Here's the latest on the $3.5 $1.5 $2.0 BBB bill:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California told Democrats they were on “the verge of something major,” according to two people familiar with her comments, who disclosed the private remarks on condition of anonymity. She called the legislation “transformative, historic and bigger than anything else.”
....The emerging compromise could spend around $1.75 trillion over 10 years, though leading Democrats were trying to nudge Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a key centrist, closer to $2 trillion. Mr. Manchin and other moderates have resisted significant pieces of the plan, including environmental provisions, health care expansions and tax increases designed to pay for the spending.
Well, we can hope, can't we? Let's wait to see the details, though.
If this happens, I will decant a bottle of ketchup (thinking it's Chateau Neuf du Pape) & toast it to Kyrsten Sinema.
I hope you pick a very good month and pair it with a nice Russet.
Yes.
Just testing. WordPress.
$1.75T in all new spending PLUS $0.6T in new spending from the BIP will lead to a huge surge in our economy.
Right when we have so few working people to make it happen.
It's great but we need to temper our expectations as to what it will accomplish in the long run. Lower workforce participation will be a brake on the economy
It should be a cause for unqualified rejoicing that increasing numbers of people are financially independent enough to choose not to seek paid employment. The fact it is usually portrayed as bad news for "the economy" demonstrates how mindlessly the latter has been deified in America.
Given discussion of the predecessor: https://jabberwocking.com/we-need-to-stop-talking-about-the-3-5-trillion-spending-bill-as-a-3-5-trillion-spending-bill/ and minimizing sentiments such as
is this indeed major, or merely meh?
Nowadays, meh is major.
Mehjor.
nice!
Definitely good to see progress toward a deal!
I wish they would avoid the 'billionaire wealth tax': no issues with the merit of the tax. Rather, there is a legal argument that a wealth tax is not constitutional. I would rather avoid ACA like drama around a Supreme Court ruling, especially give the composition of the current court...
Do you see yourself becoming a billionaire at some point? Cause literally there’s nothing to worry about with a billionaire only tax unless you yourself plan to be one someday.
Legality aside, it’s a great idea in a country where 99.9999% of people will never be subject to the tax. (And the worst that would happen legally is SCOTUS throwing it out in a year or two. Boo hoo… so the debt grows a bit more. It’s been in the trillions the entirety of my lifetime and I’m in my mid 40s. That’s a long time to wait for the sky to fall because the debt got “too large.”)
Austin - to repeat I said "no issues with the merit of the tax." Perhaps read this article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/10/26/wealth-tax-constitution-supreme-court/
It would be indecribably reckless and irresponsible to cobble together some Heath Robinson tax system in a few days to fund major spending, just because Manchin and Sinema won't agree to increase any of the existing taxes. Quite apart from the risk of legal challenges, it would inevitably have massive unforeseen consequences and almost certainly take tax avoidance to a new level of sophistication and effectiveness.
I think a right wing court saying we can't tax people with eleven figure fortunes would be just what the doctor ordered for Democrats.
Jasper in Boston - I am not an attorney but I have read several articles, written by attorneys and legal scholars .
Clearly you have taxes targeted at billionaires: in fact, legally speaking, a very high marginal tax rate on income, perhaps starting a eight figures, is not a challenge. Rather, the outstanding legal issue is around unrealized gains and apportionment: basically, a wealth tax might be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Given a wealth tax's legal uncertainty, I would prefer revenue sources that are on stronger judicial footing...
If SCOTUS does strike it down... then we took on some extra deficit spending. Not ideal, but hardly the end of the world.
I would rather see us go bigger on BBB, even if it does mean adding to the deficit. If a wealth tax is what gets Manchin and Sinema on board (maybe *because* they expect SCOTUS to strike it down), I'll take it.
Yeah, I've read about quite a few issues with the wealth tax, including legality but also technical ones around implementation, asset valuation and more. And like you, I'm more than happy to tax the billionaires immensely, but in a way that won't get overturned and actually works to generate revenue. I also wonder about severability, ie if the tax is overturned by SCOTUS, does the spending side remain in effect? Or will all the actual good stuff in the law go down the drain?
