Wheels Still Spinning as Sanders Urges Progressives to Hold Their Ground

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised a bill by the end of September. After several negotiation failures, September has come and gone.

The WSJ reports Democrats Try Again to Pass Infrastructure Bill

House Democratic leaders had planned on bringing the public works legislation up for a vote on Thursday, but a progressive rebellion against the central element of President Biden’s agenda forced lawmakers to push the vote to Friday. Progressive Democrats are insisting that the party first unite around and pass the social policy and climate proposal, using their threat to oppose the infrastructure bill as leverage in the separate negotiation with other Democrats.

Top Democrats and White House officials held a marathon session of negotiations on Thursday to try to break the impasse, with more meetings expected Friday. Central to the discussions are centrist Sens. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.), who have each opposed the $3.5 trillion price tag for the social policy and climate bill.

Mr. Manchin said on Thursday that he could support spending $1.5 trillion on the social policy and climate bill, far below what progressive Democrats have pushed for. Some aides expect the new agreement to be worth roughly $2 trillion.

We’re going to come to an agreement. I’m trying to make sure they understand I’m at 1.5 trillion. I think 1.5 trillion does exactly the necessary things we need to do,” Mr. Manchin told reporters after a meeting with White House aides late Thursday night.

“It is an absurd way to do business, to be negotiating a multi-trillion dollar bill a few minutes before a major vote with virtually nobody knowing what’s going on,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), urging House liberals to hold their ground.

Some liberal Democrats were unfazed by Mr. Manchin’s demand. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) said that negotiations among Democrats would focus on the specific initiatives that they could unify around.

Still No Outline

Need I point out there is still no outline of the $3.5 trillion spending proposal. Nor can there be as long as there is no agreement on a price.

If Mancin stick to $1.5 trillion and Sanders sticks to $3.5 trillion it does not matter one iota is there is agreement on $1 trillion worth of items.

Full Speed Ahead

Flashback September 10, 2021: Democrats “Moving Full Speed Ahead” Says Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

“We’re moving full speed ahead,” Schumer told reporters, when asked about the suggestion last week from Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to have a “Strategic Pause” .

Where’s the Outline? Details? Plan?

Democrats have been working on a proposal for months and we still do not have an complete outline to criticize.

All Democrats have managed to do is float ideas they cannot get consensus on themselves. 

Pelosi wants this all done by the end of September when we still do not have an outline.

Full Speed Merry Go Round.

This is not moving ahead, it’s a full speed merry go round complete with three carnival barkers (AOC, Biden, and Pelosi) all making demands “my way or no way.”

We are at the same place we were at on September 10, August 10, July 10, and June 10.

Manchin Defends Stance 

Please note Joe Manchin Says His Spending, Climate Stance Should Be No Surprise.

“People pretty much know where I’ve been all along,” said the West Virginia lawmaker, whose state went for former President Donald Trump by 39 points in 2020. “I’ve never been a liberal in any way, shape or form. There’s no one that has ever thought I was.”

For months, Mr. Manchin has criticized the $3.5 trillion price tag of Democrats’ social-policy and climate bill. But he provided his most complete accounting of his positions Thursday, as the party struggles to bridge disagreements between its centrist and progressive wings on President Biden’s agenda.

Mr. Manchin called for shrinking Democrats’ education, healthcare and climate package by more than half, to $1.5 trillion. He also laid out his terms for the climate portion of Mr. Biden’s agenda, insisting on preserving fossil fuel subsidies and avoiding penalties for coal, gas and oil; that position amounts to a break with progressives on the substance of the agenda in addition to the price tag.

In a July memo written by Mr. Manchin and signed by Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), Mr. Manchin, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he wanted his committee to have exclusive jurisdiction over a so-called clean energy standard that is the foundational piece of Mr. Biden’s climate agenda. Mr. Manchin also questioned why the government would give utilities grants outright, suggesting that low-interest loans would be a better approach.

Mr. Manchin’s statements also highlight his divide with Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), who on Thursday reiterated his backing for climate legislation and his desire for an even bigger price tag.

We face an existential threat regarding climate change,” Mr. Sanders said. “Three-and-a-half trillion is actually a conservative number given the crisis that we face in climate.”

Existential Threat Nonsense

Sanders repeats the never ending existential threat nonsense debunked in spades. 

