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/

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

What alternatives?

Others have elaborated but it's as simple as every other western democracy in the world -- parliamentarian systems.

Here's a nice BBC article on the recent German election including an explanation of how voting works:

German elections 2021: Simple guide to vote ending Merkel era

Germans are choosing a new government on Sunday. This is how the vote works.

www.bbc.com

And here's an article with the results:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/world/germany-election-results/

 

[MT15]

Hmmmm weird that the debt ceiling was raised. The issue facing government is the left wing of the Democratic Party versus the moderate wing. Sorry that you can’t acknowledge that

The debt ceiling has not been raised. A government shutdown was averted, which is probably what you are thinking of.

Nothing has been done about the debt ceiling yet, because Republicans are refusing to let it come to a vote. So far. In spite of the fact that Democrats voted to raise the debt ceiling multiple times during Trump’s term and other Republican administrations.

The Fed estimates the US will default on their debts (of which 75% were accrued during Trump’s single term) around Oct. 18, unless there is a vote to raise the debt ceiling. The US has never defaulted before, because in the past both parties realized it was to their mutual benefit to work together. I have read that there will probably be another recession if this default happens. The Republicans are being extremely irresponsible here to even threaten it publicly. Inexcusable and IMO makes them unqualified for their jobs. Republicans are filibustering the bill, which means that not only will they not help govern, they are actively preventing the Dems from doing it as well.

‘The Senate took its first procedural step on Thursday to advance a stand-alone bill that would lift the statutory limit on federal borrowing until December 2022, even though it is all but guaranteed to fail amid a Republican filibuster.

Senate Democrats pushed forward with a party-line 50-to-43 vote on the legislation, which cleared the House on Wednesday. A day earlier, the Treasury Department warned that it would hit the limit by Oct. 18 and inaction would risk a first-ever default on the federal debt.

Congress raises the debt limit to cover spending it has already approved, and failure to address that ceiling could force the Treasury Department to default on its loans and struggle to pay Social Security payments and crucial benefits.’

The Senate moves to advance a bill raising the U.S. debt limit, inviting another clash with Republicans. (Published 2021)

Senate Democrats pushed forward with a party-line procedural vote on the measure, but it is all but guaranteed to fail in the face of Republican opposition.

www.nytimes.com

 

[MT15]

Hmmmm weird that the debt ceiling was raised. The issue facing government is the left wing of the Democratic Party versus the moderate wing. Sorry that you can’t acknowledge that

I think I have discovered the source of the confusion, lol. Hannity is rumored to be very dumb. Like the opposite of smart.

 

[Saintman2884]

The debt ceiling has not been raised. A government shutdown was averted, which is probably what you are thinking of.

Nothing has been done about the debt ceiling yet, because Republicans are refusing to let it come to a vote. So far. In spite of the fact that Democrats voted to raise the debt ceiling multiple times during Trump’s term and other Republican administrations.

The Fed estimates the US will default on their debts (of which 75% were accrued during Trump’s single term) around Oct. 18, unless there is a vote to raise the debt ceiling. The US has never defaulted before, because in the past both parties realized it was to their mutual benefit to work together. I have read that there will probably be another recession if this default happens. The Republicans are being extremely irresponsible here to even threaten it publicly. Inexcusable and IMO makes them unqualified for their jobs. Republicans are filibustering the bill, which means that not only will they not help govern, they are actively preventing the Dems from doing it as well.

‘The Senate took its first procedural step on Thursday to advance a stand-alone bill that would lift the statutory limit on federal borrowing until December 2022, even though it is all but guaranteed to fail amid a Republican filibuster.

Senate Democrats pushed forward with a party-line 50-to-43 vote on the legislation, which cleared the House on Wednesday. A day earlier, the Treasury Department warned that it would hit the limit by Oct. 18 and inaction would risk a first-ever default on the federal debt.

Congress raises the debt limit to cover spending it has already approved, and failure to address that ceiling could force the Treasury Department to default on its loans and struggle to pay Social Security payments and crucial benefits.’

