Biden infrastructure/tax increase megathread

[politicallefty]

I'm not in support of regressive taxation, but the SALT cap was designed to attack blue state social welfare programs. It puts a pressure on certain states to reduce their overall tax rate, nevermind that those tax revenues go to education and healthcare. Compare the Medicaid programs of California and Texas.

[politicallefty]

I think what's potentially at stake is finally fixing Obamacare. Apart from some tinkering around the edges legislatively, the law is largely unchanged since its enactment (apart from the Medicaid expansion having been declared optional by the Supreme Court). Typically, major laws like those are amended many times in the immediately succeeding years. That did not happen since Republicans took control of the House several months after the bill became law (and years before many of the provisions became operative). There hasn't been a chance to do this since this is the first Democratic trifecta in a decade.

I do know the American Rescue Plan Act has some parts that improve Obamacare, including increased premium subsidies and incentives for states to expand Medicaid. A new bill could improve Obamacare considerably. I'm like a lot of people on the left and very much supportive of Medicare for All, but that's not realistic right now. There are other things that can be done though. Medicaid could be further expanded. Obamacare as enacted expanded Medicaid to all adults at over 133% federal poverty line (technically 138% because of a 5% deduction). The House bill at the time wanted 150% (presumably 155% in effect). That could be done now, or something even higher. There's also the potential of lowering the Medicare age to 55 or 60, increasing premium subsidies, allowing the federal government to negotiate prescription drug prices, and increasing federal funds for Medicaid.

[politicallefty]

Every NY House Dem except AOC & Rice is drawing a hard line in the sand on repealing the SALT cap.

Bowman too? Dang.

Weird how a DSA member wants tax cuts for wealthy people.

As I've said before, the SALT cap as enacted puts a pressure on higher tax blue states to lower their taxes. These are the states that have more generous programs for those that need them, including Medicaid and other social welfare programs. Note how many low tax red states have restrictive Medicaid programs and have refused federal money to expand it as per the ACA. I don't necessarily support eliminating the cap, but I would support raising it to affect only the highest of earners.

[politicallefty]

I don't necessarily support eliminating the cap, but I would support raising it to affect only the highest of earners.

Isn't already? Take a look at the graph.

I mean the votes are in the House to kill it, if it isn't included, maybe they agree to raise the cap to a level where only the truly wealthy are affected, like say $70k or so.

Man, the following caclulations are probably somewhat misleading, but it is what it is. $4. Ok, may be $400.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/repealing-salt-caps-would-cost-another-500-billion

Man, Pelosi is such a great messenger. Otherwise, how could she make "progressives" to defend this? She could easily make people to re-open the schools that would greatly benefit poor kids. Well, donors are more important, I guess.

I'm very much aware of what eliminating the SALT cap would do. It makes blue states more attractive to higher earners. These are people that can deduct state and local taxes from federal taxes. This makes it easier for those states to maintain higher tax rates and pay for more generous social welfare programs. What happens with the SALT cap? Many high earners move out of California and NY and move to Texas and Florida. The latter are both states that have refused to expand their Medicaid programs even though the federal government pays for 90% of the tab (and under a new program, they would get even more funds for traditional Medicaid).

[politicallefty]

Oregon Rep. Kurt Schrader, a member of the fiscally conscious Blue Dog Coalition, said in an interview that he’s planning to vote against a budget resolution that would include reconciliation instructions for trillions of dollars in additional spending. Another moderate House Democrat, who requested anonymity to speak freely about a position that would upset party leaders, said the same.

With those two expected “no” votes, Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have much more room to maneuver on that first step toward passing a big spending bill, let alone the reconciliation legislation itself that would contain all the details.

https://www.rollcall.com/2021/06/25/some-moderate-democrats-oppose-biden-spending-package-as-progressives-feared/

Schrader is a massive cuckold. I hope the other one isn't Jared Golden.

