Democrats shoot themselves in the foot.

It’s kind of interesting to watch the progress of these two bills.

One thing that is completely clear is that the Build Back Better Bill, the $3.5 trillion one, is absolutely not going to pass under any circumstances. Manchin has made that very clear, and he holds all the power. There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to get him to vote for that. The liberals can whine and cry about how that should not be true because 96%-97% of Democrat lawmakers support the bill, but the fact of the matter is that it is true, and they need a Plan B.

22 thoughts on “Democrats shoot themselves in the foot.

  1. If two GA Dem senators didn’t win their run-offs they would not have a foot to shoot. Just sayin’. Reps have been the scorched earth party since Reagan iow they don’t and never will care about public opinion. Kinda admirable in a sordid way lol.

    Digressing, even if Bernie won potus in 2016 and Dems had a (60) seat majority in the senate none of his pie in the sky proposals had a dog’s chance in hell of passing. Reality! Indeed, since Hawaii became a state Reps have never had a (60) seat majority and yet they always seem to control the political agenda. Trump got 3 million fewer votes than Hillary and got to select (3) scotus judges. America, what a country! As always, America survives despite itself.

    Yielding back the balance of my time …

  2. “Lib’ruls” can’t count. “Conservatives” can’t think. How the hell you are ever going to get anything out of this Congress is beyond me.

  3. It’s really simple: we can choose to let one man from one podunk state run the country like an emperor, or we kill the filibuster. That’s decades overdue. We’re the only nation with a parliamentary style government who has it. The democrats have a clear mandate, winning all three branches of government, and can do nothing because of one asshole. That’s not representative government. All of us are disenfranchised because one party must have a super majority in one house of the legislature AND the presidency AND a simple majority in the other house to get even the most simple legislation passed. That’s insane.

    End the filibuster. Enough is enough.

    1. Great idea, but you’d need that same asshole’s vote to do it. To review: no political parties (& certainly no filibuster) in the Constitution.

    2. I’m a Republican and a former president of my law school’s chapter of the Federalist Society, so it probably wouldn’t surprise you that I am against abolishing the filibuster. But I was against it, when Trump was calling for it as well. That’s because no matter how frustrating the filibuster is when you are in the majority, you REALLY appreciate it when you are in the minority. And you will be in the minority again. No party maintains control forever. Harry Reid was frustrated with GOP obstruction of Obama judicial nominees (even though the GOP was obstructing fewer nominees then the Dems did under Bush) and decided to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominees other than for the Supreme Court. It was understood that would last only until there was a Supreme Court nominee. Once that filibuster was gone, the Democrats had no power to stop Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation and no power to even delay Amy Cony Barrett’s.

      I think this country really misses moderate Democrats and Republicans. Conservative Democrats have been replaced with even more conservative Republicans and liberal Republicans with even more liberal Democrats. Washington used to work with lawmakers doing something that is almost considered obscene in politics today, compromising. I want the GOP to recapture Congress and the White House (so long as it’s not Trump). If I had lived in WV, I probably would have voted against Manchin. But today I think I would vote for him because moderates willing to cross the aisle are a precious resource we need to protect.

      1. I think a political minority already has too much ability to thwart the will of the majority in the US. The filibuster is unneccesary and excessive in that regard, IMO. What we need are ways to keep the minority from getting a majority in Congress and the Electoral College.

        I don’t think the country misses moderate Democrats either, because they are readily available if desired. I think claiming that the current crop of Democrats are radicals is laughable. They might be as far left as FDR.

        Maybe the country misses moderate Republicans, but if they are not around, it is because the Republican Party deliberately destroyed them. I think the country misses any major Republican politicians who are not either lickspittles of the rich or stark raving mad.

        I think the GOP is a burned out hulk that has nothing except a shattered reputation to offer. I think a new conservative party is needed. The Federalists died, the Whigs died, I think it’s time for the GOP to leave the stage.

