House passes $3.5 trillion budget plan, aims to vote on infrastructure package by late September

[Zorro]

Source: Washington Post

House Democrats on Tuesday approved a roughly $3.5 trillion budget that could enable sweeping changes to the nation’s healthcare, education and tax laws, overcoming internal divisions in a debate that could foreshadow even tougher battles still to come.

The 220-212 outcome came after days of delays as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) scrambled to stave off a revolt from her party’s moderate-leaning lawmakers. With the frenzy resolved, the chamber averted what would have been a political embarrassment to take the next step in enacting President Biden’s broader economic agenda.

The budget debacle also paved the way for the House to hold a vote on a second economic package -- a roughly $1 trillion proposal to improve the nation’s roads, bridges, pipes and ports -- by September 27. The new commitment cemented a deal to win over skeptical centrists, who feared the infrastructure bill otherwise would have been mired in significant setbacks.

The $3.5 trillion budget enables lawmakers to begin crafting a fuller legislative proposal, which Democratic leaders hope to adopt next month. The package is expected to expand Medicare, invest sizable sums in education and family-focused programs, and devote new funds toward combating climate change — fulfilling many of Democrats’ 2020 campaign pledges.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/08/24/house-democrats-budget-infrastructure/

[Lovie777]

1. Sounds like those 9 Democrats were being assholes ...

[questionseverything]

2. I listened to c span this morning

The republican callers loved these “ moderate “ dems

They are not moderate, they are corporate, protecting corporations and the ultra rich instead of regular people

[BradAllison]

9. And they still wouldn't vote for them. n/m

[brush]

3. Yes, I wasn't worried though as I knew Madame Speaker would roll them.

And she did.

[former9thward]

8. Well, not really.

Only a "plan" was passed. Not a bill. So nothing at this point.

[brush]

24. Quite a big hurdle was cleared. The centrist are now on board with the two-track...

Last edited Tue Aug 24, 2021, 08:25 PM - Edit history (2)

passage, bipartisan bill by Sept. 27 instead of the centrist insistence that the bipartisan bill be passed immediately.

Did you not get that?

[former9thward]

38. You left out that that Senate has to act.

That was one of the conditions. No guarantees there.

[FBaggins]

12. No she didn't

She effectively kicked the can a little ways down the road, but she had to give up the one thing that progressives most wanted (tying passage of the full $3.5T package to the already-passed bill so that moderates were pressured to support it.)

A deal like this always has to look like both sides lost a little and won a little... but the moderates rolled her more than the other way around.

[brush]

23. I don't see it that way. The moderates are now on board for the two-track...

passage by Sept. 27 instead of an immediate passage of the bipartisan bill already passed in the Senate. How did you miss that?

And what do you have knowledge of that was given up since the 3.5T bill hasn't even been written? And btw, now there is time to write it. The Speaker got quite a lot done IMO.

[FBaggins]

25. You've misread it

The moderates are now on board for the two-track passage by Sept. 27

No, they aren't. The second "track" can't be brought up for a vote until October 1st.

And what do you have knowledge of that was given up since the 3.5T bill hasn't even been written?

What they "gave up" wasn't something in a bill that hasn't been written. It was the leverage of holding the first bill hostage until after the second bill is passed. Now they need the President to provide any leverage during reconciliation.

[brush]

26. Isn't there now an agreement on the two-track passage. Who misread it?

[FBaggins]

27. Apparently you.

No. There is not an agreement on two-track passage. The first "track" is promised a vote before the second "track" can be voted on. The progressive caucus wanted them to be voted on at the same time.

[brush]

29. Others on this thread also disagree with you. But I guess you know more than the Speaker.

Try this link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/infrastrucutre-bill-american-jobs-plan-reconciliation-senate-parliamentarian/

[FBaggins]

31. No doubt... but they are mistaken.

But I guess you know more than the Speaker.

Nice try at the appeal to authority fallacy... but Pelosi hasn't said any such thing. It's you that is disagreeing with me... not her.

