"Killing the Pony.
House Dems may or may not vote today on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. But they seem intent on continuing their game of political chicken."
I recognize the accepted frame for this is that Progressives are just being greedy and stupid but, at least for me, that is an incorrect characterization. I see this as the la…
House Dems may or may not vote today on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. But they seem intent on continuing their game of political chicken."
I recognize the accepted frame for this is that Progressives are just being greedy and stupid but, at least for me, that is an incorrect characterization. I see this as the last chance to address the circumstances that has lead to the strong current of ethno-nationalism in this country and climate change which I think is equally dangerous to our political order. I don't see the point of getting an infra bill passed but not addressing those other issues. We'll end up going off the cliff eventually anyway unless the plan is to manage to win every election in perpetuity and hope the science is wrong and that climate change won't cause massive economic and social disruption. I also don't trust they will be addressed once what little leverage the Progressives have is given away. Conservative Dems are sending pretty clear signals they plan to scuttle it once the infra bill goes through. The normal rejoinder to that is, "Trump is worse." Sure but we're already driving off a cliff. Sure conservative Dems won't mash the gas but they also aren't willing to hit the brakes or turn so....who cares? May as well disengage and prepare for the inevitable fall if those are the only options.
The bills that will strengthen our system of government's ability to resist a cohesive, motivated minority bent on destroying it from within are also required but obviously not included in the reconciliation bill.
Maybe making an obvious point here, but any election/gerrymandering/voting rights law cannot be passed through reconciliation. They can't just tack it on to a budgetary bill. The parliamentarian has already rejected this as well. It must be a stand alone bill, subject to filibuster. So basically not happening. I never thought I would say this (because it would serve the GOP too well) but abolish the filibuster, get these election and voting laws thru like our lives depend on it. Because they do. We won't have anything left to save otherwise.
Yeah, I assumed he was talking about the reluctance of Manchin/Sinema to abolish the filibuster. At the very least, it needs to be reformed. Despite what a lot of progressives seem to think, it has a long history of being used both for good and for ill (there actually used to be House filibusters as well). One of the big problems with it now is that it has become so cheap that it has effectively turned a simple majority vote requirement for regular legislation into a 60-vote requirement. In the past, filibusters weren't free - they had an associated cost, which discouraged their use as a matter of regular order. And they at least *encouraged* debate, even if some of the debate was just disingenuous babbling. It's easy to forget that the 60-vote cloture is actually supposed to be a requirement to *end* debate. Now, it's the opposite, as they don't even bother *beginning* debate without an assurance that it will end at some point.
So yeah, it needs reform, but under the current circumstances, there doesn't seem to be time to do much besides eliminate it. This is part of the reason I was hoping we could just pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, with the hope that this would have created enough good will to push through Manchin's voting reform bill. Maybe that's naive, but without giving bipartisanship every chance, there's no way to convince Manchin and Sinema to even think about eliminating the filibuster, and I worry that the current bull-headedness by the House progressive caucus is only making them more resistant to the idea of enabling rule by bare majority.
Your last paragraph is one that is worth emphasizing. Look, I'm admittedly a moderate-leaning progressive. I don't doubt that there are a lot of worthy causes being advanced in the reconciliation package. But right now, progressives are picking the wrong fight at the wrong time. When the house is on fire, it's not time to start installing a fancy new sprinkler system. Especially when you've got a hose connected to a hydrant that you're not willing to use because it won't solve your long-term problems of living in a fire-hazard of a house.
There are good reasons to be wary of such a huge spending package - not the least of which is the potential for massive inflation. It deserves time to debate and negotiate, and I do not think anyone with a D next to their name has any intention of outright killing it. Meanwhile, time to save our democracy is running out. If we can't get an anti-gerrimandering bill in place before the end of the year, we'll be locked in to another decade of Republican-tilted house races. We are not prioritizing.
I'd like to hone in on your bit about the risk of inflation from passing the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. Over the same period we will spend $7.6 trillion on defense. Where were the howls about inflation when that spending bill was sailing its way through congress?
The $3.5 trillion bill is mostly paid for unless the conservative democrats get their way and most of the revenue portion gets stripped out. So it's not $3.5 trillion of new money getting dumped into the economy. It's $3.5 trillion getting added over 10 years and let's guess about $2 trillion getting removed through taxation for a net effect of about $1.5 trillion new money over 10 years.