Probably. Schrader needs to be primaried. There is no excuse for people like him. That said, Speaker Pelosi is the best legislator we've had in decades, if not ever. She will get it done. The House will not be the issue.

[politicallefty]

If this passes, Biden goes down as a top 5 President

https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1424727128944353283

Is the sick leave provision finally including mandatory paid sick days for all Americans?

[politicallefty]

So many of you don't appreciate the power of Speaker Pelosi. If there's anyone that can navigate this, it's her. There is no one in the federal government I have more confidence in than her.

[politicallefty]

Pelosi did screw up, she held the 2.2T Stimulus package hostage in time for the Election and she ended up losing seats and we lost ME and NC as a result

That's why we are in the bind we are in, in the H, we were supposed to gain seats, Pelosi screwed up

I know Pelosi, I lived in her district where there are homeless people, that's why near downtown they let you rode buses all night for free due to homelessness

SF is still a beautiful city due to the fact it doesn't snow despite the DROUGHT

Pelosi is  imperfect, she ended up with 900B stimulus, and the reason why we still have cases they don't test anymore, part of the Stimulus was to test and trace, once they got vaccines they stopped offering food and water for testing sites


Vaccine sites don't have food or water they just give you the shot

She held up a stimulus package that was never going to get past Mitch McConnell. She did allow Jon Ossoff and Rafael Warnock to run on $2000 checks.

I hope the day is far away, but I'm probably going to be in tears when Pelosi gives her farewell address. She truly is one of the greats in a way most haven't seen or recognized.

[politicallefty]

The problem with the idea of Biden acting like LBJ against Sinema is that it'd cause a sexual harassment scandal (and arguably rightfully so)

Not necessarily. The actual issue I see here that Biden & Schumer don't have much leverage to use against Sinema. They need her in the caucus and otherwise would lose the senate majority instantly. And she's not up for reelection until 2024. If Johnson was prez today, he'd likely offer Sinema and Manchin some extra funding for infrastructure in their states or so. The difference is that Johnson had larger majorities in congress and several GOPers were open for business with his admin on issues the Southern Dems opposed his agenda. Divisions in congress are not comparable to the 1960s, not even to the Reagan era.

I'm almost certain he was referring to some of the more crude things LBJ would do. (I don't think it's anything he would've done in the presence of women.)

Maybe this is discussed above, but here is a good summary of the state of play on reconciliation and infrastructure. The two bills have been effectively decoupled it seems to me. Pelosi was forced to fold. The Dem moderates held firm.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/house-moderates-provide-even-more-leverage-joe-manchin-reconciliation-n1277592

Here’s hoping that the progressives at least force there to be a second bill even if it isn’t the one we currently have.

I don't see this as Pelosi having caved. The Congressional Progressive Caucus controls 95 seats in the House, 43% of the Democratic Caucus. The ultimate math for the bipartisan bill is whether the number of progressives that are willing to hold firm and take or kill the hostage (the bill) versus how many Republicans will end up voting for the bill. We're sort of going through a series of checkpoints where the two sides within the Democratic Party can try to extract concessions or potentially destroy the whole process.

Nothing has fundamentally changed. Manchin and Sinema are still needed in the Senate for final passage of the reconciliation bill. The Problem Causers Caucus isn't going to do anything worse than those two. There are a lot of players in this right now, but there will ultimately have to be some sort of agreement between progressives in the House and Manchin and Sinema in the Senate. If September 27th comes and there is no reconciliation bill, progressives can and should defeat the bipartisan bill. I imagine you're looking at a maximum of 30 Republicans that could potentially vote for the bipartisan bill. That wouldn't require many all that much of the CPC to kill it, even with some Republican votes supporting it. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a tacit agreement with Pelosi, especially as her views are in alignment with the CPC.

Even after this, people are still finding ways to doubt Speaker Pelosi's abilities.

[politicallefty]

If nothing has changed, if Pelosi didn't cave, why these efforts to bind the bills together in first place?

