I align more with Matt than Manchin, but I agree with him on the one point that reducing the (structural) deficit is a worthy goal. So long as we reduce the structural deficit, I personally do not have a top line for spending. If someone thinks that reducing the deficit will reduce inflation, they are wrong (The Fed controls inflation) but we need all the deficit shrinking help we can get, even from low information Members of Congress. If anyone were worried about that part of the deficit arising from the difference between SS/Medicare expenditures and collections of the wage tax, we could switch to a VAT set from time to time at rates to zero out that deficit.
I would however hope that in raising taxes on the wealthy to shrink the deficit, we include some structural changes like 1) substitute partial tax credits for deductions and 2) taxing INDEXED capital gains as ordinary revenue, 3) NOT raising corporate rates. 4 Raising the deduction [sic] for retirement savings.]
I’d like to believe that everything in the zero CO2 energy investments pass cost benefit analysis when CO2 emissions are priced at a rate something like what the net tax on CO@ emissions that is not yet politically feasible ought to be. For example, there should be no subsidies for EV purchases) The subsidies that are there should be paid as % of sales of zero carbon energy, not as subsidies to the investment in zero carbon technology (ideally applied to roof-top solar as well).
I’d focus the SSN spending on either a child tax credit or a child care tax credit (that would pay out for parents or parents’ relative care. Throw in a work requirement if necessary to get Manchin’s vote but make it administratively easy to satisfy and with exceptions for those we don’t what to encourage to work (elderly, disabled) I wish the expansion of the Social safety net included a reform of the UI system to pay a substantial fraction of lost income and so avoid future monstrosities like the PPP.
I can't say for sure, obviously, but I think Manchin probably would have been more receptive to funding gimmicks and CBO score gaming if Democrats and leadership hadn't spent three months trashing him for not going up to $3.5 trillion. It's hard to see how that wouldn't result in a lot of bad blood, particularly when Manchin made his red lines clear at the beginning in the Schumer memo. That Schumer kept it a secret even, apparently, from Pelosi and President, and said nothing as other Democrats complained that Manchin didn't spell out what he wanted.
But maybe things had to play out that way. It's also hard to see progressives willingly go from $3.5 to $1.5 trillion until they'd exhausted all avenues and proved to their base that they "fought" for a bigger number. But the way in which they fought - often in personal terms about the (lack of) moral character of Manchin and Sinema, was probably counterproductive considering they need Manchin more than he needs them.
So, Schumer and Manchin had a deal in July, in writing, not to go over 1.5T. If that's true, and it seems like it is, I understand why Schumer kept it secret to protect his left flank. And Manchin would keep it quiet, publicly, to help Schumer. But why would Manchin not bring it up during negotiations with the White House? They kept pressing on him, assuming 1.5T was a soft line; wouldn't he just say "It's a hard line that Schumer and I agreed on." And if he didn't, doesn't that suggest that Manchin wasn't negotiating in good faith? That he was just stringing the WH along, waiting until they got pushy enough that he could make it look like their fault for pushing too hard (which he did), knowing he could also then lay the blame at Schumer's feet for keeping the deal secret, and splitting the caucus down the middle? Because now the right/middle wing is mad at the WH for pushing too hard, and the left is mad at Schumer over a secret deal. And Manchin got what he wanted: his infrastructure bill, and no more.
I just don't see another reason why Manchin wouldn't have told WH negotiators about his deal with Schumer.
Throw rotten fruit at me if you want, but it seems like every SB comment section lately is just people complaining about "the woke" and the apparently humiliating effrontery of having to sometimes wear a light mask in public.
People really strongly dislike masking man. Politics is (obviously) made up of this kind of aggregated public opinion. There's lots of widely held views that I think are dumb, but basically have to accept because they're widespread. Accepting reality is part of being an adult
I'm a little disturbed by the commentary below. It doesn't seem like people have a good sense of the views of the median republican or democratic voter/politician. I assume it's because moderate voters or politicians saying moderate things doesn't lead to a social media firestorm.
I just worry that even some smart and savvy people seem to lost their awareness of this fact. They've come to think that Twitter or Facebook are real life. And they just aren't. They are both curated outrage machines.
I could be guilty of this. And in some ways, I probably am.
