Democratic Leadership has set Christmas as the deadline for passing the Build Back Better reconciliation bill, which would have been done in September but for the selfish antics of two prima donna Democratic divas, Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.
The Progressive Caucus agreed to support their “precious,” the bipartisan Senate infrastructure bill, in good faith that these two prima donna Democratic divas would honor the bargain that they would then vote for the Build Back Better reconciliation bill in return.
It now appears that the two prima donna Democratic divas may be reneging on the bargain. They got what they wanted, so screw everyone else. This is exactly the bad faith that the Progressive Caucus feared in insisting that the two bills move together in tandem and pass at the same time. Their instinct was right not to trust these two prima donna Democratic divas.
The Wall Street Journal reports today, Sen. Joe Manchin Holds Back Support for Social-Spending Bill:
Sen. Joe Manchin declined to commit to voting for Democrats’ roughly $2 trillion social-policy and climate package, citing concerns about inflation and the length of programs, weeks before the Christmas deadline party leaders are racing to meet.
Mr. Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, made the remarks during The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council Summit at a pivotal moment for Democrats in Washington—and one where he has been a key figure. Because Senate Democrats are using a special budget maneuver to pass their education, healthcare and climate package without any GOP support, they can’t lose a single senator from their own party.
Mr. Manchin has supported the other two pillars of President Biden’s agenda this year. But the senator, who represents a state former President Donald Trump won by 40 points in 2020, continues to express concern about the bill’s impact on inflation and the deficit.
Note: Sen. Manchin doesn’t know jack diddly squat about economics. All he knows is the histrionics he reads in the newspapers and sees on cable TV from irresponsible media feeding a self-fulfilling Inflationary Psychology, for which he is adding his two cents with his ignorant comments.
Listen up America: Joe Manchin, a wealthy coal baron who made his fortune off federal coal subsidies doesn’t think that average Americans who are financially struggling through a pandemic economy need any financial assistance. He wants to unload his coal in your Christmas stockings this Christmas.
“The unknown we’re facing today is much greater than the need that people believe in this aspirational bill that we’re looking at,” Mr. Manchin said Tuesday. “We’ve gotta make sure we get this right. We just can’t continue to flood the market, as we’ve done.”
“We’ve done so many good things in the last 10 months, and no one is taking a breath,” he said.
If you can’t keep up, old man, retire and go back home to sit on your porch in West Virginia.
Democrats say the package is fully paid for and point to reports from Moody’s Investors Service and others projecting no major inflation impact.
Like I said, Sen. Manchin doesn’t know jack diddly squat about economics.
Senators are currently discussing with the nonpartisan parliamentarian what provisions can comply with the budget maneuver, according to aides, putting some immigration- and drug-pricing-related provisions in peril. When that process will be complete isn’t clear.
Even if it passes the Senate, the legislation is expected to be different than the House-approved version and would need to be sent back to the House for final passage before Mr. Biden can sign it into law.
If Senate Democrats pass the bill, House Democrats will pass it the next day, just to finally get this done. They will fight for what gets left out in next year’s budget bill.
Mr. Manchin and Arizona Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema had expressed concerns about the size and funding mechanisms of the bill, prompting Democrats to slim it down and make changes in the hopes of earning their support. Still, neither senator has committed to voting for the legislation.
That’s right, after everyone bent over backwards to appease these two prima donna Democratic divas in scaling back the size of investment in America’s future and passed their “precious,” the bipartisan Senate infrastructure bill, they still will not commit to voting for the Build Back Better reconciliation bill, demonstrating their bad faith.
Last week CNN reported, Exclusive: Sinema won’t commit to voting for Biden’s sweeping social safety net expansion:
Kyrsten Sinema, the influential moderate Democratic senator from Arizona, did not commit to voting for President Joe Biden’s sweeping social safety net legislation in a sit-down interview with CNN on Thursday, the latest sign that Senate Democrats do not yet have the votes to pass one of the party’s top legislative priorities even as leadership hopes to approve the measure before Christmas.
Sinema indicated she plans to continue negotiating over the bill. Asked if she is prepared to vote “yes” when the legislation, known as the Build Back Better Act, comes to the Senate floor, Sinema would not say.
“I am always prepared to vote and to vote for what’s right for the interests of Arizona for the self-interest of Kyrsten Sinema,” she said.
Pressed on what changes she would like to see to the version that recently passed the House of Representatives, Sinema responded, “When you negotiate directly in good faith with your colleagues and don’t negotiate publicly, you’re actually much more likely to find that agreement and get to an achievement that serves the interests of the people of your community, and that’s what I’ll continue to do as we negotiate the Build Back Better plan.”
