Cutting Massive Bill Threatens to Blow Up Progressive Unity

[Celerity]

Deciding what programs are removed from the multi-trillion proposal will almost certainly splinter a group of lawmakers who surprised Capitol Hill with their unity just weeks ago.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cutting-massive-bill-threatens-to-blow-up-progressive-unity



Democrats promised to Build Back Better in the Joe Biden era, but the political reality surrounding their marquee policy package is forcing them to pick between two far more diminished mantras: Do Less Better, or Do More Worse. Over the summer, Democrats laid the groundwork for a sprawling $3.5 trillion bill that would substantially fund a number of their top priorities, from expanding Medicare to include dental and vision benefits, to implementing aggressive new climate change measures, to making community college tuition free and pre-K universal. But a group of centrists are objecting to the size and scope of that proposal, and with Democrats unable to lose a single vote in the U.S. Senate, lawmakers are moving toward a smaller package that could end up investing $2 trillion less than what leaders set out to. That prospect sets up painful decisions for Democrats, particularly progressives, about which items to prioritize and which to table. But it’s also sparking a broader debate that is scrambling factional lines within the party—and could complicate the unified front that has made the progressive wing an effective force in negotiations so far.

The more moderate wing of the party prefers the Do Less Better mantra: pick a set of programs that are most vital and give them piles of long-term funding, with the goal of creating stable and successful initiatives that Democrats can campaign on for years. That would likely encompass things like making the child tax credit permanent and implementing universal paid leave. Progressives, meanwhile, largely prefer the Do More Worse approach—though they probably would not call it that. They believe they now have a rare opportunity to enact the sweeping legislation voters elected them to pass and must maintain the vast scope of the legislation, even if they can only fund much of it for a short time. Some lawmakers are convinced that these programs will be so popular that it could help keep the party in power, or at least make it near-impossible for the GOP to repeal them. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), a leading progressive, has proposed that funding for key programs run out after the 2024 presidential elections, enabling the party to put them “on the ballot” that year. “I am confident that by ’24, these programs would have proved very popular,” Khanna told The Daily Beast.

Others look at recent history and don’t see that fight going their way. They feel that Republicans would gladly run against these programs, and either way worry that GOP control of Congress or the gridlock of divided government would ensure that Democrats’ signature bill is dismantled in just a few years. “The wisdom that popular policies will inevitably be extended is largely untested in this political climate,” said one progressive advocate. “And even if you believe it, it depends on things being implemented before the midterms or the general.” In general, there’s some trepidation among even solid progressives about the risks involved with the caucus’ official approach. “A mile wide and an inch deep is not a very durable approach,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), who added that Democrats are “on the horns of a dilemma.” That dilemma comes as the White House and congressional leadership aim to close in on a deal that gets all Democrats on board with the legislation by the end of October. And this upcoming round of complex, high-stakes talks is set to challenge progressives’ most valuable resource so far: their unity.

At the end of September, Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and her team kept dozens of liberal lawmakers in line on a threat to tank a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill—if it weren’t paired with significant progress on the larger package. On Oct. 1, Biden came to the Hill and personally affirmed that position during a caucus-wide meeting, delivering progressives a huge win. “The strength of the progressive caucus has been an unusual stretch of unity over these past few months,” said Huffman. The nature of this debate, however, is more complicated than the infrastructure standoff. The vast legislation at hand consists of dozens and dozens of smaller proposals that some lawmakers have championed their entire careers, not to mention the varying constituencies and advocacy groups that wield enormous power in the Democratic coalition. Progressive Caucus leaders said the ongoing debate amounts to a “false choice,” insisting that lawmakers can reach a broad segment of the population with well-funded programs. But multiple Democrats worried that the fight over how to shave as much as $2 trillion from the legislation could pit lawmakers against one another as they scrap to save their own personal priorities or those of their allies.

snip

[Irish_Dem]

1. Maybe that is the goal on the part of certain senators.

[Celerity]

2. yes, certain forces, small in number but great in power, want to break them on the wheel

[Bettie]

4. If they can kill the bill

they never have to go on record as voting for something that helps people...either as supporting it (makes large donors angry) or supporting it (makes people who would benefit angry).

They get to eternally be both for and against it.

[Irish_Dem]

5. Good point on the game they are playing.

And it is always about what is best for themselves.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. The CPC could support Do Less Better, then hold the debt ceiling hostage for the rest

It would be brinksmanship the likes of which has never been seen.

4 strategic members of the CPC in safe seats, along with, say, Sanders in the senate, could refuse to approve lifting the debt ceiling and the continuing resolution to keep the government open.

If climate change is as critical and life threatening as many suggest, then holding the American, and World economy hostage to force congress to pass substantive measures to address it is not unreasonable.

Crashing the world’s economy would hurt the fossil fuel industries and billionaires who are fighting BBB. It would hurt those who have been sending big donations to Manchin and Sinema to block BBB.

The only way to stop the progressives would be for enough Republicans to cross over and support lifting the debt ceiling, which would damage Mitch and Kevin as minority leaders.

Just making a point that Manchin and Sinema aren’t the only ones who can wield power with impunity.

[Celerity]

6. the howls of outrage from a certain small but extremely loud group will be deafening

They like to dish it out, but go ballistic when something cuts against their agenda of accepting an ever-diminishing portion of Biden's agenda with a 'what can you do, better to pass a wee something than go for more' cavalierness, even when the 'more' is still in and of itself a far cry from the full original totals.

IF we end up at a $2 trillion new spend total for the 2 bills, that is an almost 70% overall slashing of Biden's original proposals. Not only is that a massive gutting, but I have even seen some say just do the BIF and if we lose out on the whole BBB Act, oh well, we still have enough to run on in 2022 and 2024. I call bullshit on that, as that means there is only around $55 billion (less than 1% of the total budget for 2020) total in new spend per annum, BUT also, much of the BIF is long term, big project spending that will have very little impact on the average person before the 2022 midterms.

Part of the reason I think is that they themselves, at bedrock, do not truly want a lot of what is/was in either bill, but cannot be that vocal about it, as then the cat is out of the bag, plus they would instantly face up as being anti-Biden, as the original $6.1 trillion total for both bills (new spending + tax credits) WAS Biden's proposal, not the prog's (their original total was $10 trillion between the 2 bills. $6 trillion for BBB, $4 trillion for hard infrastructure), as some tried (perhaps still do) to falsely frame.

I have seen some, in the past, long before the 2 bills came out, long before the 2020 elections, argue against many of the provisions that were in both original proposals. Examples of that past opposition being: tuition free 2 year community college, certain types of tax raises (there is one who even now opposes large elements of that), many elements of climate change legislation, universal pre-K education, etc etc. I also suspect they have little to no issues with a far more stringent means-testing for many programmes. That means-testing reduction turns things into a type of programme(s) that not only takes away a lot of benefits from a huge swathe of the middle class, but also allows those programmes to be framed as 'socialist giveaways to the lazy, grifting poor' by the noxious RW. It is political madness if we succumb to that reductionist line of thought.

4 strategic members of the CPC in safe seats

I think it would be far more than just 4