I THINK I'm mostly reacting to actual policies, though. Masking kids still going on in most big blue cities, despite the leadership's actions (Garcetti and Newsome with Magic, NYC Mayor reiterating masks-on-kids while standing unmasked in a deli, Randi Weingarten everyday), Stacey Abrams photo op followed by "GOP siezes..." headline in WaPo, Daily stories about San Francisco's decline. Add in the continuing actions to push affirmative action policies despite polling and voting being consistently against it and the witchhunt around Joe Rogan and I think the actions are more twitter-like than you might think.
But...I probably downplay or ignore the stupidity and overreach from 'my side' -- the conspiracy theorists, election deniers and Trump lovers. Josh Mandel and JDVance being the likely Republican nominees for Senate in Ohio is dumb beyond measure.
I wonder if maybe the median Republican and Democrat are both crazier than you and I would like to admit?
Josh Mandel being a United States Senator for 6 years is just insane. I mean our system has completely failed if this happens. Repeating my long-standing assertion that we should get rid of open primaries, and each state-level party should have a Standing Committee made of up elites serving long, staggered terms, to prevent the latest populist takeover. They decide on 3 or 4 primary candidates, and voters get to pick one of them
I would endorse this idea for Senators (and Presidential nominees, too). It is very, very anti-democratic, which makes it terrific. I'd keep the open primaries for Representatives, though, as that body is intended to be populist by nature.
My issue with your second sentence is that the number of people who actually vote in a party primary is tiny, so it's not really 'populist'. For example look at Dave Brat defeating Eric Cantor, a famous (and IMO terrible) primary. According to Wikipedia 65k total votes were cast. In the general 243k votes were cast, 148k of them Republican. AOC had similar numbers when she famously won her primary against Joe Crowley- something like 29k votes, versus 130k cast in the general. Kind of like the infamous community meetings where elderly NIMBYs vote down apartment buildings, I don't think something's 'democratic' if in practice not a lot of people show up. And we've had primaries for what, 100 years now? I think we have a large enough sample size to draw some conclusions.
I'm not 100% sure what the solution is to that, but I would prefer that the crazy minority not get to pick candidates for the moderate but kinda unpolitical voter
But the question is whether Gavin Newsom is "way to the left of the median Democratic voter"? Or whether, say, Ted Cruz is way to the right of the median Republican voter? Hard to say in both cases. Which is sad.
I think another detrimental (but unstated in this article) is how much negotiation over BBB was done in public, causing a lot of acrimony both inside the Democratic senate caucus as well as from the public (i.e. Twitter). The SCOTUS nomination will be a great opportunity for senators to start negotiating privately with the media preoccupied elsewhere. There was a somewhat cryptic Tweet a couple weeks ago about Wyden taking up a climate change and health care bill from the Senate Finance Committee that seems hopeful that I'd love to learn more about: https://twitter.com/Alexruoff/status/1486055378592874500
Plus, as discussed on Slow Boring, the NY senate filing deadline is mid-April, so we will know shortly after the SCOTUS confirmation whether Schumer's left is protected. I am hopeful this combination of factors could create a healthier dynamic for negotiations. I guess we'll see soon enough.
The filibuster may not help promote a "moderate" governing agenda, but it does something at least as important for people like Manchin. It let's him claim to support stuff like voting rights and minimum wage hikes without voting for it, and pissing the other side off. This desire to have it both ways may be an easy way to build moderate cred, and it shifts blame for hardening polarization onto the more extreme members of the party.
So in that Kasie Hunt Tweet she is directly telegraphing that she's already made up a narrative in her head (suburban women are turning on Democrats because that didn't pass paid family leave) and she's gonna go out looking for a story that supports that narrative.
This doesn't seem like how journalism should work.
I think you're just putting the most negative spin on the tweet. If read more generously, she's just making a prediction that a policy choice will cause a reaction in voters that she can see covering when it happens. We can read tweets and put the most negative spin on them all day, but IMO I don't think it's a great use of time or energy.
Democrats: “Cut one penny from the welfare state and we’ll have millions of sick and starving children and old people dying in the streets.”
Republicans: “Cut one penny from the military and we’ll have Chinese tanks rolling down Santa Monica Boulevard.”
The bipartisan “compromise” has indeed always been “why not both?” - spend more on everything without addressing the obvious status quo of massive programs that pad public payrolls and funnel cash to politically connected contractors and “consultants” while benefiting neither national security nor the personal well being of citizens in need.
All of that, and the thing that had me nodding my head was the paragraph about riding on an airplane without masks. This issue absolutely will be influencing my next votes.
And all the other stuff, the key provision that I support is making the expanded child tax credit permanent. But I’m sort of resigned that that’s not gonna get passed either.
