Biden infrastructure/tax increase megathread

[Torie]

If true, and even though it is against my financial self interest, I approve. If I were a tax phobe, I would have retired to Florida, not New York.

[Torie]

Well you just borrow all you can while alive against high unrecognized assets while alive, and go on a wild spending spree, and then there is no money left after death to pay any tax,   when the asset is sold. The mega rich when sick might just leave the country and renounce their citizenship.

[Torie]

There seems to be assumption that the Dems have 50 votes locked down for more, a lot more, in reconciliation. What is that based on? And why is it assumed that the "moderate" Pubs don't have some assurance as to how much more Manchin/Sinema, etc. will go for in reconciliation, before delivery their votes for more than they might like in a 60 vote bill? Why in compromise give up more than you would like, and would otherwise agree to, if you held the whip on the high ground, in exchange for basically nothing? The only way that would make sense is if the gang of 11 thought that it was in their, or the Pub party's, interest, to do so, come election time.

I am not really asserting the "progressives" here are wrong, and the "Torie Dem" is right, I am just asking if there is a piece of the puzzle that I am missing.

The Torie Dem is concerned personally, that spending on steroids, with not much pay for, or pseudo pay for, or counterproductive pay for, has negative long term consequences, including for the "progressives" down the line. I hope I am wrong on that - not for me personally with a relatively  short half life, stick it to me baby, but for those who will be around considerably longer.

By the way, putting "controversial" words is "quotes" is my shield. Just a hat tip for you young punks out there, who in so short a time have otherwise lapped me in knowledge and perspicacity. May the force be with you.

[Torie]

I don't believe for one second that the Dems will kill the bipartisan bill, if they don't get a reconciliation  bill with enough goodies in it to satisfy them, for one second, and neither does Manchin of course. This kind of spin gives me vertigo. The public square is but a Kabuki performance these days. Believe what you read or hear at your own risk.

[Torie]

[Torie]

Does anyone think Pelosi's threat to hold the infrastructure bill hostage to a reconciliation package will hold up? It seems to me she will have to accept what both Sinema and Manchin are willing to accept, and if it drags out, she might face a discharge petition to at least get the infrastructure bill passed. I don't think the hold hostage approach will be popular (particular if interest and inflation begin to inch up), and the optics are terrible. Team Sanders and Pelosi at least in public seem to act as if they have cards to play in their deck, that I at least can't discern myself.  Am I missing something here?

[Torie]

Does anyone think Pelosi's threat to hold the infrastructure bill hostage to a reconciliation package will hold up? It seems to me she will have to accept what both Sinema and Manchin are willing to accept, and if it drags out, she might face a discharge petition to at least get the infrastructure bill passed. I don't think the hold hostage approach will be popular (particular if interest and inflation begin to inch up), and the optics are terrible. Team Sanders and Pelosi at least in public seem to act as if they have cards to play in their deck, that I at least can't discern myself.  Am I missing something here?

Yes, getting nothing is unambiguously better than passing something Sinema wants enacted without getting significant progressive legislation passed in exchange.  If Manchin, Tester, and Sinema (R-AZ), aren’t going to keep their word then the House should kill their pet piece of crap.  The deal was their pet piece of crap in exchange for the $3.5 billion reconciliation bill.  The Democrats deserve to lose the House if the “bipartisan” piece of crap gets passed by Congress and the reconciliation bill doesn’t.

Biden can piss off too btw, he’s enabling this nonsense by acting like a passive, impotent bystander instead of a President.  He needs to take a less from Pelosi and Schumer and start doing his job for a change.

Thank you for your opinion, but I guess the issue is whether or not team Pelosi shares that point of view as well, that nothing is better than something, for whatever reason. Granted, you seem to be saying that the infrastructure bill is bad on its own merits, for whatever reason.

[Torie]

Does anyone think Pelosi's threat to hold the infrastructure bill hostage to a reconciliation package will hold up? It seems to me she will have to accept what both Sinema and Manchin are willing to accept, and if it drags out, she might face a discharge petition to at least get the infrastructure bill passed. I don't think the hold hostage approach will be popular (particular if interest and inflation begin to inch up), and the optics are terrible. Team Sanders and Pelosi at least in public seem to act as if they have cards to play in their deck, that I at least can't discern myself.  Am I missing something here?

I am skeptical a discharge petition would ever be used against Pelosi. It takes a remarkable circumstance for it to be used and she has good if not perfect control of her caucus.

I understand, but I suspect the threat of it has caused tacking in the past. I just don't believe that ending up with nothing is going to happen, so somebody is going to have to tack.

[Torie]

So is it law now?

It passed the Senate. It's not law. Pelosi won't let it pass without a reconciliation bill she likes in tandem. So it will be a bit of a wait, maybe a long wait.

