Betrayal
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well hopefully Manchin won’t run in 2024. The WV Dems will put up a progressive candidate who has your seal of approval, and the GOP candidate will win by 40 points. Perhaps then you’ll be happy.
nobody with a half ounce of common sense expects Manchin's successor to be a Democrat, whenever it is. The way forward for Democrats is to flip seats in PA, NC, and possibly OH and WI. If the GOP nominates really Trumpy candidates, even MO could be in play.
I agree. But I also think the best way forward for Democrats does not include whingeing about Manchin as a featured strategy.
it's a good thing that's not what's happening
One could think otherwise based on the reax of AOC, Ilhan Omar, Psaki et al.
At any rate, this is probably the most clear-eyed BBB post mortem I've seen all week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/opinion/manchin-build-back-better-democrats.html
tjohn said:
How many politicians are team players when asked to cast a vote that will cost them their jobs?
Jeannette Rankin is the only elected official I can think of who voted on principle at the cost of her job.
Twice
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well hopefully Manchin won’t run in 2024. The WV Dems will put up a progressive candidate who has your seal of approval, and the GOP candidate will win by 40 points. Perhaps then you’ll be happy.
nobody with a half ounce of common sense expects Manchin's successor to be a Democrat, whenever it is. The way forward for Democrats is to flip seats in PA, NC, and possibly OH and WI. If the GOP nominates really Trumpy candidates, even MO could be in play.
I agree. But I also think the best way forward for Democrats does not include whingeing about Manchin as a featured strategy.
it's a good thing that's not what's happening
One could think otherwise based on the reax of AOC, Ilhan Omar, Psaki et al.
At any rate, this is probably the most clear-eyed BBB post mortem I've seen all week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/opinion/manchin-build-back-better-democrats.html
a smart strategy would not be to even mention Manchin. But tell Democratic voters they need to come out for every election and give the party a bigger margin in the Senate. It's risky to have to keep every vote in the caucus on every bill.
Smedley said:
One could think otherwise based on the reax of AOC, Ilhan Omar, Psaki et al.
At any rate, this is probably the most clear-eyed BBB post mortem I've seen all week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/opinion/manchin-build-back-better-democrats.html
Did you actually listen to AOC. She had a long interview on Morning Joe on MSNBC. She blamed the leadership and the way the Senate operates. She said that it was not mainly Manchin who was at fault. She spent hardly any time talking about him.
If you want to write about AOC listen to what she says not what people say about her.
BTW John McCain was not a "liberal Republican". He was a pretty traditional conservative Republican just not a complete jerk.
There haven't been any "liberal" Republicans since Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Jeffords jumped ship years ago. But Susan Collins plays one on TV.
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Author: "Peter King retired in January as the U.S. representative of New York’s 2nd Congressional District. He served 28 years in Congress, including as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Follow him on Twitter @RepPeteKing."
In politics, evidently, the opponent of my opponent is practicing citizenship and my opponents are just being partisan.
ml1 said:
Peter King Supported the IRA Before Hunting for Terrorists
I was just about to post that. Thanks!
For perspective on West Virginia Democratic voters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_West_Virginia_Democratic_presidential_primary
Smedley said:
One could think otherwise based on the reax of AOC, Ilhan Omar, Psaki et al.
At any rate, this is probably the most clear-eyed BBB post mortem I've seen all week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/opinion/manchin-build-back-better-democrats.html
the author of that piece must be the resident devil's advocate at the Progressive Policy Institute. Because his resume suggests he's not particularly progressive himself:
Before joining PPI, I staffed the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Retirement Security and Personal Savings, where I helped develop the commission’s tax and Social Security reforms. I also covered other budget issues at BPC including the debt limit, sequestration, and budget process reform. I previously served as Legislative Outreach Director for The Concord Coalition, where I coordinated activities with members of Congress and other organizations promoting fiscal responsibility.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/benritz/?sh=5cc85c561f79
fwiw, most of what he writes is pretty easy to agree with. But this part about inflation and the national debt gives away that Ritz really isn't himself a progressive. There is no evidence BBB would have caused inflation. And there's also no evidence that the national debt is unsustainable. Interest payments on the national debt are about as low a % of GDP as they've been in decades.