The Democrats should wrap up some pro natural gas to replace coal elements in their climate proposals. That might get Manchin to sign on.
In a nutshell, the situation has not changed since last June. Manchin said stay under 1.5T and pick a few things to be fully funded (or at least have significantly less budget tricks) and he will support. Why we are still in the same place in February has little to do with Manchin and everything to do with the Progressives not being able to accept reality and continuing to try to get Manchin to change. He is not going to.
I would just note again that while Matt's earlier article putting a lot of the blame for this on Schumer was persuasive, all of Schumer's incentives change in 8 weeks when the primary filing deadline in New York passes. So that's the timeline to keep an eye on.
Ah, good to note! I hadn't remembered which particular cycle he was up in, but knowing that he's got a full six years before the next one could help. (Though even at his best, Chuck Schumer was no Harry Reid, not that Harry Reid is anywhere near as competent as Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell.)
This particular episode aside, I don't have a strong view on which of those leaders is more competent or effective than which. But I do think the Senate Democratic leadership has the highest degree of difficulty of the four caucuses.
The actions of foreign governments have made it hard to feel we have returned to normal. Every time I turn on the Olympics, I see empty seats and an event that could be a celebration of peace and normalcy downgraded to a grim rendition of pandemic theater. The Tokyo games were even worse. I could not vacation in Canada last summer even though I was fully vaccinated. Biden might have been able to pressure Canada into opening it’s border to tourists a bit earlier, but he didn’t try and he would have taken a lot of flak if he had.
Nor can Biden make my mother more willing to travel and dine out. The continued dreariness of life isn’t Biden’s fault. However, I’m wearing a mask on a plane right now because of a Biden administration mandate, and that makes it very easy to project pandemic angst onto Biden.
I align more with Matt than Manchin, but I agree with him on the one point that reducing the (structural) deficit is a worthy goal. So long as we reduce the structural deficit, I personally do not have a top line for spending. If someone thinks that reducing the deficit will reduce inflation, they are wrong (The Fed controls inflation) but we need all the deficit shrinking help we can get, even from low information Members of Congress. If anyone were worried about that part of the deficit arising from the difference between SS/Medicare expenditures and collections of the wage tax, we could switch to a VAT set from time to time at rates to zero out that deficit.
I would however hope that in raising taxes on the wealthy to shrink the deficit, we include some structural changes like 1) substitute partial tax credits for deductions and 2) taxing INDEXED capital gains as ordinary revenue, 3) NOT raising corporate rates. 4 Raising the deduction [sic] for retirement savings.]
I’d like to believe that everything in the zero CO2 energy investments pass cost benefit analysis when CO2 emissions are priced at a rate something like what the net tax on CO@ emissions that is not yet politically feasible ought to be. For example, there should be no subsidies for EV purchases) The subsidies that are there should be paid as % of sales of zero carbon energy, not as subsidies to the investment in zero carbon technology (ideally applied to roof-top solar as well).
I’d focus the SSN spending on either a child tax credit or a child care tax credit (that would pay out for parents or parents’ relative care. Throw in a work requirement if necessary to get Manchin’s vote but make it administratively easy to satisfy and with exceptions for those we don’t what to encourage to work (elderly, disabled) I wish the expansion of the Social safety net included a reform of the UI system to pay a substantial fraction of lost income and so avoid future monstrosities like the PPP.
I can't say for sure, obviously, but I think Manchin probably would have been more receptive to funding gimmicks and CBO score gaming if Democrats and leadership hadn't spent three months trashing him for not going up to $3.5 trillion. It's hard to see how that wouldn't result in a lot of bad blood, particularly when Manchin made his red lines clear at the beginning in the Schumer memo. That Schumer kept it a secret even, apparently, from Pelosi and President, and said nothing as other Democrats complained that Manchin didn't spell out what he wanted.
But maybe things had to play out that way. It's also hard to see progressives willingly go from $3.5 to $1.5 trillion until they'd exhausted all avenues and proved to their base that they "fought" for a bigger number. But the way in which they fought - often in personal terms about the (lack of) moral character of Manchin and Sinema, was probably counterproductive considering they need Manchin more than he needs them.
There may be too much bad blood now for a deal.
