Patterico's Pontifications

11/3/2021

Oh, This Is Getting Good! Nancy Pelosi Issues Challenge to Joe Manchin

Filed under: General — JVW @ 3:40 pm



[guest post by JVW]

Did you think the Democrats might have stopped to analyze what went wrong last night and decided to dial back some of their more radical spending plans and their my-way-or-the-highway attitude? Nah.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi informed Democratic lawmakers Wednesday that a paid leave provision will be added back into President Biden’s social spending bill, a decision that could draw the ire of moderate holdouts, including Sen. Joe Manchin, W-Va.

The proposal set to be included in the legislation outlines four weeks of paid leave. Paid leave was scrapped from previous versions of the bill amid opposition from Manchin and others who raised concerns about the cost of expanded social programs.

[. . .]

Manchin was critical of the paid leave proposal in recent weeks, arguing the reconciliation process that will allow Democrats to pass the spending bill by a simple majority vote should not be used to implement that program. Other Democrats, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, pushed Manchin to reconsider his opposition to the proposal.

The West Virginia Democrat has also asserted that a significant expansion of social programs would be fiscally irresponsible due to expected shortages in funding for Social Security and Medicare in the coming years. He has called for any paid leave program to include a work requirement.

[. . .]

Manchin indicated to reporters Wednesday that he was unaware Democratic leaders intended to add the paid leave plan back into the spending bill.

“That’s a challenge, very much of a challenge, and they know how I feel about that,” Manchin said.

As currently written the bill stands at $1.75 trillion in spending (the Dems’ estimate, not that of the Congressional Budget Office which is still studying the legislation), or a quarter-trillion dollars over what Sen. Manchin told Sen. Schumer he would be willing to support this past summer. Adding family leave back into the mix would have to bump up the price tag, perhaps by as much as another quarter trillion or thereabouts, so if Sen. Manchin were to swallow hard and vote for this travesty how could he not come off as having been entirely emasculated by Madam Speaker?

The House could vote on this new version of Build Back Better as early as tomorrow, and I am very interested in seeing if there are vulnerable Democrats in the lower chamber who refuse to throw themselves on their swords for the glories of progressivism. Going to have to pop some popcorn for this one.

– JVW

24 Responses to “Oh, This Is Getting Good! Nancy Pelosi Issues Challenge to Joe Manchin”

  1. Nancy Pelosi is the embodiment of the French Bourbons.

    “She has learned nothing, and she has forgotten nothing.”

    Epic failures ahead!

    B.A. DuBois (80f588)

  2. Of course, what if this is a brilliant ruse by Nancy Pelosi to force the vulnerable House Democrats to abandon the party and vote no, so that it is progressives who are embarrassed and the Biden-Pelosi-Schumer trioka can announce that they will be pursuing a more moderate course for the coming year? Nah, I don’t imagine that’s the case either. The Democrat leadership really does appear to be doubling down on dumb. I wonder if Sen. Manchin will be caucusing with the GOP by the time we’re all mixing up another bowl full of eggnog.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  3. Question – is their a carve-out for wineries in Pelosi’s bill? Asking for a friend…

    Hoi Polloi (998b37)

  4. They should kick Manchin out of the party.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  5. All he has to do is vote “Present”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  6. @3 Wineries and gourmet ice cream companies 😛

    norcal (b9a35f)

  7. Seems like Manchin is the one who has the leverage to challenge Pelosi, what with the beatdown on the Dems yesterday.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  8. Did you think the Democrats might have stopped to analyze what went wrong last night and decided to dial back some of their more radical spending plans and their my-way-or-the-highway attitude? Nah.

    Didn’t you hear Joe Biden? They decided that what went wrong – or somebpdy sold him on this idea because Joe Biden doesn’t know anything about politics – a surprise to me after he became president – that what went wrong is that they didn’t pass any bill. That is, Virginia was not going to get any money and McAuliffe could’t promise anything. That’s why McAuliffe lost.

    That’s the internal Democratic Party position. What it seems “progressives”, or maybe lobbyists, conveniently tell other Democrats.