        Right now the main thing they are actually doing is killing people via anti-scientific Covid advice. You can try to preserve that legacy if you want, but I don’t know why you would.

        BTW, I was a Republican in college and in the 1980’s. I learned better when the GOP showed its new colors during the Clinton years. That was 25 years ago. They have only gotten worse as they have eliminated anyone with decency or a backbone.

        1. I think this is a misrepresentation of the Republican Party. Many liberal commentators especially believe the Republicans are nihilists. I think they have a consistent agenda, but it isn’t clear, kind of like Senator Palpatine’s agenda in the Star Wars prequels. But, not kind of like, but, with the exception of leading both sides of a civil war against himself, exactly like it.

          I think the goal of the Republican hierarchy: the very wealthy real elite, the mega churches and the Federalist Society lawyers (and other more secret societies, one of which the Guardian in the U.K just reported on) is to destroy democracy from within. Just like Palpatine’s Empire, the goal then is to set up a neo-Feudalist American state controlled by the wealthy elite, the mega church Christian elite, the legal and political elite and the neo conservative foreign policy establishment elite. For those who know history, this is basically what all of western and central Europe was like prior to the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688 and 1689 that started the ball rolling of slowly establishing democracy first to the equivalent of middle class males, and brought in the concept of due process and equal protection (it’s a complete myth that it was the Magna Carta that did that.)

          Making it impossible for Congress to do basically anything (other than the infrastructure packages) is entirely consistent with destroying democracy from within.

          1. After the fall of the western half of the Roman Empire (and not that Byzantium was any different) the hierarchical feudal state was not only supported by the wealthy elite, the political and legal elite for with the support of the Church for more than 1,000 years but was brutally enforced when necessary. I don’t know why anybody should think that these genuine elites are now happy with sharing power with anybody else, or that these genuine elites haven’t been trying to take power back since representative democracy, as flawed as it has been, was established.

            Of course, this isn’t all of the genuine elite, just as it wasn’t prior to 1688/1689, and it isn’t like the genuine elite don’t have disagreements and rivalries but it’s easily enough for those who want to establish a neo-feudalist society via the Republican Party to tilt the scales.

    3. As NatureMom noted, ending the filibuster would do nothing in this case, because the Dems only need 50 votes to pass BBB (it’s a budget reconciliation bill), and they can’t get 50 without Manchin and Sinema.

      However, they could do some really important long-term stuff if the filibuster were abolished

      If they could think strategically. (Unlikely) Starting with voting rights and statehood for PR and DC.

      The problem is that the Democrats don’t do long-term political strategy, while the Republicans are busy passing laws in the states that will guarantee them control of elections in the long-term – gerrymandering, voter suppression, control of election supervision, control of certification. The Dems would need to end the filibuster to override those things with national laws, and to add more blue states.

      As I’ve noted before, if I controlled the Democratic party , my legislative priorities would be to admit DC and PR, and to gerrymander California into four blue states (very easy to do constitutionally if no filibuster – simple approval of the California legislature and passing both houses of congress). That would give the party 10 additional senators, and cannot be undone. (States can’t be expelled once admitted, no matter how many seats the GOP can get in future elections.) Instead they are focusing on passing a bunch of legislation that (a) will apparently not get passed at all without major compromises, and (b) will be gutted as soon as the GOP gains control of the White House and both houses of congress. (2024, as I see it.)

      The very next thing I would do would be to encourage Democratic-leaning employers like Bezos to hire Puerto Ricans by the tens of thousands in purple states. Although Puerto Rico is not a state, the Puerto Ricans are citizens, which means they can freely move to any state and can immediately vote in national elections. Tens of thousands of votes would make a big difference in Wisconsin, for example.

      And Florida is both a hotly contested purple state and totally friendly to Spanish speakers. A massive influx of Puerto Ricans would turn that sucker blue forever.