As a lawyer, this is what is known as a non-responsive answer in the business. Sinema did not identify a single thing in the bill that she has not already managed to cut out of the bill to satisfy her corporate donors.
And “serves the interests of the people of your community”? Sinema does not meet with her constituents, and does not seriously respond to them when they contact her office.
Sinema prefers to negotiate behind closed dooors with no transparency or seeking feedback from her constituents. And she thinks this is a selling point for voters? Boy, is she going to be in for a rude awakening.
And too cute by half:
Before the start of the interview on Thursday, Sinema’s cellphone rang. Her ringtone is the refrain from a song in the musical “Hamilton” that includes the lyrics “you don’t have the votes.” It’s been her ringtone since 2015, the year the musical was originally released, her spokesman told CNN.
In recent months, progressives have criticized Sinema and Manchin for their positions, with some arguing that Sinema is an enigma, hard to pin down and not forthcoming about where she stands.
Sinema insists she’s clear about her positions but that sometimes people don’t like what she says.
She is right about that. I’ll give her that.
“I think I’m very direct. I am very upfront when I talk to folks about what I believe in, what I can support and what I can’t support. I think there are some people who just don’t like what they’re hearing and maybe they use other terms to describe it,” she said. “Folks in Arizona know that I’ve always been a straight shooter and always will be.”
No, I do not know that about you. I’ve never been a fan. You are certainly not demonstrating it. And the only people Sinema talks to is friendly media, and her corporate campaign donors.
Sinema — who has served in the Senate since 2019 — emerged this year as a major negotiator in the President’s agenda, helping to work with Republicans for months to craft the President’s infrastructure bill.
“I don’t really spend much time thinking about what other people are saying publicly,” she said. “I really just try to stay focused on the negotiations at hand. Number one, I stay focused on delivering results for folks in Arizona. I don’t really care what other folks are saying out loud, whether they’re saying it on television or in a newspaper.”
She also doesn’t care what her constituents are saying. This is why she does not respond to you with anything but a form letter.
She took the lead on the Democratic side in that negotiation, a push that culminated in Biden signing into law a sweeping $1.2 trillion bill that will make investments in roads, bridges, mass transit, rail, airports and waterways.
And the Arizona Democrat has already exerted enormous influence over the Build Back Better Act, which would expand the social safety net by providing aid to families, expanding access to health care and tackling the climate crisis.
While liberal Democrats originally wanted a $3.5 trillion price tag for the package, Sinema made clear she would not support that as a top-line number. Manchin also objected to $3.5 trillion, and the cost of the legislation has now been reduced to roughly $1.9 trillion.
Sinema also made clear early on in the talks that she wouldn’t support an increase in the corporate tax rate by a single percentage point, a position that Democratic congressional leaders and the White House spent weeks trying to change her mind on. She would not budge.
Sinema made clear in the interview that she’s no fan of party leaders overpromising what can be included in a bill, saying that it risks making the American public angry and apathetic.
“I would never promise something to the American people that I can’t deliver and I think it’s not responsible for elected leaders to do that,” she said.
“Being honest is the most appropriate way to engage in any interaction, whether it’s in a political setting or in a personal setting, but I also believe that when elected leaders on either side of the political aisle promise things that cannot be delivered it actually exacerbates the political problems we face in our country,” she said, “and people become more angry or even apathetic and want to turn away from the political process, because they feel like no one is telling them the truth or being honest with them.”
Totally lacking in self-awareness. She is reneging on the bargain that was made to the Progressive Caucus to pass her “precious,” the bipartisan Senate infrastructure bill, in exchange for her vote on the Build Back Better budget reconciliation bill. How is this being honest? Look in the mirror, at the lady staring back at you: “people become more angry or even apathetic and want to turn away from the political process, because they feel like no one is telling them the truth or being honest with them.”
Sinema went into detail over why she opposed a $3.5 trillion price tag for the Build Back Better Act and outlined concerns over inflation and the toll it’s taking on the American public.
“I won’t support any legislation that increases burdens on Arizona or American businesses and reduces our ability to compete either domestically or globally,” she said. “That’s one of the reasons I said I wasn’t able to support a $3.5 trillion bill.”
Sinema went on to say, “Inflation is a real problem in our country right now,” adding, “I want to make sure that if we are crafting legislation, we are doing it in a lean and efficient way that is fiscally responsible and doesn’t impact things like inflation or make our businesses less competitive.”