The Senate moves to advance a bill raising the U.S. debt limit, inviting another clash with Republicans. (Published 2021)

Senate Democrats pushed forward with a party-line procedural vote on the measure, but it is all but guaranteed to fail in the face of Republican opposition.

www.nytimes.com

Mitch McConnell is sort of being flippant and a bit glib when he says that the Dems don't need GOP support to raise the debt ceiling because he knows the Dems right now are sharply divided between progressives who want to expand the size and scope of federal government and moderates, who don't want to recreate the same excesses, budget deficits and debts that were a legacy of LBJ's Great Society social programs(which didn't turn out to be the roaring success because he decided to escalate our military involvement in Vietnam from a conflict his predecessor was trying to withdraw from (but I'm not sure he couldve or wouldve succeeded even if he'd lived and re-election in 1964). LBJ's Great Society had great, noble intentions but ultimately wasnt the runaway societal panacea because unfortunately more money was being spent on bombing Hanoi, Haiphong, and Ho Chi Minh Trail via Operation Rolling Thunder then spending it on anti-poverty programs like the Jobs Corps or trying to vigorously enforce newly-passed civil rights and voting rights legislation.

I also believe McConnell's remarks also make light of the contrast between how far Reps. and Democrats are willing to go or devise creative legislative tactics, threaten, coerse, or find obscure, rarely used legal tactics or precedents to force through legislation or raise the debt ceiling, or pass through a massive 3.5 trillion infrastructure package. Republicans know how to use political power very effectively and are extremely conscious of how they can potentially wield it, or use to it their advantages in obtaining the desired results. Their also willing to play dirty, hardball politics in a way that Dems can't and or unwilling to even contemplate, much less consider.

We here at MAP might despise Mitch McConnell and his toxic, political legacy but he knows how to get what he wants, and he's shown a long time ago he's more then willing to get his hands dirty and have every liberal Democrat call him a foul, diseased chickenshit madre frocker, and every registered Democrat from Massachusetts to Hollywood loathes his very effectively existence, but Democrats don't have someone equal to the tenacity and sheer brazen audacity, but determined zeal to make sure legislative bills that were at risk of being held up or filibustered got passed. Ted Kennedy by the last decade of his long life and political career was more of a mascot then a real, authoritative force and he wasnt the most respected guy in terms of integrity(that little drunken ride in 1969 that caused Mary Jo Kopenick's death and his supposed affair and alleged running away while leaving her still in the air, alive and desperately trying to escape and live, made any real presidential run, implausible. He'd become a bit of a toothless tiger, a parody of his former 70's and 80's glory days. I know Tip O'Neill hated his sorry, hypocritical arse because his former speechwriter and Pres. Carter aide, Chris Matthews, claimed his former boss told him that privately after a particularly heated conversation occurred between O'Neill and Kennedy. He said his boss sort of viewed Kennedy as a bit of an embarrassment and a man who realized his political legacy would not be viewed or seen in the same brevity, sense of accomplishment and achievement of those compared to his brothers, JFK and RFK.

 

[SaintForLife]

Except this hurts Democrats chances of winning in 2022, and in 2024. It's a self defeating plot if you think Manchin and Sinema are doing this at the behest of the DNP.

That article is about reconciliation for the public option. Which I disagree with Glenn it's not how it could, or should be passed. I do agree with Glenn about the filibuster being a tool of Republicans to stop any legislative agenda.

My general thought is if you don't like Democratic party, vote/donate to progressive candidates. That's what I do. I happily sat on my hands, and voted third party in 2016. I know I personally felt hoodwinked by Democrats after hearing the transformative rhetoric of candidate Obama in 2008, and the sharp contrast of a pragmatic president Obama failing to work within the legislative system.

The simple answer is if you don't like Clinton style corporate dems, don't support them. You owe the DNP nothing. There are plenty of progressives that run in primaries every 2 years. They could always use the support.

The Democrats biggest donors don't care about them losing. They will just shift their campaign contributions to Republicans knowing that the Democrats will be back in power when the Republicans get their turn at screwing things up.

 

[zztop]

well I'm convinced, it has nothing to do with her, it is everyone else who is at fault hah




“The failure of the U.S. House to hold a vote on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is inexcusable, and deeply disappointing for communities across our country,”

 

[coldseat]

well I'm convinced, it has nothing to do with her, it is everyone else who is at fault hah




“The failure of the U.S. House to hold a vote on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is inexcusable, and deeply disappointing for communities across our country,”

Yep. Like I said earlier, some of these moderates have leaned and are using Republican messaging and tactics too much. I especially love the appeal to "requiring trust" for good faith negations. Hahaha, as if anything she's doing reinforces "trust" within the party. The level of gas lighting is off the charts.