Unlike those on the left now unleashing their righteous wrath on Mr. Manchin, I have long sympathized with his objections to this approach, as well as his concerns about inflation and the unsustainable growth of our national debt.
tjohn said:
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Author: "Peter King retired in January as the U.S. representative of New York’s 2nd Congressional District. He served 28 years in Congress, including as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Follow him on Twitter @RepPeteKing."
In politics, evidently, the opponent of my opponent is practicing citizenship and my opponents are just being partisan.
Or, while it's a bit out there in terms of its takeaway, it's a halfway interesting and thought-provoking opinion piece, the content of which is not nullified by the author being in a photo with Trump or by what Jon Stewart dug up from what he said in the 1980s.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
One could think otherwise based on the reax of AOC, Ilhan Omar, Psaki et al.
At any rate, this is probably the most clear-eyed BBB post mortem I've seen all week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/opinion/manchin-build-back-better-democrats.html
the author of that piece must be the resident devil's advocate at the Progressive Policy Institute. Because his resume suggests he's not particularly progressive himself:
Before joining PPI, I staffed the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Retirement Security and Personal Savings, where I helped develop the commission’s tax and Social Security reforms. I also covered other budget issues at BPC including the debt limit, sequestration, and budget process reform. I previously served as Legislative Outreach Director for The Concord Coalition, where I coordinated activities with members of Congress and other organizations promoting fiscal responsibility.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/benritz/?sh=5cc85c561f79fwiw, most of what he writes is pretty easy to agree with. But this part about inflation and the national debt gives away that Ritz really isn't himself a progressive. There is no evidence BBB would have caused inflation. And there's also no evidence that the national debt is unsustainable. Interest payments on the national debt are about as low a % of GDP as they've been in decades.
Unlike those on the left now unleashing their righteous wrath on Mr. Manchin, I have long sympathized with his objections to this approach, as well as his concerns about inflation and the unsustainable growth of our national debt.
So?
It sounds like being progressive is your litmus test for whether a person is worth a damn.
Crikey.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
One could think otherwise based on the reax of AOC, Ilhan Omar, Psaki et al.
At any rate, this is probably the most clear-eyed BBB post mortem I've seen all week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/opinion/manchin-build-back-better-democrats.html
the author of that piece must be the resident devil's advocate at the Progressive Policy Institute. Because his resume suggests he's not particularly progressive himself:
Before joining PPI, I staffed the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Retirement Security and Personal Savings, where I helped develop the commission’s tax and Social Security reforms. I also covered other budget issues at BPC including the debt limit, sequestration, and budget process reform. I previously served as Legislative Outreach Director for The Concord Coalition, where I coordinated activities with members of Congress and other organizations promoting fiscal responsibility.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/benritz/?sh=5cc85c561f79fwiw, most of what he writes is pretty easy to agree with. But this part about inflation and the national debt gives away that Ritz really isn't himself a progressive. There is no evidence BBB would have caused inflation. And there's also no evidence that the national debt is unsustainable. Interest payments on the national debt are about as low a % of GDP as they've been in decades.
Unlike those on the left now unleashing their righteous wrath on Mr. Manchin, I have long sympathized with his objections to this approach, as well as his concerns about inflation and the unsustainable growth of our national debt.So?
It sounds like being progressive is your litmus test for whether a person is worth a damn.
Crikey.
no. It's my skepticism when mainstream outlets give the appearance of presenting the progressive side of an issue, but they really aren't. They couldn't find another fiscal conservative who didn't have "progressive" in his job title?
Smedley said:
tjohn said:
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Author: "Peter King retired in January as the U.S. representative of New York’s 2nd Congressional District. He served 28 years in Congress, including as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Follow him on Twitter @RepPeteKing."
In politics, evidently, the opponent of my opponent is practicing citizenship and my opponents are just being partisan.
