BBB Needs A Deadline

Eric Medlin

History instructor. Writer. Rising star in the world of affordable housing.

Related Post Roulette

17 Responses

  1. North says:

    Yup. Take whatever Manchin is willing to support and pass it into law.Report

    • Philip H in reply to North says:

      We got what he was willing to support in the Infrastructure bill. There little left in BBB that would be substantive that he’ll get behind.

      Frankly given his “defeat” on voting rights – where the Republicans he allegedly negotiated with then refused to back the bill he claimed they helped him write – you’d think he’d pivot a bit more.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to North says:

      Follow JB’s link below and read the climate part. Short version, Manchin gets a veto and blue states who want to follow — or are already following — the obvious strategy of “Electrify everything and get carbon out of the grid” get no federal assistance.Report

  2. Jaybird says:

    One story that I saw that was weird as hell was the story of the Schumer/Manchin signed agreement.

    Like, Schumer and Manchin sat down and hammered out what Manchin would pay for. Manchin said “here is myline in the sand” and both of them signed it (and Schumer wrote a note saying “I’ll try to talk Joe out of some of these” under his signature) and…

    Well, the deal wasn’t what Manchin said he’d support (and signed his name to) and, wouldn’t you know it, Manchin didn’t support it.

    I’m mostly confused.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

      Manchin is a centerist neoliberal democrat in a red state. He wants to retain his perceived power as a US Senator, as he’s trying to be Robert Byrd 2.0 in a state that wouldn’t elect Byrd today. Like Mitch McConnell he cares about keeping job first, making republican voters in West Virginia happy second (so he can keep his job), and making the national Democratic Party happy . . . about 56th. He knows that he has Schumer over multiple barrels due tot he slim/non existent majority in the Senate.

      Its not actually that hard.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

        I understand where Manchin is coming from.

        What confuses me is that Schumer and Manchin had something akin to an agreement and, like, they both signed it and then Schumer offered a deal that was waaaaaaaaaaaay outside of his signed agreement and then Manchin didn’t support the deal that wasn’t like what he agreed to.

        Like… why would you even have the deal in the first place? What the heck?

        It’s not Manchin’s actions that confuse me.Report

        • North in reply to Jaybird says:

          Most likely it was communicating with the left flank of the party. I’m assuming it was something like “Ok we put what you wanted in it and you watched Manchin shoot it down in flames so now the choice is what Manchin will sign on to or nothing.” Presumably the fear was that if they tried to give Manchin what he would sign to out the gate then the left wing of the party would rebel over leadership not bargaining hard enough.

          This way it’s relatively simple. It’s whatever Manchin will agree to or nothing. He’s already demonstrated he’ll be quite comfortable with nothing.Report

          • pillsy in reply to North says:

            The way Joe Manchin’s become effective ruler of the country is pretty damn annoying.

            It’s better than almost any easily accessible alternative, which just serves to make it more damn annoying.

            He’s not extraordinarily evil or even particularly dumb. Ideology and partisanship aside he’s an unambiguously better person than maybe 2 or 3 of his Republican colleagues.

            But he’s still very annoying.Report

            • North in reply to pillsy says:

              Chaps me too, no lies, but considering his district he is, as you noted, better than the alternative. Throw darts of a picture of that damn fool Cal Cunningham to feel better maybe?Report

              • InMD in reply to North says:

                Ehhhh my belief remains that he isn’t the outlier he appears to be. My bet is and has always been that he is running interference for at least half a dozen, maybe a few more, other Senators and possibly even some House members that want to both be able to say they voted for BBB but are afraid of the attacks they’d have had to parry if it was signed in the form it went to the Senate.

                Of course this is consistent with my priors that say the core Democratic voting base is very moderate and the big leadership challenge is squaring that reality with the party’s ever stranger branding pushed by a small chunk of it.Report

              • pillsy in reply to InMD says:

                I think the Dem voting base is moderate but it is moderate in a way different from now Sinema and Manchin (and a couple other moderate standard bearers) are moderate.

                In particular, IME normie Dems are, for better or worse, not particularly energized by social issues that animate a lot of activists, but are at least as ferociously anti-Republican as those activists.

                This makes the leadership challenges even harder to solve.Report

              • pillsy in reply to pillsy says:

                Also no normie Dem has ever worried, or will ever worry, about a tax on billionaires being too divisive, as Manchin notoriously has.

                They are often deficit hawks, but the ones who are tend to have fiscal preferences like, “Don’t cut social spending but tax the balls off of rich people.”Report

              • InMD in reply to pillsy says:

                I agree. I think one of the additional complicating factors is the belief that ‘moderate’ means a social issue agnostic chamber of commerce type. To me that’s where there are some far meatier criticisms of Manchin. I still have no idea what to make of Sinema.Report

  3. Damon says:

    “he’d be willing to consider legislation that focuses on prescription drug prices, tax reforms, and climate investments as long as half the revenue it raises is targeted to paying down the deficit.” Deficits rarely get paid down. Even if they do, it’s offset by massive increases in spending in out years.Report