We have a compromise infrastructure bill! Hooray! It comes to a modest $600 billion in new spending over ten years, focused on rail, road, water, and broadband. I'm OK with this, since I don't think American infrastructure is really in terrible shape and we don't need to spend boatloads of money on it. A little sprucing up should do the job.
However, I'm genuinely puzzled by the way it's being sold:
Both the president and top Democrats say the plan, which constitutes a fraction of the $4 trillion economic proposal Mr. Biden has put forth, can only move together with a much larger package of spending and tax increases that Democrats are planning to try to push through Congress unilaterally, over the opposition of Republicans.
“If this is the only thing that comes to me, I’m not signing it,” Mr. Biden said during remarks in the East Room of the White House. “It’s in tandem.”
Shouldn't Biden be downplaying this as much as possible? Why on earth would any Republican agree to give him a $600 billion bipartisan win if Democrats have made it clear that they're going to turn right around and pass all the stuff they compromised away? That seems crazy to me. What am I missing?
Only 5 Republicans have signed on to the Infrastructure Bill. So there is a 95% chance it doesn't go anywhere. Biden is aware of that.
Exactly. Biden is claiming the win and moving on, which also simultaneously paints McConnell into a corner (not that he cares but the media will) and both puts Manchin (who has already said he favors reconciliation for further action) in the hot seat AND gives him an excuse for voting the way Biden wants him to.
It was deft. And I think Biden knows better than anybody how slim the possibilities are for actually getting 10 Republican votes.
Is the bipartisan skinfrastructure bill Biden's Katr--... Mission Accomplished moment?
Maybe Pres. Biden will declare a red line...
It's definitely odd. I don't understand this bargaining position. That's what it is, if they don't have agreement for all 10 R votes.
Maybe it works like this. Because of this big announcement, nobody can pretend that there isn't bipartisan support for the bill. And this is enough for Joe Manchin. And that means if they can't get this one past the filibuster, Manchin can say, well, let's pass this "bipartisan" thing via reconciliation. So it won't be "rammed through".
why are the republicans going along with it? because it gives them something bipartisan to show voters that they're not the partisan hacks that they really are.
biden gets to show he can cross over and get things done and democrats potentially get three big wins instead of just two.
"Republicans" in the main aren't going along with it. Susan Collins and three or four others, that's about it.
Susie Q will not vote for this.
The thing that gets me about this confusing situation is that Mitch McConnell stayed relatively silent over the republicans negotiating with the 'DEMS.
This gave people like Graham, and Moran cover to say hey we tried negotiating in good faith with DEMs.
THEN - when the publicity started about the DEMs being serious about reconciliation IF in fact the bipartisan bill failed Mitch came out against BOTH the bipartisan bill and the reconciliation bill. His job is to protect the 2017 tax cuts so it seems.
So now, Graham is against it, Moran is against the whole tie in with reconciliation and the republicans threw each other under the bus.
I'll wait to see what happens but I still believe more than anything else that Mitch will cause the bipartisan bill to fail, and enough DEMs will be against the reconciliation bill to make THAT fail too - which will also cause the filibuster adjustment bill to fail or get watered down. Even if lowered to 55 votes the DEMs will not convince enough republicans to vote for reconciliation - in spite of the polls showing how popular infrastructure spending is
Mitch has spoken - now Graham is against both and Moran said no to tying them bills in together. Manchin and Sinema will now come out and say that we need FURTHER negotiations...........
I imagine the pitch is something like Republicans get to take credit for the popular stuff in the bipartisan bill, and campaign against the excesses of the party-line bill.
I'll be surprised if that pitch works, but Joe Biden is better at politics than I am.
It gives individual Republicans the ability to say they voted against one or more of the other things while still insisting they need to actually find enough votes to pass it altogether.
Wingnuts insisting on a 1st century idea of infrastructure seem so increasingly feeble I expect them to start bringing offerings of fruits and a newborn goat to the Temple of the Doorknob God to propitiate the mysteries of the doorknob.
What's that line about the essence of strategy is to ensure all possible outcomes lead to victory? No matter what happens -- pass this stuff now, get the rest through later, < 60 votes gives M/S cover to modify the filibuster / pass through reconciliation, etc -- the worst possible outcome is a Democratic win/Republican loss. Same for the best possible outcome.
1. Biden will not be getting a standalone bipartisan bill.
2. Biden and Dems are taking away GOP leverage to force a smaller total spend. That's good. Why let GOP have veto power? The politics of that does not favor Dems.
3. Any potential downside to what Biden said only matters if your top objective is getting GOP votes. If your top objective is getting a bigger spend -- which is what matters to most people -- then no downside.
Pelosi:
"We will not take up a bill in the House until the Senate passes the bipartisan bill and a reconciliation bill. If there is no bipartisan bill then we'll just go when the Senate passes a reconciliation bill. But I'm hopeful that we will have the bipartisan bill."
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1408080971216396293?s=20
Dem strategy is to get a two-fer (bipartisan bill + reconciliation bill). If GOP-ers fail to pony up the votes, Dems will do a standalone reconciliation bill.
"Reconciliation bill only" appears to be the most likely outcome.
If GOP were as smart as Biden is politically, (I doubt they are) they'd help Dems push the reconciliation bill over the top. This would put them in a position of A) seeming reasonable and B) using that reasonableness to put pressure on Democrats (especially Sinema/Manchin) to oppose the reconciliation bill as a "tax and spend boondoggle." That way maybe they could defeat the reconciliation bill, and Biden would end up getting only a pretty paltry trillion bucks. The way things stand now, the reconciliation bill is likely to be a lot bigger than that.
Biden can't afford to lose progressive votes, so he has to say that lest they desert him. What would look worse than having ten republicans agree to cloture only to lose some democrats in the Senate or to have the bill fail in the House?
And THIS is the real problem
I don't think Biden has a solid DEM party vote on EITHER bill
I think there's MORE than Sinema and Munchkin on the DEM side that oppose the bipartisan bill for different reasons and even MORE DEMs who want to KEEP the filibuster and not go down the reconciliation path
Munchkin has already said NO to reconciliation bill
Infrastructure as it stand now is dead
I think there's MORE than Sinema and Munchkin on the DEM side that oppose the bipartisan bill for different reasons and even MORE DEMs who want to KEEP the filibuster and not go down the reconciliation path
Passing a reconciliation bill has zero effect on the existence of the filibuster.
To me the only question that matters is: do Democrats have majorities in both chambers for a reconciliation bill if (as seems likely) ten Republican senators aren't on board with the bipartisan bill. My guess would be "yes" but I'll freely admit to not being particularly optimistic.
If I understand this right, the entire Rube Goldberg operation of one-bill for infrastructure and another-bill for child care etc is dependent on 10 Republican senators voting for the first bill. At the same the time, the first bill is at least partly funded by siccing the IRS on rich people and making them pay their taxes.
I dunno but the GOP basically exists to defund the police for rich people -- sorry, I mean to defund the IRS. I find it really hard to believe 10 R senators are gonna vote for a much bigger IRS budget. And I suspect in the next 24 hours we'll find out McConnell is against this "overreach" and "liberal spending plan" etc etc.
Seen this way, Biden is smartly trying to drive a wedge between the actual GOP and its claims to be now the "working class" party. In other words, if McConnell says "no deal" because a deal also will be followed by a separate bill with money for families, then it's easy to say "the GOP doesn't care about the working class, they only care about keeping the IRS budget low so that billionaires don't get audited". And then Manchin is in an interesting position, because he surely wants to be the "infrastructure" guy, but also pretty clearly doesn't want to be allied with increasing the budget of the IRS to go after billionaires.
So it's really decision time for the GOP as to whether they are the party of billionaires or not. I'm betting they are.
To put it in the simplest terms possible: seems Biden (or somebody smart) stripped out the parts of the bill you HAVE to vote for if you're a "working class" party and said "okay, vote against this. Let's see what you're made of". We'll see what the GOP does.
GOP support will fall short for bipartisan bill. Dems will then throw some of the infrastructure items into the reconciliation bill.
That's my prediction. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Republicans are going to hammer the Dems on a (say) 2.3 trillion reconciliation bill anyway. Might as well make it 2.9 trillion bill and maximize the good it will do.
If I understand this right, the entire Rube Goldberg operation of one-bill for infrastructure and another-bill for child care etc is dependent on 10 Republican senators voting for the first bill.
I don't think that's right. Even Democrats can't be stupid enough to put together a plan that relies on ten Republican senators committing to its support. In other words, while there are no guarantees (and sure, shit could fall apart) it seems likely a reconciliation bill alone will get to Biden's desk. Pelosi for starters has said her chamber won't vote on a bipartisan bill unless the Senate has already passed the reconciliation bill. But for obvious reasons she didn't make a similar vow about the reconciliation bill. In other words, if Schumer can hold his conference together for the reconciliation bill, the House will pass it whether or not the bipartisan bill makes it through. I think this is the most likely outcome (60%). I give "no bill passes" 30% odds, and both bills pass 10% odds.
A Smithsonian article years ago was very specific as to the extent of infrastructure conditions & the cities' lack of funding & preparedness for likely emergency repairs. Bridges, roads, dams, & water supplies aren't the only issues, but many systems are old & in disrepair. I remember being left with the overall impression that cities, states, & the federal government have all been kicking these problems down the road, making only half-hearted or piecemeal attempts at temporary repairs. Even one more bridge collapse or Flint water contamination must be avoided.
People need to read this post and reread it. The silliness of most of these comments is built by a partisan fantasy that simply isn't happening to the level they want nor has the support they want either.
Even if 10 Republicans vote for the paltry bipartisan bill, some Democrats will not vote for it alone because it is largely privatization, relying on user fees, and does not raise taxes on the rich, which Biden promised to do. This combination is apparently the only chance to fulfill his promises and satisfy (some) Republicans, the blue dogs and more leftist Democrats. But the chances of getting it all through don't look good. McConnell could put his foot down, or one or more Republican Senators could back out if the other bill passes, or even looks like passing. It doesn't really depend on how Biden plays it up or down - he does not control Senators.
Paltry??? Over one trillion in infrastructure spending that increases to 1.2 trillion most likely. Drum is only labeling some parts. I view improvements in building codes, rural infrastructure and other parts pretty damn big.
Your point is dead as is your post. Republicans would be smart to pass this and then oppose the extra 2 trillion(most likely figure) in "other" spending. So a couple proggies don't support it. They will be irrelevant.
First of all, if I’m understanding the situation correctly, it’s actually a less than $600 billion of new money (the bulk of which is destined to fatten Wall Street profits rather than actually repair roads and bridges). Everything else comes from cannibalizing the earlier coronavirus recovery money which was going mostly to ordinary people instead of to Wall Street. So, in context, it’s not a huge amount of money and it comes at the expense of helping out ordinary Americans.
Second, I don’t see why you think Republicans would be smart to turn their backs on a demonstrably successful political strategy. Mitch McConnell pretty much neutered Obama and Democrats in Congress basically rolled over and hoped he’d scratch their bellies. McConnell has already made it clear that his priority is to block the Biden agenda, which, so far, he’s been enormously successful in doing.
I believe the main point is that Biden has now Manchin's commitment to the reconciliation path for the second half of the project.
If the GOP filibusters this compromise it may even move the needle on the filibuster; especially if McConnel is being a disciplinarian and makes the 5 Rep senators involved in the negotiations vote against their own work (not impossible, see Olympia Snowe / Obamacare).
It won't move the needle of "filibuster" at all. Why even bother posting about it??? All it does it move infrastructure back onto reconciliation.
That’s an interesting question. A lot of people (and not just you) are making the assumption that Manchin has made such a commitment. But I don’t think he’s actually made such a commitment. My best guess is that if the bill fails he will simply double down on giving the Republicans veto power over the Biden agenda.
So why don't you think he's made such a commitment? Because reasons have been given for that 'assumption'. As it stands, your WAG is even less justifiable than what you're responding to.
The reasons given don’t actually relate to Manchin but rather they rest on the assumption that Biden would not pursue his apparent strategy in the absence of such a commitment. Manchin himself has given no indication that he would soften his intransigence even if the Republicans refuse to compromise. So everyone outside of Manchin and the White House is pretty much limited to casting the bones
My WAG is based on my observations of Manchin public statements and behavior. My guess is that he is supporting this particular infrastructure bill because he’s received subtle hints from interested parties that if he can push through the privatization of huge amounts of extremely valuable public assets he’ll be taken care of. Beyond that possibility of being rich, I think he is having too much fun as the center of the universe to give it up for anything less than immense personal enrichment.
Sigh. IOW, your original assertion about 'assumption' was flat-out wrong (and you will -- as per usual -- never admit it). Look, I get it, you're a bro. But Bernie is never going to be president, you're continuing gibes against the current not-Bernie notwithstanding.
The alternative question is "Why on earth would any progressive agree to give him a $600 billion bipartisan win unless Democrats have made it clear that they're going to turn right around and pass all the stuff they compromised away?" Faced with the likelihood of a bill failing because Republicans filibustered it, or because not enough Democrats voted for it, the former is obviously Biden's better option.
They already have. Made it clear, I mean.
Biden's top priority here is keeping Senate Democrats together. If he can keep all 50 on board, he can deliver big, regardless of what Republicans do. But if they crack, if even one Democrat breaks away, his agenda is toast.
So we've had this whole bipartisan song and dance to keep Joe Manchin happy. But Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are also Senate Democrats, and they are not at all happy with what's in the bipartisan bill (or, rather, with what's *not* in it). They want to go bigger, much bigger, and they have just as much leverage as Manchin.
Thus the compromise: Manchin gets his bipartisan deal, and the Sanders-Warren wing gets what it wants in a reconciliation bill. If Republicans turn around and scuttle the bill they just agreed to, Democrats shrug and fold it into the reconciliation package. Manchin can hardly blame Biden for Republicans sabotaging their own bill.
Yeppers. As I said earlier, Biden has ensured that all paths lead to victory. Not bad for a senile, old, easily controlled guy.
Funny, that's the description of Biden that your side was selling in the promary.
Next, you'll tell me you no longer believe Tara Reade!
Guess you can't be projesus if you aren't promary.
Thank goodness this issue is about resolved. We’ll never speak of it again because ultimately it wasn’t actually about infrastructure. It was about pretending to get something done! Anything really. Doesn’t matter what it is or what it does. The United States Senate is on the job! We have bipartisan memes for the media to chew on and that’s all they really wanted.
No one will notice this spending.
Kevin wrote: " I don't think American infrastructure is really in terrible shape..."
Easy to say sitting in SoCal where the oldest stuff is like 50 years old, and the nice, dry weather is pretty easy on roads and bridges. Then spend some time in the NE -- bit of a different story.
Isn't this just for the 13 or so so-called Democratic Senators (and their Republican friends, too) that want it to appear all bipartizany? And for the actual Democratic Senators (the other 37 or so of them) to be reassured that Biden's with them too and they're going to get the whole enchilada via reconciliation down the road a bit? Typical Congressional idiocy, but since Clinton it's the best they can do apparently.
Get yer head out of yer ass, son, and maybe you'll be able to see past the end of yer nose.
This whole thing is giving me a headache
So, try to keep this old guy on track here............
We have a BP bill that 11 GOP Senators have agreed to that spends about $600B in new money for roads, bridges, water and a few other sundry but verified "hard' infrastructure projects. This needs ALL 50 DEM votes plus 10 republican votes to pass.
Whether it passes or not we WILL get a reconciliation bill (RB) - that is MUCH bigger, includes tax hikes the GOP doesn't want and all the things in the BP bill PLUS other soft infrastructure stuff. This would need 50 votes from DEMs plus the VP and then that blows the limit on the # of RB's the dems can pass in one year.
Am I correct so far? I will assume I am close enough
OK
The DEMs don't have 50 solid votes for the BP. They NEVER have had that. Enema and Munchkin are the KNOWN problems but I suspect there are others - quite a few others, in fact, that are against this bill for either being too small, or they just don't want to spend the money.
Then we have the RB. If the BP does NOT pass Lindsey Graham has already said he will not support this if they go whole hog in the RB. So we're back down to 10 GOP senators PLUS Enema and Munchkin PLUS any other DEMs who do NOT want to be tarred by this level of spending.
Then, as a last resort we have Munchkin who said he might favor adjusting the filibuster to make it 55 votes instead of 60.
Sorry but I don;t see any of these bills passing. Enough wishy-washy stuff.
You want nice things? Elect the DEMs - ELECT enough of them to allow for conservative DEMS to vote their conscious rather than along party lines. Give them "shade".
You want to win this debate? Get 53 to 54 Senate seats. Then go hog wild from 22 through 24 and hope that the benefits trickle down to everyone - 'cause if they don't? The DEMs lose the senate and possibly the trifecta come 2024
So in the meantime, don't do anything, eh? Got anything else you want to tell us, or is that the be-all and end-all of your counsel.
BREAKING news
Sen Moran from Kansas now joins Graham of SC in opposing the bipartisan infrastructure bill
Infrastructure will have to wait
Not enough republicans support the BP bill
Not enough DEMS support the reconciliation bill
And nobody has enough support to modify or eliminate the filibuster
Its one thing not to try to do anything
'Its another thing to not be able to do anything
They tried, it failed.
Sigh. Saying the same thing only louder is not an argument. I am so so terribly tired of emoting types such as yourself opening your yaps. Unpretty emoting types at that.
seems as though I'm not alone:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/is-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal-going-to-pass-biden-republicans-democrats.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Intelligencer%20-%20June%2025%2C%202021&utm_term=Subscription%20List%20-%20Daily%20Intelligencer%20%281%20Year%29
{snip}
Thursday afternoon at the White House was a beautiful moment of golden nostalgia. Republicans and Democrats who negotiated a bipartisan infrastructure deal stood side by side, basking in mutual respect. “This reminds me of the days when we used to get an awful lot done up in the United States Congress,” President Biden said. “What we’re showing and demonstrating through this big breakthrough is that bipartisanship is possible,” exulted Senator Kyrsten Sinema. “We can achieve good outcomes that actually meet the needs of our country.”
Well, maybe. But in the cold light of morning, it seems more likely that the deal will ultimately fail, because bipartisanship, for the most part, isn’t possible. (I should note that I think the bill funds some important priorities, and I hope it passes, but I have difficulty believing it actually will.)
Within hours of the White House press conference, conservatives began registering bitter opposition. The source of their anger is that Biden promised progressive Democrats he would pass another measure, increasing social spending and raising taxes on the rich, along with the infrastructure deal.
“That’s extortion! I’m not going to do that,” cried Lindsey Graham. “The Dems are being told you can’t get your bipartisan work product passed unless you sign on to what the left wants, and I’m not playing that game.” Mitch McConnell immediately began pouring cold water on the deal, and the conservative media expressed unremitting opposition.
Why would McConnell and most of the party have sat back largely in silence while allowing members of their caucus to negotiate a popular deal, only for them to denounce it afterward? The reason many of them tolerated the bill in the first place is that they believed it would reduce the odds of Congress passing a second bill. “Some Republicans,” explains the Wall Street Journal editorial page, “hope the bipartisan deal will make it harder to pass a reconciliation bill by taking away the popular infrastructure bits.” (The Journal’s editorial page tends to closely echo McConnell’s beliefs, and has come out hard against the deal.)
{snip}
Win more seats
Deal with republicans from a position of strength not parity
You do know that all of this was known before most people made a comment, right? You do so little research (and that only when you're prodded) and you have so little imagination that it's hard for you to conceive that other people are not as lazy as you and actually do a little reading before shooting your mouth off. In fact, if you had looked below, you would see that they already have.
Sigh. Typical bro behaviour. Just like your man Sanders.
I've given up trying to understand how the minds of lawmakers work. Kevin's puzzlement makes perfect sense: why would Republicans vote for the "bipartisan" bill if the Dems are just going to follow up with a bill that does everything they hate? And while we're at it, the Progs have already said they will NOT vote for the bipartisan bill until the reconciliation bill is in its final form, and Pelosi has GUARANTEED that it will come to the floor.
The explanation for all this seems to be that the Republican Senators will be able to SAY they voted for infrastructure when the 2022 campaign ads start to saturate the airwaves, and so that is the enticement. And they can say they OPPOSED that hideous socialist giveaway that the Democrats 'rammed through' Congress with that 'partisan trick' of reconciliation.
I find this hard to swallow, but again their minds work within an entirely different version of reality -- one where reelection strategy is really all that matters. So Biden's game seems to be to convince both sides that the scheme will win them control of Congress in 2022, and hope to hell your side comes out on top.
Uh, _Nancy Pelosi_ has already guaranteed this.
Both Senators Jerry Moran of KS and Lindsey Graham of SC are now against the bipartisan infr bill
Manchin said yesterday he would not support the reconciliation bill and there are other DEMs who have said NOTHING about it
No one has the votes to amend or eliminate the filibuster
NOTHING will get through until we have a clear cut majority in the Senate
No, that's not what he said.
I should add further that both of those wights have an R after their name. Or was that to much for you to process?
Kevin's question is why Republicans would vote for this knowing that the things they got taken out of the bill would be coming back in a reconciliation bill.
The obvious answer is to ask them, but barring that, here's a simple guess.
The bill they're voting for is for spending that virtually everyone wants, including the Republican base. Remember that, until now, infrastructure bills have always been bipartisan.
So Republicans claim a win (by cutting THIS bill's spending from $2T to $1T and take credit for roads, bridges, broadband, etc.) If an when the reconciliation bill comes along, they'll vote against it again claiming victory (even if it passes without their votes).
My question to Kevin is why any Republican wants to be in a position of having to explain to his or her constituents why they're NOT going to get whatever the pet project(s) in that state may be?
I acknowledge that Republicans have so far gotten away with voting against bills (e.g. the stimulus bill) and then claiming credit for it anyway, but I'm guessing that they don't think (as I don't) that they can keep getting away with that.
Yes, this has been explained many times at various news outlets.
"The bill they're voting for is for spending that virtually everyone wants, including the Republican base. Remember that, until now, infrastructure bills have always been bipartisan."
First and foremost they don't give a damn what everyone wants. Remember Nixon had a national healthcare plan ready to roll out. it would have been welcomed by a big majority but he didn't do it. Infrastructure HAS always BEEN bipartisan - until now. Now it's "don't give Biden ANYTHING for any REASON.
The problem here is that the agreement in principle or the outline in and of itself was something 11 republicans could live with. The problem was the tie in with the reconciliation bill. When that became KNOWN to all the 11 GQP senators saw that they would be tied into the BIG recon bill which they didn't want.
So the GQP gets a win win
Even though the spending is necessary and welcomed their base would reject the reconciliation bill being as large as the DEMs want it to be.
So they say "When we win back the house and senate we'll pass our own infrastructure bill and DARE the president -- whoever it may be - to veto it."
They get to say no now and get to control the way the bill(s) are shaped in the future.
THIS is far more important to republicans than what their constituents want.
They also get to blame the DEMs for the failure of the bipartisan agreement because of the tie in to the big reconciliation bill.