So, Schumer and Manchin had a deal in July, in writing, not to go over 1.5T. If that's true, and it seems like it is, I understand why Schumer kept it secret to protect his left flank. And Manchin would keep it quiet, publicly, to help Schumer. But why would Manchin not bring it up during negotiations with the White House? They kept pressing on him, assuming 1.5T was a soft line; wouldn't he just say "It's a hard line that Schumer and I agreed on." And if he didn't, doesn't that suggest that Manchin wasn't negotiating in good faith? That he was just stringing the WH along, waiting until they got pushy enough that he could make it look like their fault for pushing too hard (which he did), knowing he could also then lay the blame at Schumer's feet for keeping the deal secret, and splitting the caucus down the middle? Because now the right/middle wing is mad at the WH for pushing too hard, and the left is mad at Schumer over a secret deal. And Manchin got what he wanted: his infrastructure bill, and no more.
I just don't see another reason why Manchin wouldn't have told WH negotiators about his deal with Schumer.
BBB is a globalist Great Reset chant. Nothing about that is really good for the US.
Throw rotten fruit at me if you want, but it seems like every SB comment section lately is just people complaining about "the woke" and the apparently humiliating effrontery of having to sometimes wear a light mask in public.
People really strongly dislike masking man. Politics is (obviously) made up of this kind of aggregated public opinion. There's lots of widely held views that I think are dumb, but basically have to accept because they're widespread. Accepting reality is part of being an adult
I'm a little disturbed by the commentary below. It doesn't seem like people have a good sense of the views of the median republican or democratic voter/politician. I assume it's because moderate voters or politicians saying moderate things doesn't lead to a social media firestorm.
I just worry that even some smart and savvy people seem to lost their awareness of this fact. They've come to think that Twitter or Facebook are real life. And they just aren't. They are both curated outrage machines.
I could be guilty of this. And in some ways, I probably am.
I THINK I'm mostly reacting to actual policies, though. Masking kids still going on in most big blue cities, despite the leadership's actions (Garcetti and Newsome with Magic, NYC Mayor reiterating masks-on-kids while standing unmasked in a deli, Randi Weingarten everyday), Stacey Abrams photo op followed by "GOP siezes..." headline in WaPo, Daily stories about San Francisco's decline. Add in the continuing actions to push affirmative action policies despite polling and voting being consistently against it and the witchhunt around Joe Rogan and I think the actions are more twitter-like than you might think.
But...I probably downplay or ignore the stupidity and overreach from 'my side' -- the conspiracy theorists, election deniers and Trump lovers. Josh Mandel and JDVance being the likely Republican nominees for Senate in Ohio is dumb beyond measure.
I wonder if maybe the median Republican and Democrat are both crazier than you and I would like to admit?
Josh Mandel being a United States Senator for 6 years is just insane. I mean our system has completely failed if this happens. Repeating my long-standing assertion that we should get rid of open primaries, and each state-level party should have a Standing Committee made of up elites serving long, staggered terms, to prevent the latest populist takeover. They decide on 3 or 4 primary candidates, and voters get to pick one of them
I would endorse this idea for Senators (and Presidential nominees, too). It is very, very anti-democratic, which makes it terrific. I'd keep the open primaries for Representatives, though, as that body is intended to be populist by nature.
My issue with your second sentence is that the number of people who actually vote in a party primary is tiny, so it's not really 'populist'. For example look at Dave Brat defeating Eric Cantor, a famous (and IMO terrible) primary. According to Wikipedia 65k total votes were cast. In the general 243k votes were cast, 148k of them Republican. AOC had similar numbers when she famously won her primary against Joe Crowley- something like 29k votes, versus 130k cast in the general. Kind of like the infamous community meetings where elderly NIMBYs vote down apartment buildings, I don't think something's 'democratic' if in practice not a lot of people show up. And we've had primaries for what, 100 years now? I think we have a large enough sample size to draw some conclusions.
I'm not 100% sure what the solution is to that, but I would prefer that the crazy minority not get to pick candidates for the moderate but kinda unpolitical voter
Who would you consider the left’s version of Marjorie Taylor Green? Anyone you pick is going to be way to the left of the median Democratic voter.
Probably Cori Bush.
But the question is whether Gavin Newsom is "way to the left of the median Democratic voter"? Or whether, say, Ted Cruz is way to the right of the median Republican voter? Hard to say in both cases. Which is sad.
Ted? I’d say he’s a lot more of a free market/big business fan than the median Republican voter.
Fair.
According to govtrack.us, it looks like Hawley or Scott are the most well-known Senators who are closest to the 'median' Republican Senator.
On the Democratic Side, this would be Stabenow or Duckworth. Seems about right I would think, and probably close to the median voter for each side.