Or, while it's a bit out there in terms of its takeaway, it's a halfway interesting and thought-provoking opinion piece, the content of which is not nullified by the author being in a photo with Trump or by what Jon Stewart dug up from what he said in the 1980s.
Peter King is an execrable human being, regardless of the photo with Trump.
Smedley said:
I don't get it -- who is the article for? I doubt anyone believes for a second Manchin is a plausible presidential candidate -- this is an example of an annoying type of political writing, let's call it the "X would be a good presidential candidate #slatepitch" genre. Just make your point plainly rather than wrap it up in some far-fetched contrarian take.
Smedley said:
Or, while it's a bit out there in terms of its takeaway, it's a halfway interesting and thought-provoking opinion piece, the content of which is not nullified by the author being in a photo with Trump or by what Jon Stewart dug up from what he said in the 1980s.
It's not only the photo and the fact. If you honestly don't know those and other reasons why Peter King is not someone to listen to about who Democrats would vote for, use those two examples as a starting point, instead of dismissing them.
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Or, while it's a bit out there in terms of its takeaway, it's a halfway interesting and thought-provoking opinion piece, the content of which is not nullified by the author being in a photo with Trump or by what Jon Stewart dug up from what he said in the 1980s.
It's not only the photo and the fact. If you honestly don't know those and other reasons why Peter King is not someone to listen to about who Democrats would vote for, use those two examples as a starting point, instead of dismissing them.
It's funny that the objection is that Stewart highlighted those comments, not that King made them. King is well-known to have been an IRA supporter who thought civilian casualties of their attacks were OK.
Just google Peter King IRA and see what comes up.
And what really makes him a terrible person is his bigotry against people who are not like him.
The Hill and Peter King?
jeebus.
Give me Chris Cizilla any day. And I despise CC.
Ok, strike the Peter King Manchin-for-Prez op-Ed from the record. That was a bit of a lark to begin with.
Let’s focus on the Ben Ritz NYT op-Ed, where Ritz says BBB as passed by the House pretty much sucked, and Manchin did Democrats a favor by turning it down. Can we get a photo of Ritz with Trump (nohero)? How about something damning he said in the 1980s?
Ml1, you said ”most of what he writes is pretty easy to agree with.” Does that include this part?
“Other Democrats may not realize it, but Mr. Manchin may well have given them a gift. They should’ve gone back to the drawing board months ago, when it first became clear that their budgetary gimmickry was turning the bill into a confusing mess. Now, they will have to — and if they revise the bill to cut the number of programs they propose while making the ones they do propose permanent and easier for Americans to navigate, it could deliver Democrats both lasting policy change and the political victory they so desperately need.
Democrats had been trimming the bill for months in an effort to meet Mr. Manchin’s demand that it cost less than $2 trillion over the next decade. But rather than focusing on a few top priorities, they wedged almost every major social program Mr. Biden had proposed into the bill and relied on arbitrary expiration dates to make it seem less expensive. As a result, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, these programs would cost more than $4.7 trillion if made permanent, as every supporter of the bill clearly intends them to be.
This structure sets Democrats up for failure. Extending these programs without adding to the national debt would likely require raising taxes by an additional $3 trillion over the next decade, which would be extremely difficult to do, particularly after Democrats incorporate all of the tax increases they could get consensus for into the Build Back Better Act. If Democrats cannot agree on how to continue paying for their major social programs, the only alternative — besides breaking their promise not to add to the deficit — would be to allow those programs to expire after a few short years.”
Smedley said:
Ok, strike the Peter King Manchin-for-Prez op-Ed from the record. That was a bit of a lark to begin with.
Let’s focus on the Ben Ritz NYT op-Ed, where Ritz says BBB as passed by the House pretty much sucked, and Manchin did Democrats a favor by turning it down. Can we get a photo of Ritz with Trump (nohero)? How about something damning he said in the 1980s?
You know that the point of the photo wasn't "He once was with Trump" but was "It's *that* Peter King, the GOP insider, who is giving Democrats advice".