Try this link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/infrastrucutre-bill-american-jobs-plan-reconciliation-senate-parliamentarian/

Good. That was April. Now read the parliamentarian take that away two months later:

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has effectively ruled that only one more automatic budget reconciliation is permissible this year, dealing a blow to Democrats who previously thought they would have two more chances to sidestep Republicans in advancing President Biden's agenda.

MacDonough ruled that a revision to the 2021 budget resolution cannot be automatically discharged from the Senate Budget Committee, meaning Democrats would need at least one Republican on the 11-11 panel to vote with them.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/556483-parliamentarian-democrats-only-get-one-more-chance-to-sidestep-gop-this-year?rl=1

[brush]

32. Ok the parliamentarian changed her mind. Oct. 1 is four days later than Sept. 27. Why that's HUGE.

The Speaker got the centrists to stop the pressure to vote immediately on the bipartisan bill. That's a big accomplishment as it quiets them down and keeps the progressives from threatening to scuttle Biden's agenda as well.

She knows what she doing in getting around recalcitrant factions coming from both directions in her party.

Have faith. She'll get it done. What's important is that both bills get passed before the mid-terms as the Dems promised.

[FBaggins]

34. It is indeed huge

That's why the progressives are unhappy about the deal and threatening to not play along.

The question was whether one must come first or they would be simultaneous... really in reverse order (because the Senate had to pass the second bill before the House would take them together). That's off the table for now (though a number of CPC members are saying that they aren't going to accept that deal).

What's important is that both bills get passed before the mid-terms as the Dems promised.

Of course. But what was important to the feuding sides of the party was whether the final number was the full 3.5 figure or much lower. The leverage to keep the number boosted just faded significantly. The leverage in the other direction was just boosted.

[brush]

36. Sinema's posturing on not budging specifically on a 3.5T bill could be just that. Posturing.

A small reduction to 3.4T should give her room to say she made her point. IMO she's silly and in over her head, but give her the small reduction and let's get this done.

[honest.abe]

41. +1

I think that is what she wants.

[Locrian]

42. thank you - at least someone gets this - nt

[onetexan]

4. K&R - Bravo Madame Speaker!!

[underpants]

5. YES!!!!

[bluewater]

6. K&R

[iluvtennis]

7. Excellent news!

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. All eyes on Schumer and Sinema...

Schumer for scheduling the hearings and final vote in the senate before the house’s Sept. 30 deadline, and Sinema for whether or not she will support Biden’s agenda, or watch her career flame out and die…

[FBaggins]

11. There can't be a final vote before the deadline

They can't use reconciliation until the new fiscal year.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. That's not true- show your evidence.

COVID relief bill was linked to 20-21 budget, as reconciliation wasn’t yet used for that budget year.

Parliamentarian has determined reconciliation can be used twice in 2021, and don’t see any requirement that the vote can’t happen until after Sept. 30.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

[FBaggins]

15. Amazing that you're willing to make declarative statements of fact...

... but only insist on proof from others.

The fiscal year doesn't begin until October 1st. We've already used budget reconciliation for this fiscal year.

2+2= ?

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. By your reckoning, a budget can't be passed until *after* the FY starts

Of course laws regarding the budget cannot take effect until the FY has begun, I can find no evidence that the budget can’t be voted on before the FY begins.

[Calista241]

16. You're wrong.

The Covid bill Biden signed in March was the 2021 use of reconciliation. The House and Senate cannot pass another reconciliation until October 1st and the start of Fiscal Year 2022.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/02/05/what-is-reconciliation-in-congress/

"Under usual practice, two: one for fiscal year 2021 (which ends September 30, 2021) and another for fiscal year 2022 (which ends September 30, 2022)."

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. My reading indicates Oct. 1 as the *deadline*, not the earliest date a budget can be passed

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/16/congress-has-long-struggled-to-pass-spending-bills-on-time/

Next, Congress is supposed to pass a series of separate bills funding various agencies and activities of the federal government. (For the past decade, the number of spending bills has stood at 12, one for each subcommittee of the House and Senate appropriations committees.) The deadline for doing that is Oct. 1, when the new fiscal year starts. But since 1997, Congress has never passed more than a third of its regular appropriations bills on time, and usually has done considerably less than that: For instance, for six straight years (fiscal 2011 through 2016), not a single spending bill was passed by Oct. 1.