The entire US economy will generate over $214 trillion over the same period. That means new cash injected into the system will be about 0.7% of the economy. I'm sorry, but I doubt even Milton Friedman would argue that adding 0.7% of government spending into the economy over 10 years would generate an appreciable amount of inflation, never mind enough inflation to actually worry about.
I truly hope you are right about this. I'm no economist, and it's certainly possible that I've been listening too much to the inflation hawks on this lately. And true, since it's a reconciliation package it's supposed to be budget neutral, in theory.
Still, it feels like they're rushing something that most of us haven't really had time to digest. Inflation can be industry-specific (such as what generous college loans did to the cost of higher education), which is why spending so much on defense doesn't affect the economy as a whole. It would be nice to have time to look at the package to make sure the money is being spent wisely and not just dumped onto the demand side of things so that we don't end up contributing to certain rising costs (like healthcare, for example).
"I do not think anyone with a D next to their name has any intention of outright killing it."
I honestly don't have enough trust left to believe this but if one does have trust I can see decoupling the bills not being a big deal.
"Meanwhile, time to save our democracy is running out. If we can't get an anti-gerrimandering bill in place before the end of the year, we'll be locked in to another decade of Republican-tilted house races. We are not prioritizing."
That goes right to that trust issue. I agree we aren't prioritizing well. Our democracy is the bedrock upon which everything else including the infra bill rests, so why didn't we do that first. Oh right, conservative Dems scuttled that idea too.
I would probably feel different about this if it didn't seem that they are overplaying their hand. It isn't like they're bargaining with something only the other side wants. They will be hurt by the scuttling of the bipartisan bill, and coming away with nothing feels like it would hurt worse for the people who want the most. Of course, these are people who come from safe districts, so maybe I'm undervaluing their bargaining position.
Still, this couldn't come at a worse time for the Biden administration, and that's what irritates me the most. Because right now, as we seem to agree, the Biden administration really needs some good press, and this is making the Democrats seem as dysfunctional as the Republicans when they controlled Congress. Granted, it's better to do this now than a year from now. Maybe in the end we'll get good legislation out of this that the Democrats can run on, but so far they don't seem to be getting credit for what they already did with the American Rescue bill, so I'm skeptical about that. And when politically, we so clearly need the support of moderate conservatives to stave off the threat of Trump, making it seem as though the Democrats are captive to the whims of their left wing seems to imperil our political future.
"Killing the Pony.
House Dems may or may not vote today on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. But they seem intent on continuing their game of political chicken."
I recognize the accepted frame for this is that Progressives are just being greedy and stupid but, at least for me, that is an incorrect characterization. I see this as the last chance to address the circumstances that has lead to the strong current of ethno-nationalism in this country and climate change which I think is equally dangerous to our political order. I don't see the point of getting an infra bill passed but not addressing those other issues. We'll end up going off the cliff eventually anyway unless the plan is to manage to win every election in perpetuity and hope the science is wrong and that climate change won't cause massive economic and social disruption. I also don't trust they will be addressed once what little leverage the Progressives have is given away. Conservative Dems are sending pretty clear signals they plan to scuttle it once the infra bill goes through. The normal rejoinder to that is, "Trump is worse." Sure but we're already driving off a cliff. Sure conservative Dems won't mash the gas but they also aren't willing to hit the brakes or turn so....who cares? May as well disengage and prepare for the inevitable fall if those are the only options.
The bills that will strengthen our system of government's ability to resist a cohesive, motivated minority bent on destroying it from within are also required but obviously not included in the reconciliation bill.
Maybe making an obvious point here, but any election/gerrymandering/voting rights law cannot be passed through reconciliation. They can't just tack it on to a budgetary bill. The parliamentarian has already rejected this as well. It must be a stand alone bill, subject to filibuster. So basically not happening. I never thought I would say this (because it would serve the GOP too well) but abolish the filibuster, get these election and voting laws thru like our lives depend on it. Because they do. We won't have anything left to save otherwise.
Yeah, I assumed he was talking about the reluctance of Manchin/Sinema to abolish the filibuster. At the very least, it needs to be reformed. Despite what a lot of progressives seem to think, it has a long history of being used both for good and for ill (there actually used to be House filibusters as well). One of the big problems with it now is that it has become so cheap that it has effectively turned a simple majority vote requirement for regular legislation into a 60-vote requirement. In the past, filibusters weren't free - they had an associated cost, which discouraged their use as a matter of regular order. And they at least *encouraged* debate, even if some of the debate was just disingenuous babbling. It's easy to forget that the 60-vote cloture is actually supposed to be a requirement to *end* debate. Now, it's the opposite, as they don't even bother *beginning* debate without an assurance that it will end at some point.