And he calls on the House Progressives to hold firm. 

So do I. I don’t want the Progressives to give an inch on anything especially the price tag and climate.

Then as long as Manchin holds firm, nothing can pass.

Nothing Beats Nothing

None of the packages being debated are better than doing nothing at all. And as long as the Progressives and Manchin hold firm, nothing will get done.

Unfortunately, I suspect there will be a compromise by Manchin and a package closer to $2 trillion will get passed with Sanders and AOC screaming every step of the way, until something is approved. 

Thanks for Tuning In

Like these reports? If so, 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.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

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.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

25 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cocoa
Cocoa
4 years ago
Loosey goosey budget policies at this scale means lots and lots of money is “lost.” Various techniques and parties have been siphoning trillions for decades. Remember when Pentagon admitted they lost 2 trillion bucks…and then 9-11 conveniently got Rumsfeld off the hook. They use idiots like the Dems and GOP to ask for “trillions” for crap and hardly any of it gets distributed
Call_Me
Call_Me
4 years ago
Reply to  Cocoa
And a short 20 years later that 2 Trillion is practically a rounding error – so no problem after all, right?   /s
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
OT….Anybody holding Silvergate Capital?  As most of you know,I don’t like crypto…..but I do like Silvergate’s way of making money off of crypto, from what I see.   For a bank stock it looks overvalued……but I’m not sure you can compare it to most banks. 
I think this ZH article makes some decent points.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
4 years ago
Let’s call this ‘bill’ for what it is: bill-$hit. If politicians wanted to help the country, they would bring forth a series of small separate bills for related components. Those parts that made economic sense, and brought real benefits, would pass.
Dumb is thinking the democrats can intelligently reduce the 3.5T to something affordable and leave the $hit out of bill-$hit.
RonJ
RonJ
4 years ago
We face an existential threat regarding climate change,” Mr. Sanders said.
No we don’t. Sanders is Gaslighting.
thimk
thimk
4 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
Yes – time is of the essence – we have to immediately reduce our carbon footprint to negate China’s emissions (which are set to explode) . China will be burning anything they can to produce power . well anything but Aussie coal.     
QTPie
QTPie
4 years ago
The WSJ’s editorial today had it right… Biden won the primary because he essentially opposed Sanders’ agenda, not because he supported it (otherwise Sanders himself would have won the primary). As such, Biden’s mandate doesn’t include the 3.5T package. On the contrary.
It’s insane that the Dems let this charade drag on past Nancy’s self-imposed deadline. Manchin has been telling them all along for months that he won’t go for anything close to 3.5T and yet they were proceeding full speed ahead as if nothing was in their way. Now AOC is shouting that Manchin is acting in “bad faith”. Excuse me? Dude let you know well in advance that he’s not gonna go for it and instead of negotiating you just proceeded forward. If anyone has been acting in bad faith it’s the progressives.
I agree with Mish… something will pass but it will probably in the range of 1.7-2.3T. AOC better calm down, sit down and get the best deal she can instead of acting like a petulant child who didn’t get the candy she screamed in the store for. Otherwise, Dems end up with zero infrastructure bills, be it physical or human infrastructure.
ajc1970
ajc1970
4 years ago
Sen Sinema has already left DC for the weekend. Dems won’t have votes for anything until next week.
QTPie
QTPie
4 years ago
Reply to  ajc1970
The physical infrastructure bill (which is what Nancy was trying to bring to the floor) already passed the senate a while back so Sinema is not a factor.
ajc1970
ajc1970
4 years ago
Reply to  QTPie
Yes, but that bill didn’t need her vote anyway.
GOP isn’t holding out on the infrastructure bill — they want it too.
Dems are trying to tie it to their $3.5T deal, so that those who want the infrastructure bill are forced to vote on the socialism bill too.
Can’t happen now.
ajc1970
ajc1970
4 years ago
Reply to  QTPie
If/when Nancy gives in and allow the House to vote on just the infrastructure bill, the charade of the $3.5T reconciliation bill is done, it has no chance.  Manchin and Sinema then get to write their own reconciliation bill for a much smaller amount that goes 50-50 in the Senate, when Kamala pushes it over the top.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
“Unfortunately, I suspect there will be a compromise by Manchin and a package closer to $2 trillion will get passed with Sanders and AOC screaming every step of the way, until something is approved.”
Most likely outcome in my view.
ajc1970
ajc1970
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
It appears to be taking a path where Pelosi caves and passes the infrastructure bill on its own, and then Manchin and Sinema get to dictate the entire reconciliation bill, which means we’re “only” looking at $1.5 to $2 trillion. Hyde Amendment lives. Coal lives.  AOC cries some more on the floor.
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
4 years ago
How will it be paid?
Why not have a vote on raising tax first … then vote on spending?
Fiscal Sanity would return in a heartbeat.
whirlaway
whirlaway
4 years ago
Reply to  Tony Bennett
Well, why not vote on cutting spending first…  and then cut the taxes?!   Has that ever happened?
KidHorn
KidHorn
4 years ago
AOC and Sanders want to spend $6 trillion. Much of it on climate change. And in a decade it will have made no difference. We’ll have Solyndra x 100. I’m with Mish. Better to do nothing.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Correct.
Plus we get to wait for other solutions to present themselves. If all the other countries are going to go green we can wait and see where they get things right/wrong and then we can just go directly to the finish line without making any wasted effort along the way. If in 10 years they are no closer to a solution then we’ll really know we were right to do nothing.
CristiC
CristiC
4 years ago
“Instead, you’ve chosen to travel the country calling people like Johnathan Isaac, and others, myself included, flat-earthers,” the Senator Rand Paul continued, adding “We find that very insulting. It goes against the science.”
The target was Joe Biden’s Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a progressive.
I was confused for a while, as the terms in this quote I heard in Mish’s posts. Could not be that they are also used by progressives, is it?
whirlaway
whirlaway
4 years ago
It will have to be in the 2.0T to 2.5T range for everyone to come out looking good.   Below 2T, the progressives will look like they caved.  And above 2.5T, it would be the same for Manchin and Sinema.
Call_Me
Call_Me
4 years ago
“Three-and-a-half trillion is actually a conservative number given the crisis that we face in climate”
Good to start with a conservative amount – it is a palatable number and then they can tack on some more during the next budget “crisis”, right?  Then the one after that, then the one after that ad infinitum.
It would be interesting to evaluate legislators’ comprehension of the number 1×10^12.  I don’t think most really understand/appreciate the size of a million millions.
whirlaway
whirlaway
4 years ago
Reply to  Call_Me
” I don’t think most really understand/appreciate the size of a million millions.”

