Predictably, the editors of the Wall Street Journal are enthusiastic in their support of West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin’s negotiating position on the spending bills presently being debated:
Progressives are furious with Mr. Manchin, and with Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, for refusing to go along with the Bernie Sanders entitlement dreamscape. As an act of retribution, they’ve threatened to scuttle the $1 trillion infrastructure bill that the two Democrats negotiated with Republicans.
Mr. Sanders wants the House to defeat the infrastructure bill, a Biden priority, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to delay going to the floor again Thursday because she lacked the votes to pass it. Unless it passes, the moderate liberals who support the infrastructure bill will know they’re riding in the back of the party bus.
Not so Mr. Manchin, who has the leverage in a 50-50 Senate to ride in the front, maybe even to drive the bus. They can’t afford to lose his vote, yet the left and the White House have behaved as if somehow the West Virginian would roll over in the end.
Mr. Manchin has been sending signals for months that his support has limits. First he refused to break the Senate filibuster. Then he said he couldn’t support $3.5 trillion because it’s inflationary and the economy no longer needs the help. Then in our pages he called for a “strategic pause†on the spending bill to debate specific policies. He might as well have been Ted Cruz for all that Democratic leaders paid attention.
Then, in statements and remarks Wednesday and Thursday, Mr. Manchin laid down markers that Democrats can no longer ignore. He won’t support more than $1.5 trillion in new spending. He says “social programs must be targeted to those in need, not expanded beyond what is fiscally possible.†He’s willing to raise some taxes, but nothing like what’s in the $2.1 trillion House Ways and Means bill.
They see Mr. Manchin as engaged in a rescue mission for Democrats, saving them from their own excesses:
Unlike Mr. Manchin, we think even $1.5 trillion more in spending is far too much after Congress has spent $5.4 trillion in the last year. More than the amount of new spending, and even more than the tax increases, the real danger is from the many new entitlements demanded by the left. Even if they start small, they will always grow. And even if they are phased out to fit a 10-year budget window, they will never be repealed.
These entitlements are the largest stakes as Democrats try to pass whatever they can without a voter mandate. They would corrode the federal fisc and entrench government from cradle-to-grave. Meantime, Mr. Manchin is trying to save Democrats from themselves.
Many Democrats, particularly House Democrats, are complaining bitterly about how undemocratic it is that one (or two) senators can hold their and the Biden Administration’s agenda hostage. I find their definition of “democratic” somewhat eccentric, apparently 50%+1 majoritarianism with themselves setting the rules on how the votes are allocated.
As a thought experiment I think it’s useful to speculate on how the administration’s “infrastructure bills” would fare if divided into individual initiatives and subjected to national votes. Judging by the polling information I have seen some would pass while some would fail. The limitation on the deductibility of state and local taxes would probably survive. True, traditionally-defined infrastructure spending would survive. Spending programs for which most of the proceeds would go to the upper middle class probably would not.
My own view is that as policy matters the limitation on the deductibility of state and local taxes should remain, corporate tax rates should not be increased, and the marginal rates on higher income individuals should be increased to make up for shortfalls. Infrastructure spending should be focused on improving the capability and durability of the electrical grid. Bridge and road repair, much of which will inevitably devoted to local conmuter traffic should be much more limited. Elon Musk seems to be improving rural broadband with only a bit of help from the federal government. Refurbishing and modernizing ports should be given more attention rather than less. Further subsidizing higher education, daycare, and healthcare should be avoided.
“Judging by the polling information I have seen some would pass while some would fail.”
That’s the money line. This is what is wrong with Washington, and the holy grail of “compromise.” Usually its I’ll scratch your back etc and we end up with a pork filled monstrosity. In this case the bill is so large a sane person has stepped up and limited the goody bag.
Let’s see if anyone in Washington has assessed those pass/fail items.
I’m finding myself agreeing with most everything Dave is advocating for this morning, making any protest response negligible to nothing at all.
Most people analyzing these bulky bills see funding emphasis directed at increasing the social net and the green new deal whims, satisfying the SJW/global warming crowd and China more than the American people. In fact it’s being said only 10% of the infrastructure bill actually revolves around improving our infrastructure (roads, bridges, broadband, electric grid etc.). As for the 3.5 trillion follow-up bill – it’s all democrat pie-in-the-sky, which will have negative financial repercussions for many years to come.