The Ben Ritz piece was the "centrist" view of Democratic policy. Not a surprise, that the piece isn't enthusiastic for the programs in the bill.
Smedley said:
Let’s focus on the Ben Ritz NYT op-Ed, where Ritz says BBB as passed by the House pretty much sucked, and Manchin did Democrats a favor by turning it down.
...
“Other Democrats may not realize it, but Mr. Manchin may well have given them a gift. They should’ve gone back to the drawing board months ago, when it first became clear that their budgetary gimmickry was turning the bill into a confusing mess. Now, they will have to — and if they revise the bill to cut the number of programs they propose while making the ones they do propose permanent and easier for Americans to navigate, it could deliver Democrats both lasting policy change and the political victory they so desperately need."
One example of a straightforward, popular program that is easy for Americans to navigate is the refundable child tax credit. Disappointingly, it's also something Manchin is opposed to.
PVW said:
Smedley said:
Let’s focus on the Ben Ritz NYT op-Ed, where Ritz says BBB as passed by the House pretty much sucked, and Manchin did Democrats a favor by turning it down.
...
“Other Democrats may not realize it, but Mr. Manchin may well have given them a gift. They should’ve gone back to the drawing board months ago, when it first became clear that their budgetary gimmickry was turning the bill into a confusing mess. Now, they will have to — and if they revise the bill to cut the number of programs they propose while making the ones they do propose permanent and easier for Americans to navigate, it could deliver Democrats both lasting policy change and the political victory they so desperately need."One example of a straightforward, popular program that is easy for Americans to navigate is the refundable child tax credit. Disappointingly, it's also something Manchin is opposed to.
Manchin seems to have some insider understanding of how the money will be spent by parents. Total projection, if you ask me.
Smedley said:
Ok, strike the Peter King Manchin-for-Prez op-Ed from the record. That was a bit of a lark to begin with.
Let’s focus on the Ben Ritz NYT op-Ed, where Ritz says BBB as passed by the House pretty much sucked, and Manchin did Democrats a favor by turning it down. Can we get a photo of Ritz with Trump (nohero)? How about something damning he said in the 1980s?
Ml1, you said ”most of what he writes is pretty easy to agree with.” Does that include this part?
“Other Democrats may not realize it, but Mr. Manchin may well have given them a gift. They should’ve gone back to the drawing board months ago, when it first became clear that their budgetary gimmickry was turning the bill into a confusing mess. Now, they will have to — and if they revise the bill to cut the number of programs they propose while making the ones they do propose permanent and easier for Americans to navigate, it could deliver Democrats both lasting policy change and the political victory they so desperately need.
Democrats had been trimming the bill for months in an effort to meet Mr. Manchin’s demand that it cost less than $2 trillion over the next decade. But rather than focusing on a few top priorities, they wedged almost every major social program Mr. Biden had proposed into the bill and relied on arbitrary expiration dates to make it seem less expensive. As a result, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, these programs would cost more than $4.7 trillion if made permanent, as every supporter of the bill clearly intends them to be.
This structure sets Democrats up for failure. Extending these programs without adding to the national debt would likely require raising taxes by an additional $3 trillion over the next decade, which would be extremely difficult to do, particularly after Democrats incorporate all of the tax increases they could get consensus for into the Build Back Better Act. If Democrats cannot agree on how to continue paying for their major social programs, the only alternative — besides breaking their promise not to add to the deficit — would be to allow those programs to expire after a few short years.”
it's speculation on what it would take for Manchin to vote for BBB. I'm not in Joe Manchin's head, so I have no reason to disagree.
Whether or not it will be a "better" bill is also speculation that may or may not prove to be so. (That is, if it proves to be true that Manchin would vote for it.)