I really don’t think there was a concerted attempt to bind them together

I think that is largely the case. Traditionally, a lot of this hostage-taking would happen during the actual process of crafting the legislation and moving it forward. Conservative Democrats extracted many concessions from both Pelosi and Reid before passing the ACA. However, the ACA also had a reconciliation bill that was passed immediately after (in the House and was signed a week later). It was a different process because they now want to show a bipartisan effort with one bill. The major centrepiece of the President's agenda is what is included in the reconciliation bill. It is only recently that that is subject to a filibuster in the Senate, hence the reconciliation process.

Without the reconciliation bill, President Biden will not have much to show. The American Rescue Plan Act was a great accomplishment, but it's analogous to the ARRA under President Obama. He needs something much bigger. Obama got the ACA. President Biden needs the reconciliation bill to incorporate his American Families Plan.

[politicallefty]

...and Republicans are going to runs ads about how Democrats voted against the bipartisan infrastructure bill

Great job!

If Democrats are going to run their legislative agenda based on what Republicans are going to run ads against, I suppose Congress should just go back to naming post offices.

I couldn't care less about what Republicans are going to run ads about. They're going to run ads against President Biden, against Speaker Pelosi, and against Leader Schumer. They're always going to find something. I'd rather have something to show for it for the American people than sit around and do nothing and lose our majorities anyway. I think Pelosi herself said that passing the ACA was worth losing the House Majority and her Speakership. If Democrats get can get the bipartisan bill, the reconciliation bill, and a voting rights bill through Congress, it would be a monumental victory for the party and President Biden going into the midterms.

[politicallefty]

...and Republicans are going to runs ads about how Democrats voted against the bipartisan infrastructure bill

Great job!

If Democrats are going to run their legislative agenda based on what Republicans are going to run ads against, I suppose Congress should just go back to naming post offices.

I couldn't care less about what Republicans are going to run ads about. They're going to run ads against President Biden, against Speaker Pelosi, and against Leader Schumer. They're always going to find something. I'd rather have something to show for it for the American people than sit around and do nothing and lose our majorities anyway. I think Pelosi herself said that passing the ACA was worth losing the House Majority and her Speakership. If Democrats get can get the bipartisan bill, the reconciliation bill, and a voting rights bill through Congress, it would be a monumental victory for the party and President Biden going into the midterms.

Everything about your logic is wrong.

If you want the moderates to vote for the bills, you have to convince them that what they are voting for is good for their career and NOT a kamikaze mission.

In general, people don't like collapsing bridges, roads full of potholes, or lead exposure from lead pipes.

Your logic takes progressives for granted. You don't get to disregard progressives so easily. We are tired of people having to take two jobs to make ends meet. We are also tired of children living in poverty. We also have Medicare that doesn't provide for vision or hearing coverage. I could go on endlessly about what the reconciliation bill does, but I won't. It would be the biggest transformation of wealth to the middle and lower class since the Great Society.

[politicallefty]

How many of these "progressives" are running for re-election in Republican-leaning districts?

Given the choice between a a Democrat acting like a Republican and an actual Republican, they'll choose the real thing. There were 34 Democrats in the House that voted against final passage of the ACA. By 2014, only 4 had seats in Congress. That number is now 1 (Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts). How about trying to run as a Democrat on bread and butter issues that the voters actually care about? The reconciliation bill is the Democratic Party starting to get back to its New Deal/Great Society roots.

...and Republicans are going to runs ads about how Democrats voted against the bipartisan infrastructure bill

Great job!

If Democrats are going to run their legislative agenda based on what Republicans are going to run ads against, I suppose Congress should just go back to naming post offices.