Once again, “Democrats say the package is fully paid for and point to reports from Moody’s Investors Service and others projecting no major inflation impact.” Sinema and Manchin are just parroting Republican talking points, not fact.
Asked if she wants paid family leave to be part of the Build Back Better Act, Sinema said, “I have long said I support paid family leave,” but that “I also understand we’re in the middle of a negotiation, so I’m not going to spend a lot of time talking with you about the nuances of that negotiation because I would like to get to a result, but folks know my position on this issue.”
In other words, no transparency. I’ll bet she does take her corporate donors’ calls.
House Democrats included paid family leave in the House version of the legislation, but Manchin has signaled he will not support that as part of the social safety net package.
Here is the real problem. These two prima donna Democratic divas have divergent, and sometimes conflicting agendas. They are not on the same page, so to get one vote, leadership may lose the other vote. And both appear comfortable with playing the villain, the one person who stood athwart history and told 330 million Americans “no.” If either believes that this will not result in their defeat, they are more naive and delusional than I thought.
There is more in this CNN interview which you may find of interest.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Obstructionist GQP appeaser, hillbilly coal baron Joe Manchin, really does want to deliver his dirty coal to your Christmas stockings. “The Obstructionist Joe Manchin: Dems Say He Won’t Allow Vote on Spending and Climate Plan Before Christmas”, https://www.politicususa.com/2021/12/10/the-obstructionist-joe-manchin-dems-say-he-wont-allow-vote-on-spending-and-climate-plan-before-christmas.html
Democrats say that Senator Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) has made clear he won’t allow a vote on the Biden administration’s spending and climate plan before Christmas. They say that they have the support of 49 senators but lack Manchin and they need a unified caucus in order to pass the legislation.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said he wants to proceed with a vote before the Christmas holidays but Manchin’s support being in doubt means that it is very likely there won’t be a vote until after the New Year.
“We know we have 49 votes,” one senator said. “We have 49 people, all we need is Manchin.”
Manchin has been widely criticized for delaying attempts by House and Senate Democrats to codify much of their economic and social policy agenda via a major spending bill.
The plan is part of efforts from the Democrats to respond to the climate crisis, invest in infrastructure and expand education, healthcare, and childcare.
Democrats are still cowering before these prima donna Democratic divas. It’s long past time to take the gloves off and pound them into submission. “Democrats lobby Manchin and Sinema — politely — as they try to save their priorities for the domestic policy package”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/manchin-build-back-better-democrats/2021/12/08/52426196-582d-11ec-a808-3197a22b19fa_story.html
Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr.’s (D-PA) vigilance — and that of numerous other Democratic senators — is primarily trained on Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), who have consistently pushed back on the maximalist ambitions of President Biden and their fellow congressional Democrats. As recently as Tuesday night, Manchin sent clear signals that he believes the $1.85 trillion domestic policy bill that emerged from the House needs to be pared back further in the Senate given the threat of inflation.
[F]ellow Democrats are hoping their engagement can stave off a total revolt from Manchin and from Sinema, who has been less publicly critical in recent weeks but has not endorsed the House bill. Many have engaged in a last-ditch private lobbying campaign, while others — including Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — have sought to build public pressure on the moderates.
[N]umerous other Democratic senators said this month that they are talking a similar approach to Manchin and Sinema — sharing data and briefing materials, offering to answer questions and otherwise taking a careful approach to lobbying their colleagues. Nearly all said that their interactions with the two senators have been polite, respectful and substantive, but that they rarely end in any firm commitments.
But in a 50-50 Senate, where any one member can unilaterally impose their will, fellow senators said they have little choice but to use a soft touch and hope for the best.
“Relationships, understanding where another senator is coming from and being respectful of their frame and their concerns is the best way to be persuasive with any senator,” said Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), who has pushed his colleagues to back climate and higher-education provisions.
[A] few senators have opted for more public efforts — notably Bernie Sanders, who is on a quest to not only preserve the House-passed bill but expand it to more closely match the framework he helped craft over the summer that included expanding Medicare benefits to cover dental, hearing and vision coverage. (The House bill included only hearing.)
While his colleagues might prefer a lower-key approach, Sanders has not been shy about criticizing the cutbacks — and Manchin and Sinema personally. “Two people do not have the right to sabotage what 48 want,” he said in October, as intraparty tensions peaked.