I think another detrimental (but unstated in this article) is how much negotiation over BBB was done in public, causing a lot of acrimony both inside the Democratic senate caucus as well as from the public (i.e. Twitter). The SCOTUS nomination will be a great opportunity for senators to start negotiating privately with the media preoccupied elsewhere. There was a somewhat cryptic Tweet a couple weeks ago about Wyden taking up a climate change and health care bill from the Senate Finance Committee that seems hopeful that I'd love to learn more about: https://twitter.com/Alexruoff/status/1486055378592874500
Plus, as discussed on Slow Boring, the NY senate filing deadline is mid-April, so we will know shortly after the SCOTUS confirmation whether Schumer's left is protected. I am hopeful this combination of factors could create a healthier dynamic for negotiations. I guess we'll see soon enough.
The filibuster may not help promote a "moderate" governing agenda, but it does something at least as important for people like Manchin. It let's him claim to support stuff like voting rights and minimum wage hikes without voting for it, and pissing the other side off. This desire to have it both ways may be an easy way to build moderate cred, and it shifts blame for hardening polarization onto the more extreme members of the party.
So in that Kasie Hunt Tweet she is directly telegraphing that she's already made up a narrative in her head (suburban women are turning on Democrats because that didn't pass paid family leave) and she's gonna go out looking for a story that supports that narrative.
This doesn't seem like how journalism should work.
I think you're just putting the most negative spin on the tweet. If read more generously, she's just making a prediction that a policy choice will cause a reaction in voters that she can see covering when it happens. We can read tweets and put the most negative spin on them all day, but IMO I don't think it's a great use of time or energy.
True but also seems to be totally how journalism "works" right now. Hence the presence of all of us in substack land!
Democrats: “Cut one penny from the welfare state and we’ll have millions of sick and starving children and old people dying in the streets.”
Republicans: “Cut one penny from the military and we’ll have Chinese tanks rolling down Santa Monica Boulevard.”
The bipartisan “compromise” has indeed always been “why not both?” - spend more on everything without addressing the obvious status quo of massive programs that pad public payrolls and funnel cash to politically connected contractors and “consultants” while benefiting neither national security nor the personal well being of citizens in need.
Government welfare spending including government health care spending is like 3-4x the military budget, FWIW.
hurry up, please, it's time
I'm a fan of the EITC, but what's the argument that increasing it is anti-inflationary?
I guess that it raises workforce participation?
All of that, and the thing that had me nodding my head was the paragraph about riding on an airplane without masks. This issue absolutely will be influencing my next votes.
And all the other stuff, the key provision that I support is making the expanded child tax credit permanent. But I’m sort of resigned that that’s not gonna get passed either.
The Democrats should wrap up some pro natural gas to replace coal elements in their climate proposals. That might get Manchin to sign on.
In a nutshell, the situation has not changed since last June. Manchin said stay under 1.5T and pick a few things to be fully funded (or at least have significantly less budget tricks) and he will support. Why we are still in the same place in February has little to do with Manchin and everything to do with the Progressives not being able to accept reality and continuing to try to get Manchin to change. He is not going to.
I would just note again that while Matt's earlier article putting a lot of the blame for this on Schumer was persuasive, all of Schumer's incentives change in 8 weeks when the primary filing deadline in New York passes. So that's the timeline to keep an eye on.
Ah, good to note! I hadn't remembered which particular cycle he was up in, but knowing that he's got a full six years before the next one could help. (Though even at his best, Chuck Schumer was no Harry Reid, not that Harry Reid is anywhere near as competent as Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell.)
This particular episode aside, I don't have a strong view on which of those leaders is more competent or effective than which. But I do think the Senate Democratic leadership has the highest degree of difficulty of the four caucuses.
The actions of foreign governments have made it hard to feel we have returned to normal. Every time I turn on the Olympics, I see empty seats and an event that could be a celebration of peace and normalcy downgraded to a grim rendition of pandemic theater. The Tokyo games were even worse. I could not vacation in Canada last summer even though I was fully vaccinated. Biden might have been able to pressure Canada into opening it’s border to tourists a bit earlier, but he didn’t try and he would have taken a lot of flak if he had.
Nor can Biden make my mother more willing to travel and dine out. The continued dreariness of life isn’t Biden’s fault. However, I’m wearing a mask on a plane right now because of a Biden administration mandate, and that makes it very easy to project pandemic angst onto Biden.
"Nor can Biden make my mother more willing to travel and dine out"
He cold try. He could, for instance, stop wearing a mask while walking out to Marine One.