[Torie]

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

[Torie]

The Dem strategy utterly baffles me here. Manchin is not folding, and the Dems do not have the votes for anything over 2 trillion, if even that.  Their strategy seems designed to irritate Manchin, if anything, and heck, he may do a F you, and go down to 1 trillion. Then the Dems have a choice of either 1) getting nothing, with the infrastructure bill going down the tubes if the squad does their thing, in which event, the 2022 cycle will be a disaster for them, or 2) folding and looking like fools, with all that perfervid rhetoric, all hat and no cattle. If you don't have the votes, don't go there, pretending that you do. Take what you can, and wait for another day. McConnell knew what he was doing from the get-go. It appears that team Schumer did not.

I also view such massive spending as a risky scheme at present, given all the unknowns and wheels turning out there. I understand that the Dems wanted to seize the moment, and window of opportunity, that may close later and for a long time. They are doing it however without my support, but then obviously the last thing on their mind is my opinion about anything. Their loss, not mine! 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/571605-manchin-sanders-set-for-clash-over-biden-spending-package

[Torie]

The Dem strategy utterly baffles me here. Manchin is not folding, and the Dems do not have the votes for anything over 2 trillion, if even that.  Their strategy seems designed to irritate Manchin, if anything, and heck, he may do a F you, and go down to 1 trillion. Then the Dems have a choice of either 1) getting nothing, with the infrastructure bill going down the tubes if the squad does their thing, in which event, the 2022 cycle will be a disaster for them, or 2) folding and looking like fools, with all that perfervid rhetoric, all hat and no cattle. If you don't have the votes, don't go there, pretending that you do. Take what you can, and wait for another day. McConnell knew what he was doing from the get-go. It appears that team Schumer did not.

I also view such massive spending as a risky scheme at present, given all the unknowns and wheels turning out there. I understand that the Dems wanted to seize the moment, and window of opportunity, that may close later and for a long time. They are doing it however without my support, but then obviously the last thing on their mind is my opinion about anything. Their loss, not mine! 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/571605-manchin-sanders-set-for-clash-over-biden-spending-package

If it gets voted down by the Progressives, they can pass it later. They have a year and a half to pass the bipartisan bill. They could do it November 7th if they want. Maybe Manchin will still be dug in by then, but the Squad won't be. There's nothing lost by waiting a few weeks to see if Manchin and Sinema can be moved. It will eventually be law either way.

Yes, if the squad folds, that mitigates matters.

[Torie]

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/biden-inheritancetax-plan-poised-be-scaled-back-congress

Biden inheritance-tax plan poised to be scaled back in Congress

It seems that the regressive idea of nixing the SALT cap is on the table, a cross subsidy from high tax states to low tax states to boot. To fantasize being that Senator from a low tax state, Joe Manchin, for a moment, my response would be that for each dollar of revenue lost from losing the SALT cap, I am going to subtract dollar for dollar what I would otherwise support as my max for the size of the reconciliation bill.

[Torie]

What Manchin is saying to me is that at the present time the max number for a reconciliation bill that he would support is zero. He wants to get passed the infrastructure bill, and then start over on reconciliation, using a different approach, and with different priorities, and maybe something will evolve next year. Hey, Joe, says the talking head, the progressives are holding your infrastructure bill hostage, so what you want is not what you will get. Joe serenely smiles. Well, we will see what happens. He knows the progressives are not really going to go there, that would be political malpractice, and even if they did want to burn the barn down, they don't have enough votes to do so. He plans to just wait them out, and watch them fold and fail.

On another show he said 1 trillion to 1.5 trillion, but only if the tax code is revised in a way he finds acceptable on the revenue raising side, and at the moment it isn't. And he is in no rush, unlike with the infrastructure bill.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/12/manchin-senate-spending-agenda-511482

[Torie]

Actually, after reading the article below, it is clear that the squad types don't have enough votes to stop anything, and I expect them to be kicked to the curb in due course.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/17/liberals-progressives-democrat-agenda-512621

[Torie]

Actually, after reading the article below, it is clear that the squad types don't have enough votes to stop anything, and I expect them to be kicked to the curb in due course.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/17/liberals-progressives-democrat-agenda-512621

I don't get what in that article is indicating that for you. Half their caucus voting against leaves it many votes shy of passing with dems alone. And there's nothing there about a bunch of Republicans who are going to come on board.

There are Pub votes for infrastructure. There were 19 of them in the Senate.

[Torie]

Insane or not, this article claims that Biden told Manchin that the infrastructure bill is being held hostage to reconciliation. Are the Dems really prepared to let both die, if they don't get both?

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/19/kyrsten-sinema-biden-drug-pricing-prescription-plan-512907

I know what I would have told Biden right then and there if I were Manchin. In that case, Mr. President, I will cease my discussions on reconciliation unless and until the infrastructure bill is passed, and if that is not possible, to pass infrastructure on a stand alone basis, you should consider that both bills are dead. Nice to see you again Mr. President.

