The editors of the Washington Post approve of the incipient deal being worked out among Senate Democrats:
The plan represents less than the $6 trillion progressive champion Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who chairs the committee, initially called for. Still, it would expand government as ambitiously as the Great Society of the 1960s, which is why Mr. Sanders expressed enthusiastic support.
We are optimistic about the proposal, too — but cautiously. The highlight is an extension of the expanded child tax credit that was enacted on a one-year basis in the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief plan earlier this year. Delivered at a maximum rate of $3,600 per year for kids under 6 and $3,000 for kids between 6 and 17, the credit has the potential, if permanent, to cut the child poverty rate, 14.4 percent in 2019, by half. The package also contains other major elements of President Biden’s American Families Plan — tuition-free community college, family and medical leave, universal pre-K, increased tax credits for Obamacare and investments to fight climate change. Mr. Sanders won a new dental, vision and hearing benefit under Medicare, a potential life-changer for millions of seniors who now pay for these items out of pocket — or don’t get them at all.
They continue with some cautionary notes—about the appropriations would be allocated among the various priorities, about the pledge not to increase taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000 per year, and about the likelihood of the cap on the deductibility of state and local taxes which is basically a tax break for the upper middle class and the wealthy.
Those aren’t my reservations which are:
- It’s an abuse of the reconciliation process.
- When you enact major changes in policy on the basis of 50%+1 votes, you have relinquished any standing for complaining about your political opponents doing the same thing should they gain a majority. It’s not good government.
- A lot of the additional revenue the bill would require is waved into existence by unlikely assumptions about economic growth. That’s a venerable tradition but we haven’t seen an expansion of the money supply like the one presently being conducted in living memory.
My understanding is that some of this probably cannot survive the Byrd Rule, which a single Senator can invoke with a procedural objection. I don’t know the standard well enough, but it does make a certain type of compromise difficult. All of the players know the Byrd Rule and are probably discounting the probability that any given provision is stricken.
When the Byrd Rule gets in the way of the progressive agenda, it is fully expendable.
and will be met with thunderous applause from the media. While he was campaigning Sanders said despite the rules, reconciliation means whatever he says it does.
As it comes to pass, I predicted last year that there would be a major redefinition of reconciliation.
Reconciliation doesn’t have strong barriers to its redefinition. That comes in 3 forms (1) the parliamentarian definition of what is allowed can change (2) the Senate Majority leader can replace the parliamentarian to get more favorable interpretations (3) the vice-president can ignore the parliamentarian advice (if supported by the majority of the Senate).
This is only half in jest, but Democrats aren’t worried the being on the wrong side of majoritarianism. Lets state out the facts, Republicans have won the majority vote of the President once in 29 years; and Republicans are in total disarray.
As shown in Trump’s Presidency; Republicans don’t have a coherent legislative agenda except for tax cuts. Even if Democrats overreach and voters hand Congress to Republicans eventually — Republicans will probably torpedo their own legislation like Obamacare repeal; their immigration reform preferences; etc etc. And given Republicans total exclusion from the media, business, academia, where are they going to build a coherent agenda from? Perhaps the sarcastic observation that the current Republican party resembles the Whigs has some truth to it.
CO- Not sure you are correct. Winning the most votes doesnt matter anymore. Representing most of the population doesnt matter either in terms of Congress. That is not how we determine winners. Some Democrats have said in the past that demographics favor them but a lot have now figured out you dont necessarily win by getting the most votes so are looking at how you actually win.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/10/democrats-won-popular-vote-senate-too/93598998/
More broadly, for now, we are past the point where there can be a realistic expectation that people will cross party lines to vote.
Steve
I believe your argument bolsters my point.
“Winning the most votes doesnt matter anymore…” implicit in that sentence is that Democrats will keep winning majorities for a long time to come and the only issue is Democrats can’t get what they wish despite having a majority because of the anti-majority bias of the Senate, Supreme Court, etc etc.
My point is majoritarism in other polities like the UK, Canada is usually tempered by respect that the opposition will inevitably be in the majority and the golden rule applies. (Treat the opposition as dirt, they definitely will return the favor in their turn).
But since Republicans haven’t won a majority in voter memories and look as disorganized / disempowered as ever…. there isn’t any fear to temper behavior.
“(Treat the opposition as dirt, they definitely will return the favor in their turn).”
But here is what you are missing. If you work with the other party you are a chump. They are not going to return the favor when they are in power. Politicians are more worried about challenges in the primary than they are in the general. Denying the other party success is more important than accomplishing anything.
Put your cards on the table. Suppose the GOP takes back the Senate. Breyer croaks. I am betting that it wont matter how far it is away from he next election, the Senate wont confirm any Biden choice.
Steve
Its not about working with the other party. Its about changing “rules” of the game; (like radically redefining reconcialiation); that starts an escalating arms race.
If you are asking the GOP’s behavior; they do exhibit a reluctance to change the rules of the game.
McConnel didn’t touch the legislative filibuster when Republicans had the trifecta; because he assumes Republicans would eventually be in the minority.
And on judicial filibusters, Republicans didn’t touch it when they held the Presidency + Senate in the 2000’s. McConnell’s speech when the judicial filibuster was nuked explains Republican thinking/actions pretty well.