to the child tax credit.

 

[MT15]

I realize I don’t have a super good grasp on the child tax credit, but I thought that it was just a different way of awarding it. That families could take it on their taxes for the previous year, which would either decrease their tax bill or increase their refund, or they can now get the money as a monthly deposit. It shouldn’t be a huge drag monetarily, then, right?

When you read the website about it they spell out that if you decide to take the money monthly it could affect your taxes.

 

[SamAndreas]

hmm that is some creative thinking he has if that is the case. I still think he is a smelly turd though. Latest example:

• Manchin has all but sunk the Democratic aim of approving Biden's economic agenda by year's end.
• He raised last-minute concerns about the 10-year cost of a program giving checks to families.
• A group of Democratic senators is drafting a short-term extension to the child tax credit.

I wasn't trying to change your sense of smell.

It they remove the child tax credit and handle that in an individual bill, then that removes about half of the ten year cost Manchin is concerned with. But if he votes for it he will undoubtedly do the math and add that cost in just as he's done so far.

I support the child tax credit more than some of the other parts, so I'm totally fine with them doing it that way over doing it the other way.

However I will say that creative math in the past hasn't appeared to fool him. So my estimate is that this creative math will not fool him this time around either. He'll keep tabs on that total, because that's what he's watching.

It might help them if they give up on those SALT cap changes they've been trying to add in. That might be enough to get Manchen to move to vote with them.

 

[SamAndreas]

I realize I don’t have a super good grasp on the child tax credit, but I thought that it was just a different way of awarding it. That families could take it on their taxes for the previous year, which would either decrease their tax bill or increase their refund, or they can now get the money as a monthly deposit. It shouldn’t be a huge drag monetarily, then, right?

When you read the website about it they spell out that if you decide to take the money monthly it could affect your taxes.

They just about doubled the child tax credit amount during Covid, and they made it 100% refundable to boot. It's the biggest thing in that bill. In my mind it's also the most useful thing they're doing too.

The change to make it 100% refundable would have meant that I would have gotten a lot more back those last two years when my kids were still young enough, but I had retired early and didn't have the earnings at that time to get that 100% refund amount.

It's OK i didn't actually need that kind of subsidy at that time, but a whole lot of poorer people do need it.

 

[zztop]

It might help them if they give up on those SALT cap changes they've been trying to add in. That might be enough to get Manchen to move to vote with them.

I've been casually reading about that for about a month or so. Seems like there is some belief that raising it from 10,000 to 80,000 would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy