As far as I know, the following two things are true:
- Democrats don't have the votes to break a Republican filibuster.
- Democrats don't have the votes to eliminate the filibuster.
And yet, I keep reading stuff like this:
White House officials are exploring tax increases on businesses, investors and rich Americans to fund the president’s multitrillion-dollar infrastructure and jobs package, according to two people briefed on internal conversations.
....President Biden’s tax increases may prove among the most controversial elements of the administration’s coming “Build Back Better” agenda, setting up a major confrontation with business groups and congressional Republicans.
White House officials are preparing to present President Biden with a roughly $3 trillion infrastructure and jobs package that includes high-profile domestic policy priorities such as free community college and universal prekindergarten, according to three people familiar with internal discussions.
If the bill isn't going to pass anyway, I suppose there's no harm in larding it up with yet more provisions that Republicans will hate. But the first article says only that tax increases might prove to be "controversial" while the second doesn't blink at the idea of stuffing the bill full of unrelated liberal wish-list provisions.
Am I missing something here? Biden has zero chance of passing a huge spending bill that includes huge tax increases. He has zero chance of passing a huge new voting law. He has zero chance of passing anything. And so far, at least, I've seen nothing to suggest that he has any chance of persuading all 50 Democratic members of the Senate to kill the filibuster. And yet the conversation surrounding these bills continues to have a sort of fairlyland tone that, hey, maybe Biden can negotiate with Republicans to get some of this stuff passed.
Later this year there will be a chance to pass another reconciliation bill, which can't be filibustered. Perhaps the plan is to pass the infrastructure bill, with all of its wish-list provisions hanging off it, that way. I can't think of any other possibility, but I never see it reported that way. Why not?
"I've seen nothing to suggest that he has any chance of persuading all 50 Democratic members of the Senate to kill the filibuster."
Maybe he has seen something. Even I've seen reports there is some hope of modifying the filibuster in some potentially useful way.
Manchin has made noises about possibly considering it for voting rights stuff. Maybe the WH thinks that they can make it easier for him if they can get the GOP to fight hard against some very popular bills.
Perhaps the plan is to pass the infrastructure bill, with all of its wish-list provisions hanging off it, that way.
Yup. Unless enough Republican votes can be peeled off, which is not impossible because all the provisions -- including increased taxes on the wealthy and corporations -- are really popular.
And either way, it becomes a big club with which to beat Republicans again and again, which is already happening -- leading to some second-guessing among Republicans -- regarding the COVID relief bill. And then, when it passes, the economy gets another boost, timed almost perfectly for the '22 elections.
Oh and by the way, it would be really good for the country. But hey, who cares about that when there's horse-race politics to discuss amirite?
(Strike italics after that. Can we please have an edit function?)
Can we please have an edit function?
Y'all probably aren't aware of this, but the endless (futile) pleas for better comment functionality is a lot like living in China.
How did you get in those italics? HTML code?
test
Well wonders never cease!
Yes, the infrastructure bill and associated tax increases to pay for it can pass on 2022. That likely is the plan, making up for 2010.
It's stuff that could fit into a reconciliation bill. They can pass up to 3 reconciliation bills per year, and there's no fixed schedule on when they can do those.
Wikipedia says while they can pass 3 reconciliation bills a year, to do so each must be limited to one subject: taxes, spending, debt limit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)#:~:text=Congress%20can%20pass%20up%20to,and%20the%20federal%20debt%20limit.
Yes, 2022 would be doing 2 at once.
They should be able to do more than just 3 in a calendar year, if 3 others apply to a different fiscal (budget) year, however.
So for instance, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 applied to fiscal year 2021, but a Green Infrastructure Plan Act of 2022 could pass right now, so long as the funds were taken out of fiscal year 2022.
There is no "Green Infrastructure Plan Act". It won't be until summer a pivot to infrastructure begins, when hopefully Covid is long gone from future decision making. It also allows the Republicans a window to "show up"(which they didn't with Covid relief). When they sit there with their arms folded and frowning, then in the fall the real negotiations will take place on infrastructure and how to pay for it. In this regard, I suspect Manchin won't be the biggest issue getting it passed, but individual senators pet tax breaks coming under scrutiny. In the end, abolishing the Trump tax cuts and replacing it with infrastructure sounds about right.
Manchin is a booster of both infrastructure and paying for them with top bracket tax increases, so presumably the hope with that he'll either agree to fillibuster reform to get it through or the GOP won't fillibuster in order not to force the issue.
Neither seems super-likely, but I don't think they're *impossible* either, so mind as well try. And as you say, this seems like an easy thing to pass through the second Reconciliation Bill if Plan A doesn't work out.
We don't really know if Republican obstructionism might convince the few remaining Dems to agree on some kind of filibuster reform. There is a lot of chatter on this subject--more than I ever remember hearing before. So I would not count out a filibuster reform after a couple of big, unpopular Republican filibusters.
Nope.
Exactly.
Right, it's not a binary chooice. Biden and Manchin have already spoken in favor of reforms that would make a filibuster significantly more difficult. Look, the filibuster is a consequence of the Senate's tradition of not limiting debate by a standing rule. Manchin says he favors retaining the filibuster as a means of insuring that the concerns of the minority are heard. But the present 'filibuster-lite' does no such thing. Instead, it is used by the minority to end consideration of a bill, and the outcome is always that the Senate turns to some other matter. At a minimum, the talking filibuster should be restored, with a provision that the debate must be germane. No 'Green Eggs and Ham'; no reading the phone book.
Absolutely they should be reduced to reading the Oxford English Dictionary.
Show the American median voter how absolutely petty & devoid of any substantial & topical opposition the GQP is.
They should have to speak without hesitation, deviation or repetition...
With nothing allowed on the podium except notes written in longhand on paper.
From this morning's ElectoralVote:
I want to know how Bitch Mc Connell's hand hasn't fallen off.
If members of Congress only worked on/proposed legislation that they KNEW was going to pass, they'd have nothing to do at all. And I should think that anyone with even a passing familiarity with the way Congress works would recognize that the process of opening debates and forcing votes on bills is itself is a step toward achieving a goal and is thus a worthwhile activity. It raises public awareness, helps elevate the political costs of supporting/opposing, and builds consensus in the process.
In this particular instance, I think that the consensus that is being sought is to modify the filibuster/cloture rules by providing clear illustrations to holdout Dems that Republicans do not, in fact, want to work with any Dem, ever, on anything. If that drives Sinema/Manchin to agree to allow rule changes even just for John Lewis Act/HR1/S1, then it will be a huge political victory and they will deserve our thanks, not scorn, for doing the necessary grunt work to getting us there.
If it helps elect more Dems to the Senate in 2022 and diminish the power of any individual Senator, then also a victory.
Gotta say I'm puzzled by Kevin's puzzlement. Biden was elected to enact an agenda. He's enacted the part of it that was most urgent & easiest to get done (though by no means easy). He is packing the remain parts into various pieces of legislation. Let's look at the pros & cons of this strategy:
Pros:
- Popularity of the bills create a bit more pressure on moderate Dem senators to support filibuster reform (there's been some modest signs of movement on this already).
- Some of it (maybe, as with the COVID relief bill, more than Conventional Wisdom now thinks possible) ultimately passes under reconciliation
- GOP blocks all of it under regular order and Dems use that obstruction as a campaign issue in 2022.
Cons:
- Progressives get their hopes up & then spend the 2022 midterm sulking in their tents when most or all of it isn't delivered
- Press creates a narrative that the effort signals the "failure" of the Biden agenda tout court, causing Biden & Dems to bleed median voter support heading into 2022
How do these pros & cons stack up? I'll grant you it's not a slam dunk:
It *might* be more prudent politically to assume a defensive position at this point, declare legislative victory, and spend the rest of the time between now & the midterm focusing on implementation of & PR around the COVID relief bill.