As I have stated before Enema and Munchkin are the 2 PUBLIC faces of "bipartisan" DEMs - I believe there are MORE than those 2
You mean they didn't know what Biden and Pelosi had already been saying for literally weeks before this? God, you're thick. In future, I advise you do some research before saying anything.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-dare-you-prevent-us-from-screwing-you-gop-cries
I notice that several Bernie Bros have thrown their own two cents in without bothering to read easily accessed news and -- wait for it -- don't seem to realize that five is less than ten. In future, would you guys stfu until you can actually formulate a reasonable reply. I notice that these are exactly the same people I blocked over on MJ -- Mitch Guthman, Vog46, et al, and unfortunately I can't block them here.
There's a reson why ASSume has ASS in the first three letter
You assume very wrong about me
But then again being self-aggrandizing as you are that's the only way to make yourself feel smarter - eh?
Don't tell me, show me, bro. You haven't done that. In fact, that's why I blocked you over on MJ.
BTW, for all those who can't be bothered to read (mostly bros gnashing their teeth) here's this:
.
@JerryMoran
supports $1 trillion infrastructure framework rolled out by Biden & a bipartisan group of lawmakers today, his office confirms. But Moran is seeking assurances from moderate Dems that if this bill passes they won’t pass other spending proposals thru reconciliation.
What, the usual suspects are, shall we say, engaged in a series of misrepresentations? Say it ain't so!
There's a reason why ASSume has ASS in the first three letter
You assume very wrong about me
But then again being self-aggrandizing as you are that's the only way to make yourself feel smarter - eh?
And for those who can';t read Joe Manchin has NEVER supported a $4T reconciliation bill.
He's "open" to adjusting the filibuster to lower the threshold to 55 but he is consistantly against elimination of that filibuster.
So, where are we at?
We need 60 to pass the bipartisan bill. We don't have that - Pelosi can brag all she wants that she will pass BOTH bills we then run into the Senate.
I think the DEMs lost the 60 votes. Lindsey, as is his usual antics claimed this was extortion. So the first bill is dead. If they roll everything into reconciliation bills they run into the problem of some democrats who have been against spending $4T for whatever reason. The DEMs don't have Trump in the White House to provide solidarity for their party. Now DEM conservatives like Manchin and Sinema get to re-assert their power.
Why did we go from a go big strategy that EVERY republican opposed (in spite of their constitutents wanting MOST of it) and SEVERAL democrats opposed - down to a much smaller bill with input from republicans? Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Do you think they will suddenly capitulate and say yes to a reconciliation bill that they have historically said no to?
And YOU say people who disagree with you are engaged in misrepresentation?
My prediction? WE don't get either bill - and we go back to the trump era its infrastructure week -democrat style.
And the republicans run roughshod over the DEMs with it.
https://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?id=C03A8A85-F3CD-4314-8BD6-8CD68E3F3EAB
{snip}
“Yesterday, the Democrats attempted an unprecedented power grab in the Senate that in my view clearly would have affected the sanctity of our elections and violated the Constitution,” said Sen. Moran. “The vote was designed to fail in order to pressure Democratic Senators into altering the rules of the Senate and render this place a majority-run institution. Should the legislative filibuster meet its demise at the hands of this Senate because Democrats decide on a majority vote that the rules that have been in place for decades should be changed overnight, the august United States Senate will be condemned to a partisan spectacle.”
{snip]
Moran supported the $1T package so long as it was NOT tied into the reconciliation bill. Now that it IS tied in he seems to be against it - as is Lindsey Graham
You either didn't read the quote or you are unable to process what it means. But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt one last time. So tell me, what does But Moran is seeking assurances from moderate Dems that if this bill passes they won’t pass other spending proposals thru reconciliation. mean? Don't go off on your weird tangents this time; respond to what I actually wrote. Or is that too much to ask?
There's a reason why ASSume has ASS in the first three letter
You assume very wrong about me
But then again being self-aggrandizing as you are that's the only way to make yourself feel smarter - eh?
Oh, at my age, I don't feel very smart. But I'm still way smarter than you.