But I still think this ends up getting done. This process is still annoying/frustrating af.

 

[tigerfan]

well I'm convinced, it has nothing to do with her, it is everyone else who is at fault hah




“The failure of the U.S. House to hold a vote on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is inexcusable, and deeply disappointing for communities across our country,”

Yeah. They canceled it because the progressives won’t get behind it because they want the huge spending bill. The infrastructure bill is failing because of the progressives.

 

[bird]

Yeah. They canceled it because the progressives won’t get behind it because they want the huge spending bill. The infrastructure bill is failing because of the progressives.

It is 350 Billion a year over 10 years. The frame of 3.5 Trillion is bullschlitz. It is failing because of stupidity on the part of Sinema, Manchin and Republicans.

 

[JRad]

Yea, it’s sticker shock more than anything. 350 billion/year to, you know, modernize the country is still half our military budget.

 

[insidejob]

Outside of anything else I don't believe Manchin would be incorrect to believe that the issue of supporting a huge Democratic-only social infrastructure bill would be a political loser for him in West Virginia. He probably fares best here personally in this scenario by appearing to stand firm imo.

I think that when Joe Manchin is your deciding vote in the Senate it probably should have been recognized and reconciled with earlier than now that it was going to be extraordinarily difficult to leverage political will from his left against him in a way that forces him to move on this.

I don't really why understand why Manchin even bothers to pretend like he's an actual Democrat when it comes down to it. If he always has to act like a Republican to keep getting reelected, he may as well just switch parties a la our embarrassment in Louisiana - John Kennedy.

 

[bdb13]

I don't really why understand why Manchin even bothers to pretend like he's an actual Democrat when it comes down to it. If he always has to act like a Republican to keep getting reelected, he may as well just switch parties a la our embarrassment in Louisiana - John Kennedy.

He also doesn't vote like an out-and-out Republican either though ( https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-...and-politics-c65d4424c200ede56fc31db42e28e084). I don't know enough about him but maybe it's the socially liberal/economically conservative thing?

Independent would definitely fit him more than anything imo.

 

[Saintman2884]

He also doesn't vote like an out-and-out Republican either though ( https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-...and-politics-c65d4424c200ede56fc31db42e28e084). I don't know enough about him but maybe it's the socially liberal/economically conservative thing?

Independent would definitely fit him more than anything imo.

You mean, he's more of an independent thinker in a party that's increasingly becoming more left-wing and progressive on social and political issues. Also, keep in mind, West Virginia isn't some blue -dotted, socially liberal progressive demographic like Vermont, New York, or even Minnesota is which elected Bernie Sanders, AOC, or Illam Omar and Amy Klobuchar, respectively.

Dems need states like West Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and yes, even Texas that don't exactly have voters who'll wholesale fall in line with what the party's platform on stricter, tighter gun laws, anti-death penalty statutes or promoting alternative/clean energy packages without some compromise in the middle. You can't always get what you want preaching to the converted, bdb.

Sinema and Manchin don't owe Bernie Sanders or AOC anything.

 

[coldseat]

He also doesn't vote like an out-and-out Republican either though ( https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-...and-politics-c65d4424c200ede56fc31db42e28e084). I don't know enough about him but maybe it's the socially liberal/economically conservative thing?

Independent would definitely fit him more than anything imo.

He's definitely not socially liberal. He's threatening to tank the who reconciliation bill if they don't include the Hyde amendment. The freaking Hyde amendment.

I mean, with all the uproar about the Republicans going "Handmaidens Tale" on abortion in Texas and the SC just letting a flagrantly unconstitutional law sit, how is he going to force the Democratic caucus to include the Hyde amendment in the bill? Smh. Talk about being tone deaf. Can you imagine the betrayal dem voters would feel?

 

[coldseat]

A good opinion piece here on Manchin and Sinema in this "negotiation" (more like hostage demands).

...
We know Manchin wants around $1.5 trillion in spending while imposing additional means-testing on the bill’s welfare benefits and making it friendlier to fossil fuel interests. We know Sinema also wants less spending.

Their positions do harbor actual judgments about our national future: Manchin apparently sees deficits and inflation as more serious long-term threats than climate change, and thinks welfare benefits going to the undeserving require us to make those programs less generous and universal. Sinema appears reflexively suspicious of government spending and seems to think higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations will have net negative effects.