[Torie]

I appreciate that posters have different priorities and agendas on all of this, but a couple of things.

The Sept 27 deadline date came to be in order for the Dems to round up enough votes to win the procedural vote to start the reconciliation process in the first instance, because some "rogue" Dems were insisting on a vote on the infrastructure bill on a stand alone basis. The Sept 27 thing was the finesse. Let us get going on reconciliation and you agree to a delay on the infrastructure bill until Sept 27, at which time, reconciliation bill or no, you get your vote on the infrastructure bill.

How will it work out politically for the Dems if they kill the infrastructure bill because they did not get their way on reconciliation? Is that really a creditable threat for them to make vis a vis the "rogue Dem" caucus? That seems like a bluff to me, and if the Dems really go there, I think the rogue Dems will call it.

We shall see. I see on my screen "Sept 21" (how time flies), so six more days to go - until this coming Monday! I guess the only people playing on the congressional golf course this weekend will be Pubs.

Addendum: Things seem to be devolving into a clown car smash up for the Dems.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/21/democrats-biden-domestic-agenda-implode-513218

Who is in charge over there anyway? Yeah, I know, nobody. That's why so many folks are rushing to the microphones to say what seem to me to be rather unwise and foolish things. If someone were in charge, they would all be told to shut up.

[Torie]

Schumer and Yellen say agreement reached on paying for economic bill but it's unclear if moderates are on board

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Thursday an agreement on revenues to pay for the Democrats' $3.5 trillion agenda, though they did not offer details and its unclear if key moderate Democrats are on board.

"The White House, the House and the Senate have reached an agreement on a framework that will pay for any final negotiated agreement," said Schumer, alongside Yellen and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at her weekly press conference Thursday. "So, the revenue side of this, we have an agreement on."

A senior Democratic aide says there's an agreement between House and Senate Democratic leaders, the chairs of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees, and White House officials are meeting with key House and Senate moderates today to talk about financing options.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/23/politics/democrats-agreement-yellen-revenue-economic-agenda/index.html

Apparently the funding "framework" is a big surprise to a lot of Dems, including ones that are not moderate, and including the second in command guy, Durbin.  It appears to be a string of words crafted to give the appearance that something is going on moving the ball forward, when in fact nothing is.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/573645-democrats-surprised-caught-off-guard-by-framework-deal

My wild guess is that infrastructure will pass next Monday, without reconciliation of course, and Manchin etc in "exchange" will say they are still happy to chat about reconciliation - at a deliberate pace, no rush. My guess is based on the surmise that Manchin has indicated that if infrastructure is held hostage, reconciliation is dead. The Dems, progressive or otherwise, and not going to go the nothing route. That is my surmise, and I suspect Manchin's. The Dems never had the cards on this one, so they were left with bluffs that are going to be called.

[Torie]

Your favorite rag Politico makes quite clear that the link between infrastructure and reconciliation is broken. It also asserts what I had surmised was in play,  that Manchin and some other moderates said negotiations on reconciliation would end if infrastructure was not released from hostage.

The whole passion play was way over wrought. Now in due course, in a calm manner, additional programs and spending items and revenue raisers can be discussed in a deliberate manner, and some things agreed to later, of a size that the progressives will find infuriatingly paltry and parsimonious.

So the passion play will end, but not the passions themselves. I blame Trump for much of this, but then since I think he is actually Satan reincarnated, I am not an unbiased commentator on that one.

Oh yes, the link to the rag! My bad.  

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/27/pelosi-house-democrats-infrastructure-514359

[Torie]

Of course as a MAGA anti-Dem partisan I want everything to not pass but putting that aside this situation is very interesting from a game theory point of view.  It seems to me the Dem moderates have a clear negations advantage over the Dem progressives.  This is because Biden has not come out strongly and publicall7y saying that unless both the bipartisan and reconciliation bill must pass for his agenda to be successful.   Without that Pelosi and Schumer might have no choice but to try to get something passed and could always borrow GOP votes to overcome Dem progressive defections.  The Dem progressives do not have this option and puts them at a disadvantage.

The game theory calculation from the GOP point of view is also interesting.  I am sure most of them, like me, just want everything to fail and then wait for the 2022 anti-Dem wave.  But lending support to the Dem moderates to get the bipartisan bill passed might increase the divide between Dem moderates and Dem progressives.  There is an argument that it is easier to defeated a divided Dem party that got something done versus a united Dem party that go nothing done in 2022.  Not clear which is better for the GOP but some in the GOP might take the former option and have the talking point of "hey, we did help get something passed."

