In an unexpected twist to Biden’s $3.5 trillion budget proposal, Senator Joe Manchin wrote this Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal.
Why I Won’t Support Spending Another $3.5 Trillion
Here are a few key excerpts from Manchin’s op-ed.
Inflation Tax
An overheating economy has imposed a costly “inflation tax” on every middle- and working-class American. At $28.7 trillion and growing, the nation’s debt has reached record levels. Democratic congressional leaders propose to pass the largest single spending bill in history with no regard to rising inflation, crippling debt or the inevitability of future crises. Ignoring the fiscal consequences of our policy choices will create a disastrous future for the next generation of Americans.
Instead of rushing to spend trillions on new government programs and additional stimulus funding, Congress should hit a strategic pause on the budget-reconciliation legislation. A pause is warranted because it will provide more clarity on the trajectory of the pandemic, and it will allow us to determine whether inflation is transitory or not.
Can’t Explain It
I have always said if I can’t explain it, I can’t vote for it, and I can’t explain why my Democratic colleagues are rushing to spend $3.5 trillion. I, for one, won’t support a $3.5 trillion bill, or anywhere near that level of additional spending, without greater clarity about why Congress chooses to ignore the serious effects inflation and debt have on existing government programs. This is even more important now as the Social Security and Medicare Trustees have sounded the alarm that these life-saving programs will be insolvent and benefits could start to be reduced as soon as 2026 for Medicare and 2033, a year earlier than previously projected, for Social Security.
Wrong Then, Wrong Now
In 2017, my Republican friends used the privileged legislative procedure of budget reconciliation to rush through a partisan tax bill that added more than $1 trillion to the national debt and put investors ahead of workers. Then, Democrats rightfully criticized this budgetary tactic. Now, my Democratic friends want to use this same budgetary tactic to push through sweeping legislation to make “historic investments.” Respectfully, it was wrong when the Republicans did it, and it is wrong now. If we want to invest in America, a goal I support, then let’s take the time to get it right and determine what is absolutely necessary.
Allegiance to Constitution, Not Parties
At a time of intense political and policy divisions, it would serve us well to remember that members of Congress swear allegiance to this nation and fidelity to its Constitution, not to a political party. By placing a strategic pause on this budgetary proposal, by significantly reducing the size of any possible reconciliation bill to only what America can afford and needs to spend, we can and will build a better and stronger nation for all our families.
Seven Key Takeaways
- Inflation tax on every middle- and working-class American.
- Congress should hit a strategic pause on the budget-reconciliation legislation.
- Making budgetary decisions under artificial political deadlines never leads to good policy or sound decisions
- If I can’t explain it, I can’t vote for it, and I can’t explain why my Democratic colleagues are rushing to spend $3.5 trillion.
- This is even more important now as the Social Security and Medicare Trustees have sounded the alarm that these life-saving programs will be insolvent.
- It was wrong when the Republicans did it, and it is wrong now.
- It would serve us well to remember that members of Congress swear allegiance to this nation and fidelity to its Constitution, not to a political party.
No Votes to Spare
Biden has no votes to spare in the Senate. He needs support of all 50 Democrat Senators plus Vice President Kamala Harris to break the tie.
And it’s not just Manchin the Democrats need to appease. Senator Krysten Sinema (D., AZ) is also on record opposing $3.5 trillion in spending.
It will be a lot easier to kill misguided legislation if there is not a single holdout.
No Climate, No Deal
Recall AOC’s threat to senator Sinema.
On July 30, I noted AOC Goes After Senator Krysten Sinema With a “No Climate, No Deal” Threat.
Critical House Showdown
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, AOC, and 65 Progressive members of Congress all want a budget resolution to pass the House and the Senate before sending the bipartisan $1 trillion infrastructure to president Biden.
However, In the House, Pelosi only has 3 votes to spare. And we still do not have a Budget Reconciliation Outline!
How does Pelosi meet the goals of the Progressives without losing 3 votes while Manchin and Sinema effectively put the whole thing on ice?
Greens Hijack Agenda
On July 15, I commented The Greens Hijack Biden’s $3.5 Trillion Budget Proposal (That Could be a Blessing)
The proposal is a tariff (tax or a polluter import fee if you prefer). The idea is to put a tax on imports to make those countries adhere to the Progressive’s goal of 80% carbon-free energy by 2030 or 2035 at the latest.
How likely is passage?
I don’t know.
Senator Sinema clearly has strong reservations.
It only takes one to derail the Socialist Express Train. But it would be better if there were at least two.
Blessing?
My idea was the bill was so loaded with garbage that it might sink everything.
Despite this talk, we still do not know what will happen. However, we are nearing a critical showdown.
AOC’s and Pelosi’s comments are undoubtedly going to be amusing.
Key Question
Looking ahead, here’s the key question: Millennials and Zoomers Inherit a Boomer Mess, What Will They Do With Their Turn?
Subscribe!
Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.
Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.