These are bad arguments. As writers including Paul Krugman and Eric Levitz have detailed, the actual ambition of these proposals is, if anything, fairly modest, relative to the scale of our global-warming and political-economic challenges. Jonathan Cohn has demonstrated just how transformative provisions such as the expanded child tax credit, larger health-care subsidies and paid leave could be for the everyday lives of millions.

But beyond this, the point is that Manchin and Sinema have imposed a level of abstraction and generality on this debate that has made real argument over concrete trade-offs much harder.
Progressives insist that the failure to deal with all these challenges poses more of a threat to our future than higher spending and high-end taxation do. But we cannot debate this, because we don’t really know which challenges Manchin and Sinema see as postponable for the foreseeable future.

And they can get away with this, in part because our discourse privileges fiscal conservatism and hostility to spending as somehow inherently realistic and hardheaded. But there is nothing realistic or hardheaded about any of this.

What’s so frustrating here is that a unique confluence of circumstances — the increasing urgency of the climate crisis and covid-19’s unmasking of deep injustices in our economy — had seemed to create a new consensus grounded in a more realistic assessment of our national moment.

...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/05/biden-manchin-sinema-frustration-reconciliation/

 

[Saintman2884]

He's definitely not socially liberal. He's threatening to tank the who reconciliation bill if they don't include the Hyde amendment. The freaking Hyde amendment.

I mean, with all the uproar about the Republicans going "Handmaidens Tale" on abortion in Texas and the SC just letting a flagrantly unconstitutional law sit, how is he going to force the Democratic caucus to include the Hyde amendment in the bill? Smh. Talk about being tone deaf. Can you imagine the betrayal dem voters would feel?

A good opinion piece here on Manchin and Sinema in this "negotiation" (more like hostage demands).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/05/biden-manchin-sinema-frustration-reconciliation/

Progressives are at a disadvantage here because they've developed this perception and reputation of being endless, "tax and spend", big-government advocates for decades and the results didnt always lead to tangible, meaningful results. One gets that impression after examining LBJ's " Great Society " social programs of the mid-late 1960's which ended up being a bit of disappointment due to hundreds of millions of dollars ending up bombing North Vietnam in air raids, destroying rural, possible VC hamlet villages where they got sanctuary and hid their weapons, food, munitions, and sometimes even got their wounded guerillas treated.

Carter suffered a lot of same problems and frustrations due to him being a fiscal conservative and a worldwide economic slowdown that began in the mid-70's and coalesced in the late 70's due to repeated OPEC oil shocks and the price of consumer goods skyrocketing, while most people's wages either stagnated, or declined in most essential industries. Big government and liberal Democrats developed and sort of have maintained a persistent reputation as irresponsible, ineffective spend-thrifts who continually liked to throw a lot of money at serious political problems, but couldn't make any real progress that was significant.

Little fwiw, Coldseat, I'd recommend doing some research on UK's 1978-79's "Winter of Discontent". Thats a serious, text-book example of how strong, powerful trade unions can paralyze or nearly wreck a recovering economy and how a socially progressive, Labour regime that's inept and kind of incompetent can make a situation worse by readying the British military to take over the running of a nation's economy because those trade unions they took for granted turned on them.

 

[coldseat]

Progressives are at a disadvantage here because they've developed this perception and reputation of being endless, "tax and spend", big-government advocates for decades and the results didnt always lead to tangible, meaningful results. One gets that impression after examining LBJ's " Great Society " social programs of the mid-late 1960's which ended up being a bit of disappointment due to hundreds of millions of dollars ending up bombing North Vietnam in air raids, destroying rural, possible VC hamlet villages where they got sanctuary and hid their weapons, food, munitions, and sometimes even got their wounded guerillas treated.

Carter suffered a lot of same problems and frustrations due to him being a fiscal conservative and a worldwide economic slowdown that began in the mid-70's and coalesced in the late 70's due to repeated OPEC oil shocks and the price of consumer goods skyrocketing, while most people's wages either stagnated, or declined in most essential industries. Big government and liberal Democrats developed and sort of have maintained a persistent reputation as irresponsible, ineffective spend-thrifts who continually liked to throw a lot of money at serious political problems, but couldn't make any real progress that was significant.

Little fwiw, Coldseat, I'd recommend doing some research on UK's 1978-79's "Winter of Discontent". Thats a serious, text-book example of how strong, powerful trade unions can paralyze or nearly wreck a recovering economy and how a socially progressive, Labour regime that's inept and kind of incompetent can make a situation worse by readying the British military to take over the running of a nation's economy because those trade unions they took for granted turned on them.