So yeah, it needs reform, but under the current circumstances, there doesn't seem to be time to do much besides eliminate it. This is part of the reason I was hoping we could just pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, with the hope that this would have created enough good will to push through Manchin's voting reform bill. Maybe that's naive, but without giving bipartisanship every chance, there's no way to convince Manchin and Sinema to even think about eliminating the filibuster, and I worry that the current bull-headedness by the House progressive caucus is only making them more resistant to the idea of enabling rule by bare majority.
Your last paragraph is one that is worth emphasizing. Look, I'm admittedly a moderate-leaning progressive. I don't doubt that there are a lot of worthy causes being advanced in the reconciliation package. But right now, progressives are picking the wrong fight at the wrong time. When the house is on fire, it's not time to start installing a fancy new sprinkler system. Especially when you've got a hose connected to a hydrant that you're not willing to use because it won't solve your long-term problems of living in a fire-hazard of a house.
There are good reasons to be wary of such a huge spending package - not the least of which is the potential for massive inflation. It deserves time to debate and negotiate, and I do not think anyone with a D next to their name has any intention of outright killing it. Meanwhile, time to save our democracy is running out. If we can't get an anti-gerrimandering bill in place before the end of the year, we'll be locked in to another decade of Republican-tilted house races. We are not prioritizing.
I'd like to hone in on your bit about the risk of inflation from passing the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. Over the same period we will spend $7.6 trillion on defense. Where were the howls about inflation when that spending bill was sailing its way through congress?
The $3.5 trillion bill is mostly paid for unless the conservative democrats get their way and most of the revenue portion gets stripped out. So it's not $3.5 trillion of new money getting dumped into the economy. It's $3.5 trillion getting added over 10 years and let's guess about $2 trillion getting removed through taxation for a net effect of about $1.5 trillion new money over 10 years.
The entire US economy will generate over $214 trillion over the same period. That means new cash injected into the system will be about 0.7% of the economy. I'm sorry, but I doubt even Milton Friedman would argue that adding 0.7% of government spending into the economy over 10 years would generate an appreciable amount of inflation, never mind enough inflation to actually worry about.
I truly hope you are right about this. I'm no economist, and it's certainly possible that I've been listening too much to the inflation hawks on this lately. And true, since it's a reconciliation package it's supposed to be budget neutral, in theory.
Still, it feels like they're rushing something that most of us haven't really had time to digest. Inflation can be industry-specific (such as what generous college loans did to the cost of higher education), which is why spending so much on defense doesn't affect the economy as a whole. It would be nice to have time to look at the package to make sure the money is being spent wisely and not just dumped onto the demand side of things so that we don't end up contributing to certain rising costs (like healthcare, for example).
"I do not think anyone with a D next to their name has any intention of outright killing it."
I honestly don't have enough trust left to believe this but if one does have trust I can see decoupling the bills not being a big deal.
"Meanwhile, time to save our democracy is running out. If we can't get an anti-gerrimandering bill in place before the end of the year, we'll be locked in to another decade of Republican-tilted house races. We are not prioritizing."
That goes right to that trust issue. I agree we aren't prioritizing well. Our democracy is the bedrock upon which everything else including the infra bill rests, so why didn't we do that first. Oh right, conservative Dems scuttled that idea too.
I would probably feel different about this if it didn't seem that they are overplaying their hand. It isn't like they're bargaining with something only the other side wants. They will be hurt by the scuttling of the bipartisan bill, and coming away with nothing feels like it would hurt worse for the people who want the most. Of course, these are people who come from safe districts, so maybe I'm undervaluing their bargaining position.
Still, this couldn't come at a worse time for the Biden administration, and that's what irritates me the most. Because right now, as we seem to agree, the Biden administration really needs some good press, and this is making the Democrats seem as dysfunctional as the Republicans when they controlled Congress. Granted, it's better to do this now than a year from now. Maybe in the end we'll get good legislation out of this that the Democrats can run on, but so far they don't seem to be getting credit for what they already did with the American Rescue bill, so I'm skeptical about that. And when politically, we so clearly need the support of moderate conservatives to stave off the threat of Trump, making it seem as though the Democrats are captive to the whims of their left wing seems to imperil our political future.