Doesn’t this imply that, barring a continuing resolution to keep the government running, a budget must be passed no later than October 1? I can find no evidence that October 1 is the earliest a budget can be passed.

[FBaggins]

21. October 1 is the deadline in BOTH directions

If you don't pass it by Oct 1... the fiscal year has run out and you're now into the new year. You can't pass the next year's bill until after Oct 1.

That's how you fit two reconciliation bills into the same calendar year. One prior to the end of the fiscal year... and one after.

The one "before" has already been passed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. If that is true, then the Sept. 30 vote on the bipartisan bill *must* fail

Otherwise, there will be no leverage to pass the reconciliation bill on October 1. The bipartisan bill must fail on Sept. 30, and be passed in October, after the reconciliation bill passes.

What will the Blue Dogs gain from this charade?

P.S. the WaPo article in the OP seems to imply that both bills are slated for a final vote in September.

[FBaggins]

30. That's the current CPC position, yes. (I think it's actually 9/27)

They have expressed significant dissatisfaction with the deal for the very reason you state.

What will the Blue Dogs gain from this charade?

Just what you said. There is no longer leverage for the larger bill to be too big for their tastes and Senate moderates are put back in the driver's seat.

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. If the bipartisan bill fails in a September vote, then Blue Dogs are not in the driver's seat

That’s the charade I was referring to- the Blue Dogs go to all this trouble, only to see their precious bipartisan bill stalled until reconciliation bill passes in the senate.

I don’t see the CPC caving on this one. Pelosi seems confident that both will pass, so for that to happen, the September vote on the bipartisan bill must fail (assuming you are correct that reconciliation bill can’t pass until Oct. 1).

[FBaggins]

35. It's highly unlikely to fail

They've been guaranteed a vote on the floor - and you have to remember that Democrats are not the only ones who get to vote at that point. And the vote will no longer be "both or neither"... it's "the bipartisan bill, yes or no"

Almost 40% of the Republicans in the Senate voted for it. Their House partners could easily provide enough support to make blocking the package very politically painful.

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. Both Joan McCarter on Daily Kos and Rachel had different takes than yours

From Joan’s Kos diary:

The earlier proposal from leadership would have committed the House to a target date for considering the bill, but it was a "sense of the House" resolution and not a more binding commitment to a deadline. One of the Sabotage Squad calls it a "date certain" and is declaring it a victory, but how this all plays out remains to be seen since it's plonking the vote—and all of the work leading up to it— in the middle of working out a debt ceiling resolution as well as government funding. That's all due by Oct. 1. Does it set in concrete a Sept. 27 date for the vote? Not really, because an awful lot can happen between then and now.

This is definitely a concession to the conservatives, giving them a date for the vote. But it doesn't take any leverage away from the progressive block or the real mainstream of Democratic members who are behind the whole of President Biden's infrastructure agenda. They will still have the option of withholding support on the Senate bill if they don't get the larger reconciliation bill they need. What is definite is that the immediate vote on the Senate bill the conservatives were trying to force didn't happen. No one has lost leverage, which keeps the process moving forward.

[Calista241]

14. Which happens on October 1st.

So a vote anytime in September has the potential to kill the deal. Or at least provide anyone the air cover to pull their support if they want.

[PSPS]

20. LOL. Yes, Pelosi needs your schooling on how this works. Better give her a call!

Budgets have to be passed before the fiscal year starts.

[FBaggins]

22. Sigh... "budget bills have to be passed before the fiscal year starts"

That one was passed back in February.

The one that must be passed before Oct 1, 2022 can't be passed until after Oct 1, 2021.

Pelosi doesn't need any "schooling". She's well aware of the rules.

[everyonematters]

18. Nancy did it!

[honest.abe]

39. Fantastic!

Still some hurdles but this is great news.

[Deminpenn]

40. FWIW, Pelosi described what went down as

as a clarification, not a deal, for the Gottheimer gang. Also Josh Marshall was a guest on MSNBC and said that the 9 Dems had no support from the other members of the Dem caucus. Apparently no one had any idea of what exactly they were trying to accomplish with their threat either except perhaps to get their 15 minutes of fame.