In an interview this month, Sanders said he was determined to make sure the final package included robust tax increases for the wealthy and corporations, a significant Medicare expansion and a meaningful reduction in prescription drug prices. He encouraged Americans concerned about further cuts to contact not only their own home-state senators, but others, as well, and he rejected any concerns that the pressure could backfire.
“Members of the Senate are big boys and girls — they understand issues, and we’re going to have to come to terms with what they believe,” he said, adding that policymakers need “to start worrying about the middle class and not wealthy campaign contributors.”
Outside of the Senate, some groups on the left have also embraced aggressive tactics — ranging from six-figure TV ad campaigns in Arizona and West Virginia to in-person confrontations. Immigration activists protested during a college class Sinema teaches in Arizona in October, following her into a bathroom at one point, while megaphone-toting climate activists have paddled up to Manchin’s Washington houseboat in the early morning hours.
Even some sympathetic Democrats believe the overt pressure campaigns are unlikely to succeed, and they are counseling anxious activists to instead have some faith in the inside game. [You have wasted enough time. Time’s up!]
“Most senators, you know, we’re stubborn,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has lobbied colleagues for prekindergarten and child care programs. “Too much public pressure causes us to [go] the other way. The public’s entitled to do it, but I think what really matters the most is the internal discussions we have.”
Amid Manchin’s public warnings, Sinema has issued red flags of her own, noting in interviews that the House-passed bill does not strictly fit a policy framework she negotiated with the White House. But Democratic lawmakers and aides are optimistic that Sinema is largely on board with the final bill — and that both lawmakers are eager to bring a grueling and divisive process to a close after months of wrangling that have taken a toll on Democratic approval ratings ahead of next year’s midterm elections.
While Sanders and a few others have hopes of expanding the House bill by adding back previously dropped provisions like the full Medicare expansion, other Democrats know that adding to the $1.85 trillion price tag is unlikely given Manchin and Sinema’s public concerns. And they are bracing for the elimination of two major portions of the House bill — one that would establish a new national paid family leave program, which Manchin opposes passing on a partisan basis, and another that would offer some illegal immigrants a path to legal status, which is subject to parliamentary challenge.
If those programs are left on the cutting room floor, many Democrats are hoping that potentially hundreds of billions of dollars might be shifted to other priorities. But they are also trying to keep their expectations in check.
“To me, the priority is getting 50 votes,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “Joe’s been pretty clear about the parts of the House-passed bill that he doesn’t like, and I think there’s still some work to be done. So we’re all going to be invested in creative solutions to get all 50 of us to yes.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said “We need some people to change their minds about their supporting this bill in my own caucus.” “You know who they are,” she said.
Paul Waldman provides some necessary context, “Lawmakers who fret about spending quietly pass hundreds of billions for ‘defense’”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/08/hundreds-of-billions-for-defense/
[The House vote to allocate $768 billion in defense spending was bipartisan, with a final tally of 363 to 70.]
[T]he basic idea underlying the bill — that we should always and forever spend spectacular amounts of money on guns, bombs, tanks, planes and ships — is simply not a matter of debate.
The contrast with how we treated the far less costly bills Democrats have recently advocated, particularly the infrastructure law and the Build Back Better bill, could not be more stark.
We spent endless TV hours and newspaper column inches debating the precise size of those bills and how they would be paid for. Is $3.5 trillion too much? How about $1.9 trillion? Would $1.7 trillion work? Should we increase taxes on the rich to fund them, and if not, where do we get the money?
Nobody ever asks “Where do we get the money?” when it comes to a defense bill. And that $768 billion? It’s a single year’s figure, unlike the 10-year totals that are used to describe infrastructure and BBB.
So I did some quick calculations based on previous spending. If the defense budget were to rise 4 percent a year (about what it has over the past couple of decades), 10 years from now we’d spend $1.1 trillion a year; the 10-year total starting with this budget would be $9.2 trillion.
But here’s what you won’t see: headlines about how Congress is voting for a projected $9 trillion in spending oh my god!
You will not hear that from Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.). You will not hear that from any Republicans, of the ordinary conservative or more extreme Trumpist variety. You will not hear it from the sage pundits on the Sunday shows.
No one will talk about how irresponsible it is to spend like a drunken sailor, no one will cry that it’s terribly cruel to saddle our children and grandchildren with so much debt, and no one will warn darkly that such spending will surely send inflation rocketing upward.
[W]hich reveals a fundamental truth: Nobody thinks we should worry about debt or potential economic consequences when it comes to the spending they happen to like. It’s only when we’re talking about things they don’t want to spend money on at all that they marshal those arguments.