      So there you have the difference in the political savvy of the parties. The Republicans have a pretty solid (if evil) plan to gain long-term of control of the country with just a minority of voters. The Democrats can’t even come up with a plan to defend long-term control with an ever-increasing majority of voters.

      Boy, I wish I could make a consulting presentation to Democratic legislators the way I used to present to oil company boards. They might not heed my advice, but I’d love to plant some useful seeds.

      1. The Republicans don’t care about the filibuster because the things they want, the budget and changing laws via the Supreme Court are things that can’t be filibustered. As is mentioned, reconciliation, which is used for budget items, only requires 51 votes to pass (assuming there are 50 votes in opposition.)

        When Mitch McConnell mentioned the things the Republicans would do if there were no filibuster, it was legislation that was so extreme that he knew it would take a lot more than 50 Republican Senators to get it passed. None of it was even advanced as legislation when the Republicans last had the majority in the Senate because even they don’t fully embrace their own wish list. (Not via federal legislation anyway.)

        There are Democrats who think strategically including a number who are officials in the Democratic Party who I’ve read from what they’ve posted on twitter. The problem for the Democrats is two fold:

        1.Republican obstruction via the filibuster basically started after the 1996 election, so almost 25 years now. There was some give and take after the Republicans took control of The House in 1994 with things like the Republican welfare reform and the Democratic S-Chip, after the failure of Clinton’s health care reform.

        The issues in the U.S have built up over little being done in Congress for the last 25 years including, but not limited to: climate change, immigration reform, electoral reform, infrastructure, fixes to ‘Obamacare,’ consumer and labor reform (i.e right to repair and non compete agreements)… So, the first problem is Democrats are divided over what should be the priority.

        2.There are a lot of what I call ‘civility Democrats’ who can’t stand these kinds of ‘cheating’ that Scoopy refer to. There are Republicans who claim they don’t like these sorts of things, but we saw in the end how few ‘never Trump’ Republicans there actually were. In contrast, there seem to be actually quite a large number of Democrats who would stop voting for the Democratic Party if it dared try to do any of those things.

        1. “In contrast, there seem to be actually quite a large number of Democrats who would stop voting for the Democratic Party if it dared try to do any of those things.”

          Precisely why the GOP will emerge on top.

          At the beginning of a boxing match, the referee doesn’t say “only one of you can hit below the belt,” but that’s exactly the way things are now. The GOP keeps punching the liberals in the ‘nads, and the lefties are not prepared to fight back. Their sole go-to response is to whine that the naughty conservatives aren’t playing fair.

  4. Trump won West Virginia by 38 points. It’s a miracle that the Democrats hold a Senate seat in the state. Senator Manchin is just being who he is — a conservative Democrat. I’m old enough to remember when there used to be 10-15 of them in the Senate during the 1980s and early 1990s.
    Looks like Manchin is the last one standing.

  5. The progressives have painted themselves into a corner. They can do nothing but derail a bill that everyone agrees on, in order to hold on to a pipe dream that can’t possibly pass under any circumstances.

    It doesn’t matter what progressives want, or what Republicans want, or what centrist Democrats want. It only matters what Manchin and Sinema want. It has become clear that Manchin doesn’t want the infrastructure bill enough to vote for the BBB bill, so that’s the end of the story. Given that fact, Manchin and Sinema hold total control. In essence, the Build Back Better Bill is whatever they say it is, or it doesn’t exist at all. Schumer and Biden have absolutely no leverage on Manchin at this point. In fact, he can threaten them. If they start to talk about sanctioning him in any way for his stance, he can simply switch parties, ala Arlen Specter, and reinstall the turtle as majority leader. In essence, Manchin holds every card and there’s not a damned thing anyone can do about it. This is why Biden’s staff is now running around like chickens with their heads cut off, trying to salvage something.

    Of course you have to understand that I think like a slimeball Republican, but if I were Manchin, I would now be talking to McConnell rather than to the progressives. “So, Mitch baby (smoking big cigar with my feet up on his desk), what will you do for me if I give you control of the Senate back?”