Yes, if SCOTUS decides to invalidate the entire law over over the wealth tax provision. They wouldn't/couldn't do that, could they? I'm guessing they probably could/would.
Preparing to be underwhelmed.
I am properly whelmed.
The details will be bad, but that's ok. It's the start of the process. That won't stop people who didn't get everything they want from whining--which is different than agitating for more progress. The former depresses votes, the latter calls people out to keep moving forward.
The Republican spin will be that Biden somehow lost with this victory--while they try to take credit for programs they voted against. Climate activists need to play at the ground level--and PUC meetings, etc. Pilot programs with solar panels over tomato farms in West VA, getting electricity and internet out to the hollows, do something with the topped mountains, etc.
I hate the press/wonk framing: it's not progressives vs. moderates, it's the President and the Dem Party trying to get 2 of its Senate members (a barely-Democrat and a worse-than-Governor-Moonbeam lobbiest-captured pseudo-lefty), with effective vetos provided by a razor thin majority in the Senate, to go along with a forward looking, even progressive, set of initiatives. And, of course, no Republican is interested in any of it, even though their states and constituents will benefit greatly, as they do for all Federal programs.
Upvote ! Yes yes yes. Without doubt the biggest immediate threat (I'm leaving out Climate Change for this discussion) is that one of our 2 major parties has become an anti-democratic cult following an ugly and dangerously imbalanced narcissist.
This has been building for years, decades now. But in parallel our media establishment, especially the Washington - New York based punditry, has not figured out how to address this and retreats to bothsiderism and flat out mischaracterizations of the political landscape. The BBB plan has almost everyone in the Democratic Party - left, right and center- behind it except these 2 recalcitrant Senators and a tiny handful in the House. This is how it should be described every time.
As for the first problem every supposedly sane leader in the GOP should be asked over and over again will they proclaim that Trump lost and his lies about the election are hurting the country. I really don't give a sh.t what they think about anything else right now. Don't let them go through another interview or session on the Sabbath Gasbag shows or an opening of a new shopping center for that matter without asking this question.
When* this bill passes, will the prevailing narrative shift, from "log-jammed, incompetent Dems" to "effective, forward-moving Dems"? Might this be helped along by the fading of the Delta wave?
*Please God.
No.
But I advocate calling, emailing, and even snail-mailing the news media (local, national, etc) complaining about this, and yelling that they're biased towards the Reactionary Republican side (no more "conservative" when applied to the Insurrection Party.) Demand honest coverage. No more "balance." We want FACTS.
It took a long time for the right wing to work the refs to where they basically control everything, so let's not give up too soon.
The suspense is starting to get intense. I assume they're going to pass the BIF for Sinema -- when? -- this week, by Sunday at the latest, before BBB is published probably. Then what? Will Sinema vote for the BBB in the end? Is she already practicing her next bobbing thumbs down moment for the cameras? I give her some credit for entertainment value. It's fun to imagine her with horns on her little head since Biden's comment about her smartness. And if she votes yes, will she sprout wings of thumbs and ascend to the ceiling of the Senate chamber? Can't wait to see it however it turns out.
Manchin wanted large subsidies for 100% coal scrubbing. Democrats are trying to reignite the 70's/80's coal wars again. Triangulating Republicans.
The dumbest thing about this whole drama is that if/when Manchin and Sinema run again, assuming they vote for both bills, their Trumpy opponents will still accuse them of Socialism! Marxism! Job-killing taxes and regulation! Saddling our grandchildren with crushing debt!
... and then claiming credit for the whole thing. Doublethink! The base will love it!
From Kevin's first line , if the bill is really just down to $ 2.0, wow manchin really did gut it 😅
3.1 trillion overall.
It would not be all that surprising if Sinema apes her hero McCain by keeping everyone guessing about her intentions until the floor vote, when she will do her little thumbs down act for the cameras. If she does, I hope Biden does not reward her disloyalty by signing the "BIF" she is so proud of. He should veto it and send it back, telling Congress it's two bills or none.