Mish
But the fingers of instability, the total credit system, are seemingly growing with more red sand dots every month. All are inextricably linked. One day, another Thailand or Russia or something else (it makes no difference which) will start a cascade.
Remember, very astute people saw the subprime crisis and made a lot of money shorting that market. I saw it coming but didn’t know how to trade it. I guarantee you, I’m paying attention now to who can profit from the next credit crisis. Maybe I’ll succeed, and maybe I won’t, but just once, I would like to be on the right side of a crisis.
The shadow docket will have more of an effect on lives than a spending bill:
The Supreme Court opinion link to nl.nytimes.com was different from most major rulings by the court.
This one came out shortly before midnight on Wednesday. It consisted of a single paragraph, not signed by the justices who voted for it and lacking the usual detailed explanation of their reasoning. And there had been no oral arguments, during which opposing lawyers could have made their cases and answered questions from the justices.
Instead, the opinion was part of something that has become known as link to nl.nytimes.com In the shadow docket, the court makes decisions quickly, without the usual written briefings, oral arguments or signed opinions. In recent years, the shadow docket has become a much larger part of the Supreme Court’s work.
Shadow-docket rulings have shaped policy on voting rights, climate change, birth control, Covid-19 restrictions and more. Last month, the justices issued shadow decisions forcing the Biden administration to link to nl.nytimes.com and to reinstate a Trump administration immigration policy. “The cases affect us at least as much as high-profile cases we devote so much attention to,” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, told me.
Shadow-docket cases are frequently those with urgency — such as a voting case that must be decided in the final weeks before an election. As a result, the justices don’t always have time to solicit briefs, hold oral arguments and spend months grappling with their decision. Doing so can risk irreparable harm to one side in the case.
For these reasons, nobody questions the need for the court to issue some expedited, bare-bones rulings. But many legal experts are worried about how big the shadow docket has grown, including in cases that the Supreme Court could have decided in a more traditional way.
“Shadow docket orders were once a tool the court used to dispense with unremarkable and legally unambiguous matters,” link to nl.nytimes.com. “In recent years the court has largely dispensed with any meaningful application of the irreparable harm standard.”
Why have the justices expanded the shadow docket?
In part, it is a response to a newfound willingness by lower courts to issue decisions that apply to the entire country, link to nl.nytimes.com. By acting quickly, the Supreme Court can retain its dominant role.
But there is also a political angle. Shadow-docket cases can let the court act quickly and also shield individual justices from criticism: In the latest abortion case, there is no signed opinion for legal scholars to pick apart, and no single justice is personally associated with the virtual end of legal abortion in Texas. The only reason that the public knows the precise vote — 5 to 4 — is that the four justices in the minority each chose to release a signed dissent.
Critics argue that judges in a democracy owe the public more transparency. “This idea of unexplained, unreasoned court orders seems so contrary to what courts are supposed to be all about,” Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard law professor, link to nl.nytimes.com. “If courts don’t have to defend their decisions, then they’re just acts of will, of power.”
During a House hearing on the shadow docket in February, members of both parties link to nl.nytimes.com. “Knowing why the justices selected certain cases, how each of them voted, and their reasoning is indispensable to the public’s trust in the court’s integrity,” Representative Henry Johnson Jr., a Georgia Democrat, said. Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said, “I am a big fan of judges and justices making clear who’s making the decision, and I would welcome reforms that required that.”
The shadow docket also leaves lower-court judges unsure about what exactly the Supreme Court has decided and how to decide similar cases they later hear. “Because the lower-court judges don’t know why the Supreme Court does what it does, they sometimes divide sharply when forced to interpret the court’s nonpronouncements,” link to nl.nytimes.com, a University of Chicago law professor and former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts. Baude coined the term “shadow docket.”
The court’s six Republican-appointed justices are driving the growth of the shadow docket, and it is consistent with their overall approach to the law. They are link to nl.nytimes.com willing to be aggressive, overturning longstanding precedents, in campaign finance, election law, business regulation and other areas. The shadow docket expands their ability to shape American society.
The three Democratic-appointed justices, for their part, have grown frustrated by the trend. link to nl.nytimes.com, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “The majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this court’s shadow-docket decision making — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.” In link to nl.nytimes.com, Justice Stephen Breyer said: “I can’t say never decide a shadow-docket thing. … But be careful.”
Roberts also evidently disagrees with the use of the shadow docket in the Texas abortion case. In his dissent, joining the three liberal justices, he said the court could instead have blocked the Texas law while it made its way through the courts. That the court chose another path means that abortion is now all but illegal in the nation’s second-largest state.
The justices are likely to settle the question in a more lasting way next year. They will hear oral arguments this fall in a Mississippi abortion case — the more traditional kind, outside the shadows — and a decision is likely by June.
hahahaha.Keep spewing the party line. Biden will be the most hated President if he makes it 4 years; not because the media tells everyone he is bad, but because is actually is a horrible President.Meanwhile, Trump’s Presidency will look better and better over time.