Or it might *not* be. Maybe the smarter play is to demonstrate as clearly as possible the intent to do more, at scale, to address some fundamental problems/needs, take credit, loudly, for whatever you do get done, and blame the opposition for whatever you can't secure.
The "right" move here, even from a purely instrumental point of view (but not only from a purely instrumental point of view, since ultimately results are what matter), is a question of political judgment. Meaning, it's inherently uncertain, far from obvious, much more a question of art (the art of politics) than of science.
The Biden admin's choice to keep pushing, while not the only possible strategy, is certainly well within the normal range of political options. So, again, I don't see the mystery here.
"The "right" move here, " from a moral view is to do their best to pass legislation that will do the most good for the most people.
Yes, you need to think about the next election, but that is secondary.
And if doing the right thing loses you elections, then the right thing to do is pass legislation that changes that.
Playing it safe so you don't lose elections is not a long term strategy, and we have already been doing it for a long time.
I don't think the odds of 1 & 2 are the same.
I also think there is a lot of wiggle room in the term "Filibuster reform"
C'mon Kevin, I know you're smarter than this.
First, the filibuster is ever changing. There are carve outs for budget-affecting bills, judges, and Supreme Court judges, at a minimum. There's certainly way more than 0% chance that you could convince Sinema and Manchin to say "Voting rights are fundamental to the functioning of a democracy, and filibusters no longer apply to voting rights bills."
You'd have to cut out the wish list items from HR 1, but you might well get a bill that mandates no-excuse vote by mail, easy registration, and blocks rule changes and voter purges within N days of an election.
This is called politics. You have to be willing to argue your case on all the TV shows. It is not impossible.
There's already alot of right-wing gnashing of teeth that Biden is responsible for raising the gas tax because he's so stupid and dementia-filled.
No, it doesn't make much sense. But they're doing it.
Biden's agenda isn't just about the programs he's talking about. In political terms I think the central target he's aiming at is to force the congressional gop to a clarified relationship with actual voters. By keeping up the pressure, indeed ramping it up after the relief bill, he's pushing them into a corner where they'll have to make a choice. They can either continue to thunder and spit against things that are very popular with voters, or they can either stand aside and let measures through or-- best case-- offer constructive input and votes.
A gop that actually represents actual voters, rather than whatever wacko gazillionaire's think tank and yahoo caucus it now represents, would be good for the country. As it is now, the party is pure poison in our system.
And if the mossbacks double down and get even more mossback-ish, what better argument would there be even to procedure-reform-hesitant Ds that things have to change? That would be a win for Biden, the D party, and the country too.
Somebody noted upthread that their mossback opposition on the relief bill already has a lot of them second-guessing. Doubt has been sown, they're off-balance. When your opponent is off-balance you don't ease up, not if you want to win. You keep up the pressure, even push harder. That's what I think he's doing.
Isn't it interesting that Biden never, ever talks back when he's accused of all kinds of wild-eyed leftist socialist fascist "Chicom" gun-thieving bathroom-totalitarian tendencies? Never engages on their terms, unlike a recent former occupant. Maybe rope-a-dope works on rhetoric too? At least it's an interesting possibility. That and steady pressure on the opposition that forces them to decide just how much they oppose very concrete measures the country wants.
I think we need to bring back "mossback," btw. It has an honorable and evocative history in our politics and if McConnell isn't the very spit and image of a mossback, I can't imagine what could be.
I see today is in the "Biden is doomed" phase of Kevin Drum's mental cycle, "Everything is fine" will be tomorrow or Thursday.
The important thing is to have the House pass lots of bills, and then have the Democrats and the new media talk about all those wonderful bills and how wonderful life would be if we just didn't have a bunch of Republicans blocking all progress.
Perhaps if something is repeated often enough it will be accepted as true? ...
^^^Perhaps the plan is to pass the infrastructure bill, with all of its wish-list provisions hanging off it, that way. I can't think of any other possibility, but I never see it reported that way. Why not?^^^
Lack of cogent analysis and failure to dig down into details seems to me to be the rule, not the exception, in most reportage. Apparently Kevin's mileage varies.