    Actually, fantasy aside, that’s not what I would have done in this case if I were he, with his goals, which include getting the infrastructure bill through. I would have quietly told the progressives that I would vote for their bill when it comes up in the Senate, wait for the House to pass both bills, then “change my mind” when the big bill comes to the Senate, voting against it with a McCain-like dramatic flourish. In that case, the infrastructure bill would already be signed into law by Biden, since it would then have been passed by both Houses, so Manchin in that scenario could potentially have gotten one without the other. We can be thankful that Manchin is at least upfront about his opposition. At least he possesses the integrity that I so clearly lack.

    As for Sinema, nobody seems to have the slightest idea what the hell she wants. Total wild card. Even if either Manchin or the Progressives cave, somebody has to determine what she wants and try to figure out how to deliver it.

    If the Progressives decide they won’t vote for either bill because the BBB bill gets pared down too much, they will accomplish nothing except defeating an infrastructure bill that has wide bipartisan support. That’s not exactly an accomplishment. It will mean the Dems head into the mid-terms with nothing to crow about, and can probably look forward to losing their razor-thin majorities. (First mid-terms after a Presidential first term can be brutal for his party. The progressives are almost all in safe seats, so they’ll get re-elected, but their colleagues will be in deep sh … er … trouble.) If the Senate changes hands, it means no more confirmed liberal judges on the Supreme Court for many years.

    And ultimately, the failure of Biden to accomplish any part of his agenda could mean four more years of Trump.

    As I said, the Dems better have a Plan B.

    1. I wish you were wrong, expect you are right. I can only add that it would be hilarious if enough Rs broke ranks long enough to pass the BIF. Then later you’d hear them campaigning, pretending to give a shit about people.

      1. Yup, that would be a genius move, but it doesn’t seem that they are smart enough to realize that they can completely thwart the progressives’ strategy simply by voting for a bill they would probably support anyway. That would, however, be the way to go, and would give them a chance to brag about it on the re-election trail. “We gave you money for roads and bridges, but the liberals wanted all of that to collapse.”

        I wonder if Pelosi would call for a vote if she knew it would pass because of GOP votes.

  6. Put a pin in this post. Arguably, progressives hold all the power: Republicans and centrist Democratic alike pine for The BIF and it’s clear that it’s all or nothing for them.

    1. It doesn’t matter what Republicans and centrist Democrats pine for. The only thing that matters is what Manchin and Sinema pine for. It’s obvious that Manchin doesn’t pine for infrastructure enough to vote for BBB, so the case is closed.

      The only remaining hope is that the progressives will vote for the pared-down version of BBB that Biden’s lackeys are trying to structure for Manchin. (And we don’t know yet whether Sinema will vote for any version of BBB.)

      1. I’ve been listening to some of the baseball games on the radio. I’m sure I had nothing to do with it, but after some controversy in Major League Soccer over a team seemingly lose on purpose to choose their opponent in their first game in the playoffs, I sent a tweet to them that they should follow what the World Cup does: have the final game in the pools that crossover to the knockout stage play their games at the same time. The next year, MLS did exactly that with all the final games played at the same time, which they marketed as ‘decision day.’ Again, I highly doubt my tweet had anything to do with that.

        Major League Baseball is now also doing that and I believe the NFL now does that as well.

        Anyway, in regards to Joe Manchin, unlike Krysten Sinema, I’ve been trying to show ‘progressives’ on twitter how consistent he’s actually been, and that he’s actually supportive of them part of their way.

        Right after Biden became President, Manchin was interviewed saying that he wanted to see $4 trillion going to infrastructure because he said it was badly needed. He then added that some of that $4 trillion could be used for the $2,000 stimulus check, but he hoped that it would be means tested because he wanted most of the $4 trillion he would agree to spend to be used for infrastructure.

        He has shown his sincerity in this: He voted for the $1.9 trillion in Covid relief. He then voted for the $550 billion in ‘new spending’ in the infrastructure package, and the $250 billion in the little noticed ‘compete with China’ package.