I couldn't care less about what Republicans are going to run ads about. They're going to run ads against President Biden, against Speaker Pelosi, and against Leader Schumer. They're always going to find something. I'd rather have something to show for it for the American people than sit around and do nothing and lose our majorities anyway. I think Pelosi herself said that passing the ACA was worth losing the House Majority and her Speakership. If Democrats get can get the bipartisan bill, the reconciliation bill, and a voting rights bill through Congress, it would be a monumental victory for the party and President Biden going into the midterms.

I agree, but unlike these two bills, the voting rights bill would require filibuster reform, which seems very unlikely. I do think these infrastructure packages will get done in the end, mostly because Pelosi is good at whipping votes, my biggest concern honestly is that Sinema has repeatedly refused to support a $3.5 T package and however much money she wants taken out of it will obviously make a big difference (for instance her pulling 1 T from it would be far worse than her pulling 500 B)

I agree that the voting rights issue is far more difficult on account of the filibuster. I don't think we've reached the inflection point on that yet. I think it's coming soon considering the anti-gerrymandering provisions, but probably not until after the infrastructure and reconciliation bills are resolved. That will require President Biden to personally push Manchin and Sinema and any other wavering Senators to carve out an exception to the filibuster. If he truly believes that we need reform on that issue, he will push those individual Senators as much as he can. As for Sinema, I would hope she would be concerned with the recent actions in her own state's government.

I'm also not sure that the reconciliation bill will be passed as a $3.5 trillion measure. On the other hand, President Biden proposed a $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus package on his first day in office. There was some fuss made and some changes made, but it was still a $1.9 trillion package. This will be different, due in no small part to the honeymoon being over. I think giving up anything more than 10% of the reconciliation is a bridge too far and requires some hardball politics. It will require serious effort by President Biden as well as Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer.

[politicallefty]

House progressives have next to no history whatsoever of actually pulling the trigger on voting down Democratic priorities, unlike their moderate nice guy FF brethren. Congress-watchers should assume that their threats to do so are empty until and unless they actually go through with it. Remember that five or six of them briefly threatened to sink the ARP too.

I think progressives in the House have been given the wink and nod from Speaker Pelosi. She knows that the bipartisan infrastructure bill is insufficient going into the midterms. I think they have tacit approval to kill it if the so-called moderates try to make the reconciliation bill practically worthless.

It's likely that we'll have to go below $3.5T, but anything near $1-1.5T is unacceptable.

[politicallefty]

I expect the increase in tobacco and vaping taxes to be removed from the final bill.

Not only a breaking of the "no new taxes on those making under 400k a year" pledge, but just terrible politics. Young people vape.

Are vapers really people, though?

Speaking as one, no, we aren't

You have a Florida avatar, so...

I'm usually a straight D voter, but voting against Medicare drug negotiation is inexcusable. You have no business being in the Democratic Party. It's not a surprise that Kathleen Rice and Kurt Schrader are also among those that tried to make it difficult for Nancy Pelosi to reclaim the Speakership. If Schumer has the ear of NY Dems and Governor Hochul, Kathleen Rice needs to have her district obliterated. She literally ran ads last year going after the prescription drug companies. If she wants to work for the prescription drug companies, she can find work there. I hope Oregon Democrats can do something similar to Schrader or at least get a strong primary challenger in place.

One of the problems is that progressives divide their resources too much. I would say that focus needs to be on a small handful. This vote actually gives progressives a good target list: Kurt Schrader, Kathleen Rice, and Scott Peters. Progressives need to target them now and hard.

[politicallefty]

For those wondering what Speaker Pelosi was doing in trying to get the BIF to a vote, she's trying to placate the irascible moderates. But any vote was always subject to her Prime Directive: she doesn't lose a floor vote unless she intends to lose it. Gottheimer is a f-cking worm for what he said. He knows more about the President's agenda than the President himself? If you don't think there's lockstep coordination between Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer, you really don't understand any of them. They have all served in Congress for decades and have known each other for decades. The fact that we have come this far is a testament to their relationships and leadership.