That's all well and good, but this isn't the past. And nobody can claim with a straight face that republicans or corporate democratic policies have been responsible or good for the middle class and the poor. The disparity between the rich and the rest is ever widening and the policies that Biden and progressives are proposing would go a long way towards beginning some correction. As well as addressing the serious challenge of climate change that were facing today because Republican lies and policy.

 

[RobF]

Progressives are at a disadvantage here because they've developed this perception and reputation of being endless, "tax and spend", big-government advocates for decades and the results didnt always lead to tangible, meaningful results. One gets that impression after examining LBJ's " Great Society " social programs of the mid-late 1960's which ended up being a bit of disappointment due to hundreds of millions of dollars ending up bombing North Vietnam in air raids, destroying rural, possible VC hamlet villages where they got sanctuary and hid their weapons, food, munitions, and sometimes even got their wounded guerillas treated.

Carter suffered a lot of same problems and frustrations due to him being a fiscal conservative and a worldwide economic slowdown that began in the mid-70's and coalesced in the late 70's due to repeated OPEC oil shocks and the price of consumer goods skyrocketing, while most people's wages either stagnated, or declined in most essential industries. Big government and liberal Democrats developed and sort of have maintained a persistent reputation as irresponsible, ineffective spend-thrifts who continually liked to throw a lot of money at serious political problems, but couldn't make any real progress that was significant.

Little fwiw, Coldseat, I'd recommend doing some research on UK's 1978-79's "Winter of Discontent". Thats a serious, text-book example of how strong, powerful trade unions can paralyze or nearly wreck a recovering economy and how a socially progressive, Labour regime that's inept and kind of incompetent can make a situation worse by readying the British military to take over the running of a nation's economy because those trade unions they took for granted turned on them.

I think that's a perception, but it's a pretty selective perception, since it disregards most of Western Europe and particularly Scandinavia entirely, which has multiple examples of progressive governments, strong unions, big state spending, and good results.

I'm personally increasingly inclined to think much of the 'problem' as perceived in the UK and USA is far more a product of an overwhelmingly adversarial, as opposed to cooperative, essentially two-party approach to government, and to union-business and union-government relationships than it is anything else.

As for the UK's 'winter of discontent', I think you've framed that oddly. That situation was complex and there were other factors, but it was essentially caused by the Labour government trying to impose a continuing cap on pay increases of 5% far beyond the point where that was sustainable. The various unions - including small, not especially powerful ones - didn't just all spontaneously go, "Oooh, let's demand giant pay rises!"; people literally needed substantial pay rises just to make ends meet after the substantial inflation of the previous years.

And I say 'trying to impose', because the government was only imposing the limit on public sector workers. In principle, the private sector could face sanctions for giving higher pay rises, but when that actually happened in late '78 (Ford, for example, offered 17 percent after a Ford workers' strike), the government announced the sanctions, but the Conservatives put down a motion to revoke them, which passed, so the government was left with no way of enforcing any limit on the private sector.

So you had a situation where people needed higher pay rises, people were getting them in the private sector, but the government was refusing to budge regardless. That's plainly unsustainable. People can only accept being unable to afford rent, food, and heat for so long.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with 'the British military taking over the running of a nation's economy'; the Army was used to provide limited supporting services where strikes were in action, e.g. to provide a skeleton service while Ambulance drivers were striking. Similarly, there were limited plans for the Army to provide fuel tanker drivers during the truck drivers' strike, but I don't think those were put into action.

So I wouldn't say the government made it worse 'by readying the British military to take over the running of a nation's economy', because that wasn't a thing. They made it worse through wishful thinking and denial of reality, thinking that workers would just accept unacceptable conditions indefinitely.

(Coincidentally, we have a Conservative government making things worse through wishful thinking and denial of reality right now; we even have the Army actually providing fuel tanker drivers! But that's another story).

Ultimately, the strikes resulted in better pay rises than 5%, as was inevitable, and really should have been recognised by Callaghan's government in the first place.

So inept and incompetent government problem, sure, but a strong union problem? No. Personally, I would always consider a situation that arises from an attempt to keep people in unacceptable conditions as arising from the attempt to keep people in unacceptable conditions, not from the people working together to change it.