        Do the math: $1.9 trillion +550 billion + 250 billion = $2.7 trillion. He has agreed to support $1.5 trillion in this reconciliation package, which combines to $4.2 trillion. He has been entirely consistent, even raising the total that he’s willing to spend slightly.

        I can understand why Democrats make dislike him or make fun of him due to his refusal to remove the filibuster due to his absurd belief that he can resurrect 10 Republicans to negotiate with (other than infrastructure) but he has been entirely consistent and above board with his fellow Democrats on this.

        I agree that in limiting the spending to this amount that he is a conservative democrat. But, he is an old line conservative like George H W Bush or Gerald Ford who recognized that there were things that the federal government was needed to help address (like the list I mentioned above: climate change… Of course, on that specific issue Manchin obviously wants to go slow.)

        I disagree with him somewhat in that I think his concern over the total amount of government spending and taxation that he is willing to support is more ‘old school’ 80s economics theory, but, he seems to be one of the few federal politicians who is genuinely concerned about the debt and deficits.

        1. On this, I did some checking, the United States really is in a mess when it comes to their fiscal situation. Pre-Covid, most people might remember that in 2019 that the federal deficit for that year was $1 trillion. But wait, there’s more! It’s mostly a myth that states especially have to balance their budgets. Most states have to balance their operating budgets, but they can have as big capital budget deficits as they like. Total government spending is $2 trillion more than total tax revenue (this includes tariffs, since, after all, a tariff is a tax) however, it does not include fees for services or things like penalties for crimes. Apparently, these things raise about $500 billion a year, so the total deficit of all levels of government for 2019 was around $1.5 trillion, or about 7% of GDP. Most mainstream economists say that a government deficit of 3% of GDP is sustainable. So, America, have fun while you can.

          1. Final thing is contrasting Joe Manchin’s honesty with the dishonesty of some of the progressives.

            They now say that the $1.9 trillion in the Covid relief shouldn’t count as part of the $4 trillion total because it ‘wasn’t any kind of infrastructure.’ That’s nothing more than a dishonest political sleight of hand.

            First, about $350 billion went to the states and localities to assist their budgets. While I believe the spending on this has to be negotiated with the Federal government, most of it is expected to be spent on infrastructure. Second, there was about $125 billion to school infrastructure mostly for better ventilation, which is a good idea with or without Covid (asthma, allergies…)

            So, that’s about $475 billion in ‘traditional infrastructure’ in the $1.9 trillion Covid relief. But, again, wait there’s more!

            In the $1.9 trillion package there was money for making permanent (the next 10 years anyway) tax credits for children, for paid sick leave and for increases in Obamacare funding all of which is part of this reconciliation package. According to the ‘progressives’ that spending wasn’t infrastructure then, but it is now. That’s a dishonest sleight of hand.

            My uptake: I can understand holding out for a bigger amount, but how stupid are these ‘progressives’ On top of the $1.9 trillion, Manchin (and presumably Sinema would go along with him) are offering $800 billion in ‘new spending’ the two ‘traditional’ infrastructure packages along with $1.5 trillion reconciliation, for an additional $2.3 trillion. And these ‘progressives’ would rather have $0 than $2.3 trillion. How stupid are these people?

          2. Sorry, one mistake, the ‘making permanent’ the next 10 years, is part of the reconciliation. Those three things: the increase in subsidies for Obamacare, the paid sick leave and the children tax credits were all initially in the $1.9 Covid relief, which, combined with the aid to the states and the money spent on school upgrades, was a large part of that $1.9 trillion package.

            According to the ‘progressives’ that spending was not ‘human infrastructure’ spending in the $1.9 trillion Covid relief, but it is ‘human infrastructure’ in the $3.5 trillion reconciliation. It’s either a sleight of hand, or it’s something that was said to Alice.

Comments are closed.