If President Biden is comfortable with a lower price tag, that means he's being realistic as to what can be done. I'd still like to see a $3.5T package pass, but that's very unlikely. However, the price tag is less important compared to what is actually included. This was supposed to be a 10-year bill. One option for reducing the cost is to reduce the number of years before it is to be renewed. If the expiry date is set to seven years instead (i.e. expiring in early 2029), the cost would be reduced to $2.45T. We may have to excise some things from the bill to reduce the cost further in order to get the votes, but hopefully not much. Anything smaller than the CARES Act would be unfortunate.

[politicallefty]

Is McCarthy just opposing the BIF so strongly because Trump is making him? Since the BIF passing is supposed to make it a lot more likely Manchin and Sinema then vote down reconciliation, why can't the Republicans give it enough votes to pass?

That's what's most puzzling. With Pelosi promising a vote, Republicans could've cut the ground from under the CPC. All they had to do was supply enough votes. President Biden's meeting with Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats has pretty much eliminated any possibility of a BIF vote before any real action on reconciliation. This is his agenda and he himself has linked the two bills.

What I find most interesting is that Pelosi herself has apparently been talking to both Manchin and Sinema. Sinema used to be in the House, but she only voted for Pelosi for Speaker in 2013. Every other time she voted for John Lewis. It's all the more worse that he's no longer with us. Maybe he could've talked some sense into her.

You also have to appreciate the irony of someone talking about a betrayal of trust when she's doing just that to those that sent her to the Senate.

[politicallefty]

We've already given up free community college and major climate change policy reforms and reduced the child tax credit extension to a single year. Are they trying to reduce the price tag below a trillion or something? Seriously, wtf? The Medicare expansion could be modified in some ways, but should be not be given up. Giving up the paid leave benefit should be a nonstarter. It's bad enough I've heard they wanted to reduce it from 12 weeks to 4 weeks. If I were in Congress, I wouldn't go for this and I would vote against the bipartisan deal. I can be pragmatic, but they're taking way too much now. The only thing that has become painfully clear to me is that the federal government is completely incapable of passing long-standing legislation to better the lives of the average American. It's beyond belief that this is happening when we have right-wing authoritarianism right outside the door and about to bust in.

Is there anything on expanding sick leave? Presuming that hasn't been done already, that should be included. Covid shows that if people don't have the financial support to stay home when ill, that costs lives and also harms the economy.

It's not even true sick pay, like every other country has (not to mention vacation pay). This is all just catch-up to what the rest of the industrialized world has. The paid leave benefit is designed for extended leave at 85% pay. It would build beyond the FMLA, which only guarantees unpaid leave (i.e. job protection). There's still no federal guarantee for workers that have acute illness and need a day or so off work (such as taking a couple days off because you have the flu). No, you're generally expected to go to work.

[politicallefty]

I'm getting so f-cking tired of hearing how this is the fault of the progressives. The progressives have bent over backwards to get a strong bill passed. We've given up free community college and substantially shortened the child tax credit. On a personal note, I would say giving up paid family leave is a bridge too far, not to mention total bullsh-t. All I hear is that Joe Manchin represents West Virginia. So f-cking what?! Since when does that mean West Virginia voters oppose paid family leave? Florida voters passed a $15 minimum. That didn't stop Marco Rubio or Rick Scott from voting against a national $15 minimum wage.

If there's one thing that's making me apoplectic, it's people with a D after their name that think big Pharma isn't making enough money. Progressives have top targets that include Scott Peters and Kurt Schrader. I'm very accepting of the big tent, but that is too far for me. Not allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices because it might hurt the exorbitant profits of big Pharma? I have no use for people like that.

[politicallefty]

I wish I could be more optimistic about BIF, but I'm not. We can't even do high-speed rail for a reasonable price. I look at what so many other countries can do and it really saddens me. I expect BIF to be something that costs $1B/mile.

[politicallefty]

What has happened is that all trust is being put into President Biden and Speaker Pelosi. If BBB gets through Congress, it will be the monumental achievement for both. Pelosi will easily go down in history as probably the greatest Speaker ever.