Our GDP is going to be 300 of those million millions over the next 10 years, give or take.   And 3.5T is just about 1.2% of that.   That’s comprehension.

TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
Probably closer to 200 than 300 given our economy is only 20 a year now.
BTW, if you had spent 1 million a day from the day Christ was born until now you still wouldn’t have spent a million millions (1×10^12).
Call_Me
Call_Me
4 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Yes, 300 Trillion seems to be high, although if one factors in inflation, then nominally it may be a reasonable guess.
Whirlaway’s comment is a fine example of someone not comprehending the magnitude of the number, instead reducing it to a per centum (which is much easier for a person to digest).  3.5 Trillion over a decade works out to 350 Billion per year, which was approximately the entire federal budget a short 45 years ago.  350 Billion is additional spending of roughly $1,000 per capita each year for a decade — on top of what is already being spent.
whirlaway
whirlaway
4 years ago
Reply to  Call_Me
LOL.  The entire federal budget in 1921 was $5 billion.  That was “just” 100 years ago.   So????
Expressing the number as a percentage establishes the context.  Otherwise, any number can be made to look big.
Call_Me
Call_Me
4 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
In 1976 the U.S. was completely off the gold standard, meaning my comparison came from a time that had an equivalent monetary structure.  2 generations ago the numbers being thrown around were for everything the government did for an entire year, illustrating both the devaluating dollar and the magnitude (by comparison to earlier times) of what is being debated now.
Again, making it a percentage makes it ‘easier’ to understand – 100 is something dealt with on a regular basis, 1000000000000 is not for most people.  If you think someone is making 3.5 Trillion look big without it being big in and of itself, then we differ in that regard.

Decorate Your Walls with Mish Fine Art Images

Click each image to view details or purchase in the store.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.