So putting aside questions like "Is the apparent failure of BBB more Biden's or Manchin's fault" and "Did Manchin betray Democrats or actually save them from themselves", which I'm only marginally interested in, and focusing on what actual policy next steps should be, which I'm much more interested in, here's an argument to focus on climate Policy:
We now know that, last week, Manchin proposed a package of exactly that size that includes more than $500 billion in climate spending, according to The Washington Post. The White House was considering how to respond when, according to The Hill, a tiff broke out over whether Biden could put Manchin’s name in a press release, of all things. (I don’t get that part either.) But if, like me, you believe that Biden must pass climate policy during this particular moment in time—when we can detect climate change but still act on it before it becomes irreversible—then it’s almost self-evident that Democrats should have taken this deal, and should do their best to get it back on the table, if it’s not already. If you believe what Democrats say about climate change, then virtually any social policy, including the child tax credit, is worth sacrificing so that decarbonization can become law.
There is an instinct among some progressives that Biden should cut his losses here and jump to executive action. This is horrible advice. It might do something, but it would not be enough. Models from the Princeton ZERO Lab show that Biden’s goal of cutting U.S. carbon pollution in half by 2030 (compared with its all-time high) will be far easier if Congress passes climate legislation.
From We’re Heading Toward a Very American Climate Tragedy, Robinson Meyer, The Atlantic.
That's not too far from the policy portion (as opposed to the "actually, Democrats should thank Joe Manchin portion) of the Ritz article Smedley shared:
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who leads the Finance Committee in the Senate and will be responsible for writing many of the final bill’s key provisions, released a statement on Sunday listing three top spending priorities: the expanded Child Tax Credit, subsidies for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act and incentives for reducing carbon emissions from all energy sources.
That same day, Representative Suzan DelBene of Washington, who presides over the 97-member New Democrat Coalition that will be crucial for passing the final bill through the House, released a statement embracing nearly identical priorities and reiterating her coalition’s preference for “doing a few things well for longer,” which is also the approach Mr. Manchin has demanded.
The only major sticking point now seems to be the expanded Child Tax Credit.
Whether this actually represents a way forward or is just more wishful thinking on Democrats' part, I suppose only Joe Manchin knows, as ML1 notes.
ml1 said:
But this part about inflation and the national debt gives away that Ritz really isn't himself a progressive. There is no evidence BBB would have caused inflation.
Inflation is hard to predict, studies or no studies. Was there evidence that the current bout of inflation would last this long? If there was, most economists and the Fed missed it.
Uncertainty can be as worrisome as evidence.
DaveSchmidt said:
Inflation is hard to predict, studies or no studies. Was there evidence that the current bout of inflation would last this long? If there was, most economists and the Fed missed it.
Uncertainty can be as worrisome as evidence.
Uncertainty is the reality of 10 year projections.
And while there is always uncertainty, the numbers are what they are.
Per Krugman:
What about inflation? The proposed spending in Build Back Better is spread over multiple years, so it wouldn’t do a lot to raise overall demand in the near term — the first-year addition to the deficit would be just 0.6 percent of G.D.P., which isn’t enough to make much difference to inflation in any model I know. Besides, the Federal Reserve has just made it clear that it’s ready to raise interest rates if inflation doesn’t subside, so government spending should matter even less.
ml1 said:
Uncertainty is the reality of 10 year projections.
It’s a reason I’m reluctant to question someone’s progressive bona fides for sympathizing with concern.
Funny how none of the inflation hawks are calling for increasing taxes to combat our current inflationary moment, isn't it? No, the answer is always to cut benefits or increase unemployment (ie raise interest rates).
PVW said:
Funny how none of the inflation hawks are calling for increasing taxes to combat our current inflationary moment, isn't it?
If I were a deficit hawk, first I’d need someone to explain to me how raising taxes on top earners would remove enough money from the economy to tame inflation.
DaveSchmidt said:
PVW said:
Funny how none of the inflation hawks are calling for increasing taxes to combat our current inflationary moment, isn't it?
If I were a deficit hawk, first I’d need someone to explain to me how raising taxes on top earners would remove enough money from the economy to tame inflation.
That explanation is only needed if inflation is being caused by excessive demand, which is really not clear. Why are food prices going up? Did the U.S. all of a sudden get hungrier?
Peter King Supported the IRA Before Hunting for Terrorists