[politicallefty]

I'm starting to believe it would be best if this country disintegrated. I don't have much optimism for this country anymore. All we have is a federal government that is largely paralyzed and fails to take action against the many crises that face the people.

[politicallefty]

https://twitter.com/RepJoshG/status/1461704253551087621

ok

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord

Not exactly, the SALT deduction is not at all comparable to Lega Nord's policies. Lega Nord ran on Padanian nationalism for like forever because Northern Italy, especially places like Milan and the region of Lombardia, in general, has a lot of Italy's wealth, this would've left poor Southern Italy likely impoverished, while they don't run on Padanian nationalism anymore, the idea is still the same, lots of more money to the North and less to places like Sicilia and Calabria. The SALT deduction does not seek to destroy West Virginia or anything, it's just a minor compensation to ensure that high tax states get back from the government what they put in. This comparison between Lega and SALT supporters is just annoying and not really based in reality. When they want to defund places that are not the Northeast and support Northeast nationalism, then we can talk.

Have high tax states tried, idk, lowering taxes? And if they don't like the bad effects of lowering taxes (less money) well too bad?

To me the SALT deduction seems like a way for certain states to have their cake and eat it too

With our federal system, that means the working class and below takes the brunt of the blow. The higher tax states generally have more generous welfare states and benefits for those that need it. The federal government only pays for so much. The so-called low-tax states have the highest uninsured rate. They also provide the worst unemployment benefits. I support the SALT deduction, but with an increase in the marginal rate to stick it to the states that don't want to support their people.

[politicallefty]

Yes I know. This is not a bug, it's a feature.

States have to make a choice between having low taxes but also a terrible or non-existent welfare state or high taxes but an actually decent welfare state. I don't see why this dichotomy should be messed up with through a SALT deduction?

If the people of NJ want good services and high taxes that's their choice (and a choice I do support actually! I do consider myself left of centre after all). And if the people of say, Texas want low taxes and a non-existent welfare state that is also their choice; and they should not be expected to subsidize NJ's high taxes.

(ofc the alternative is to advocate for centralism and a single national tax rate, which is a legitimate policy option, but one that is not realistic in the US or any federal country for that matter)

I don't view a 20%+ uninsured rate as a feature of the federal system. It must be easy for someone like you in Western Europe. Most of this country has zero paid sick leave, zero paid sick days, and zero paid leave. The states that offer any part of that are not surprisingly the highest taxed states in the country. I support restoring the SALT deduction with a substantial increase in the top marginal income tax rates. I'd be willing to go quite high on marginal tax rates.

[politicallefty]

Well yes, I am in favour of paid sick leave and vacations and I do indeed think it's borderline barbaric not to have them .

Idk if it's the federal government or the states the ones that are in charge of regulating labour contracts. If it's the former, then I don't see why SALT matters and it's something trivial to pass through the federal Congress (if it was actually competent which I guess it isn't).

If it's the state governments, my point still stands that if Texans want lower taxes in exchange for no paid leave, that's their choice. Not one I support, but elections have consequences.

Lower-tax red states want to have it both ways. They're also not surprisingly the states with lower minimum wages. Federal programs are based on wages established by the federal government, such as the FPL (federal poverty level). Elections do indeed have consequences. I would have no issue with raising the marginal rates to whatever they need to be to offset reinstating the SALT deduction. If that means a 45%+ top marginal rate, so be it.

We still have states that have refused the Medicaid expansion under the ACA, a refusal that was only allowed as a result of a Supreme Court decision. The federal government already subsidizes bad decisions by the red states. I have no issue reorienting the tax code to subsidize blue states that offer a more generous welfare state. That is exactly what Republicans were attacking with their removal of the SALT deduction. It's straight out of the Grover Norquist playbook of attempting to shrink government so they can try to drown/destroy it.