I don't think you need to get this complicated. It was never creditable for an instant to me that the progressives (that Seattle congresswoman's posturing to the contrary notwithstanding), really disliked the infrastructure bill on its own terms, and would only support in exchange for something big in reconciliation. It was just a hostage game, so it was just a matter of time until their bluff was called, and they folded. They know it would disastrous for the Dems to be seen as having killed both, because they did not get both. The Pubs in the House who vote for infrastructure will do so only because they think it is in their political interest to do so, or believe in it on its own merits, and not to bail out Pelosi. From a solely political standpoint, the Dem dog in the manger scenario is the best for them.

[Torie]

Here is a thought experiment. Pretend that Manchin is a Republican, say a Portman type. You are a progressive Dem. You have two choices. The first is to refuse to vote for the infrastructure bill because there is no prospect of getting very much of what you want in a reconciliation bill, if anything, and thereby end up with nothing passing, or voting for and enacting into law the infrastructure bill, the idea being that something is better than nothing. What are you going to prefer?  There is zero chance you can bully or persuade Manchin to change his mind, zero. He has said down the road the contents of a reconciliation bill can be discussed over time, without any preconditions or time gun to his head, and that it would be wise to see what happens to the economy and inflation and so forth for a few months in any event, to wit, yes, that reset button.

There seems to be all this sound and fury going nowhere because Manchin is who he is, from a state that is what it is, that is generated simply because it is Manchin (D), rather than Manchin (R). You just don't have the votes, or the leverage to get them. All you have is the power to tank the infrastructure bill, I guess the idea being to punish Manchin for being Manchin by denying him the infrastructure bill that he wants. I don't think his behavior is subject to change via progressive spankings.  Why should it be, when it did not change as a result of a Biden spanking, with whom he is on far better terms personally than with the progressive people?

Is spanking Manchin, because he is a (D), more important than getting the infrastruture bill passed, that is the question.

And then there is Sinema who does not want any tax increases it seems. Maybe she will go for "creative accounting." But there is no need to go there since I suspect what is in her mind is essentially moot. The Manchin man is the thing.

Addendum:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/29/us/politics/republicans-infrastructure-bill.html

If I were Portman, I would be trying to cut a deal wherein Manchin pledges to defer reconciliation until say next year in exchange for the Pubs delivering enough votes for infrastructure to offset the progressive defections.

[Torie]

I am not buying the spin that Sinema is the evil ice queen of Narnia, and Manchin is Aslan, who will be there in a pinch for the lovable furry denizens, at all. The idea is that AZ is a Biden state, so put the screws on Sinema, and with her then "pacified" after a suitable time on the rack adding an inch to her height, then woo Manchin, who cannot be threatened politically, and the Dems know it.

I was born at night, but not last night. If Sinema means it that she does not want to raise taxes to pay for the "investments" in the reconciliation bill, this really does seem dead. Manchin is into pay fors, and more about trimming back the cost of the expenditures. I also don't see Manchin falling in love with front loading the spending side either. That is an accounting gimmick, that won't fool canny old Joe.

Khanna and Pelosi are displaying really high stress levels. Pelosi in particular was wound up really tight.

[Torie]

This thread has become just about as "decorous" as the "conversation" on this topic in the Congress itself.

And now the confession from the old man. I really don't feel adequately informed as to have an opinion that is worth much as to what is the appropriate size of the reconciliation package and how it should be paid for, if at all. Maybe zero is best (unlikely), or maybe 10 trillion is best (unlikely too).

And now for a personal opinion. My personal preference as to priorities in spending is that there should be a national medicaid program (cue in Clyburn), and expansion of coverage in Obamacare for dental work, etc. (cue in Schumer and Sanders). In other words, as to those two prongs of the "Leftist/Progressive" agenda, rather than having to pick one or the other, I want both. The cost can be reduced some as needed via means testing (cue in Manchin).

So everyone gets a wet kiss from me this morning. Thank you.

[Torie]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/01/pelosi-pledges-friday-infrastructure-vote-biden-agenda-hangs-balance/

Pelosi's press releases on this topic have proven to have a value about equal to value of the lowest coin in the realm.

My worthless expectation is that there will no vote today unless Manchin ratchets it up another notch, and says that if infrastructure is not passed today, his max on reconciliation will drop 500 billion to 1 trillion. Otherwise, it appears that the progressives have nothing to lose, and even if the top line number ends up bring 1.5 trillion, they would rather have it at a later date where they can haggle on what gets spent where and when. So they need to be whipped [incentivized] to not do that.

Another option if that kind of flagellation [motivation] does not move the progressives, is to cut them loose, and for Manchin to drop his reconciliation number down to zero, or thereabouts, in exchange for McCarthy delivering a boatload of Pub votes. It might be useful to make a leak somewhere than Manchin and McCarthy have been chatting on the phone lately on a regular basis.