Much of the opinion writing today has been about West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin’s declaration yesterday that he couldn’t support “Build Back Better” in its present form. NYT and WaPo opinion writers by and large condemn Sen. Machin’s position on the grounds that it’s undemocratic which I find bizarre. As far as I can tell opinion on BBB is, to put it in the most favorable light, divided, with about half of voters supporting and half opposing it. Cf. Gallup, Ipsos, Morning Consult, Rasmussen.
I’ve seen one progressive commentator whose argument was this is what Democrats get for being moderate which struck me as strange. IMO the inability of the administration to enact BBB is due to a complete absence of what used to be normal bargaining in favor of a massive omnibus spending bill offered on a “take it or leave it basis”. It’s being left. IMO David Schor is right—the party should be breaking off the components of BBB that actually do have popular support and enacting them.
The counter-intuitive view of the WSJ editors is that Sen. Machin may just have saved the Democrats’ collective rear end by holding out for what are actually better policy positions.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think our present economic problem is that we’re not consuming enough. I think it’s that we’re not producing enough and BBB doesn’t do much to change that.
BBB aka “Biden’s Bankruptcy Bill.â€
I don’t see what makes Manchin “Teflon”.
Leftists could easily go after him and his family online and ruin each of their lives.
Why haven’t they?
Well, for one thing being a Democratic senator in a Red State is a position of strength from the standpoint of attacks from other Democrats. The most they’ll accomplish is give the Republicans a Senate majority. His voting record is that he voted with the Democrats half of the time. Isn’t that better for them than a senator who’ll vote with them 0% of the time?
That makes sense if the Democratic party were organized, they’re not.
Manchin has voted with Democrats most of the time.
He supported the ARP, the BIF, all of Biden’s cabinet that’s been confirmed. Manchin only said no to the 3.5 trillion social infrastructure bill (which Sinema also didn’t support); which then morphed into a 2 trillion BBB bill as passed by the House.
And Manchin is only no to the House version; apparently he suggested a bill which cut off the CTC expansion, parental leave, and scaled down green energy subsidies to be an “honest†1.7 trillion bill. His written offer from last summer still stands. It just enforced hard choices; the CTC expansion by itself is 1.6 trillion over 10 years.
Many people are puzzled why Biden doesn’t accept Manchin’s offer and then demagogue the CTC issue and do that as a separate reconciliation bill.
There’s also word that it’s opposed by additional Democratic senators and enough Democratic members of the House for it to fail there, too, but Manchin’s opposition provides useful cover for them.
Why is building our future on debt a good strategy? How are all the social programs created by social progressives going to make this country stronger or “better?†While I don’t necessarily trust Manchin’s motives, I’m grateful for the reprieve from this monstrosity of a fiscal infusion that will only stress out the generations to follow us.
The problem is a bill that satisfies Manchin and Sinema may well be unacceptable in the House — and not just from Progressives.
There’s roughly 12 House Democrats that are in the SALT caucus; who have pledged they will sink any bill that won’t reverse the cap on SALT deduction — I doubt any bill with 1.7 trillion in expenditures can fit SALT and even 2 or 3 of the other priorities.
Back in Sept, Oct rumors had it Pelosi favored a BBB with fewer items, but for longer because of the Manchin roadblock — but switched due to very negative feedback from her caucus.