    In reality the problem was not that nothing the Democrats proposed seems to be able to pass into law, but that people can’t be sure bad laws won’t pass and bad policy won’t be implemented..

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  9. Senator Marco Rubio had a paid leave proposal, and unlike the Democratic proposal, everybody would get it, even the self employed, there would be no complicated application, and it almost wouldn’t cost anything.

    (people could tap into their Social Security account, I think)

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  10. The House could vote on this new version of Build Back Better as early as tomorrow

    What about the smaller bill that the Senate already passed?

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  11. In reality the problem was not that nothing the Democrats proposed seems to be able to pass into law, but that people can’t be sure bad laws won’t pass and bad policy won’t be implemented..

    I agree, Sammy. I think the real problem is that plenty of Democrats ran and got elected as democrat socialists, and are thus advocating for a huge expansion of government intrusion into our lives. But Democrats only win majorities when they are able to get moderate-leftists to capture swing districts, and those moderates are generally under pressure to hold the line on taxes and to not disturb the suburban Democrat voter who is willing to countenance some degree of expanded government, not insofar as it causes that voter to have to alter their routine. And these turn out to be unreconcilable positions. The average progressive Democrat voter these days salivates over the idea of a $6 trillion spending program (which was Comrade Sanders’ initial goal) and would be fine with a $3.5 trillion compromise, provided they aren’t asked to pay for any of it. But there are still those Democrat voters who, like Manchin, fear the effect all of this government intrusion would have on the economy as well as on society in general, and don’t necessarily trust Washington to spend that amount of money particularly wisely. The Dems are thus stuck trying to be all things to all people, and that’s probably why their House majority will come to an ignominious end thirteen months from now, and their Senate majority (such that it is) might come sooner.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  12. What about the smaller bill that the Senate already passed?

    Good question. I think last night’s debacle makes the whole “we have to have consensus on Build Back Better before we vote on infrastructure” debate even more pointed. Now that the House is adding paid leave back into the mix, I would imagine that the Progressive Caucus is demanding a House vote passing the new bill before they agree to vote on infrastructure, and they might even demand that the Senate pass it before a House infrastructure vote comes. It’s going to be fun watching Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer try to navigate through these rough waters. I remain hopefully that both bills go down to abject failure.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  13. and their Senate majority (such that it is) might come sooner

    My first thought was “Isn’t this an odd number year?” My second thought was “Oh yes, the old James Jeffords switcheroo.”

    norcal (b9a35f)

  14. My second thought was “Oh yes, the old James Jeffords switcheroo.”

    I mean, based upon the Speaker’s latest move, it seems that Sen. Manchin is down to a choice between quietly caving and looking like a wimp or voting no and then leaving the party. I don’t see him voting no and then remaining; he would be far too much of a pariah to the progressive wing and I don’t imagine that Biden or Schumer require his vote on any other major legislation in the coming year.

    If Biden and Pelosi are really shrewd, they might conclude that letting the Senate fall into GOP hands is in their best interests. It means that the House can continue to advance left-wing legislation which keeps the progressive wing happy, knowing that it won’t be brought up in the Senate, and Biden (or Harris) can run for reelection in 2024 bitching and moaning about how the GOP Senate won’t do anything with all of the great legislation that the House is passing. Schumer likely doesn’t want to lose his status as Senate Majority Leader and all of the perks that entails, but at the same time he might be tired of trying to placate both Bernard Sanders and Joseph Manchin at the same time. Sometimes you’re better off having the standing guy outside the tent pissing in, especially if he is farting up a storm. (Oh my, I seem to have stretched that cliché well beyond its breaking point. Apologies.)

    JVW (ee64e4)

  15. I don’t imagine that Biden or Schumer require his vote on any other major legislation in the coming year.

    They have GOP votes? Oh, wait, then need 60 votes for anything. I guess it doesn’t mater.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  16. 12. JVW (ee64e4) — 11/3/2021 @ 5:35 pm

    , I would imagine that the Progressive Caucus is demanding a House vote passing the new bill before they agree to vote on infrastructure,

    They can;t control whether it comes up for a vote, but they can controlwhether the infrastructure bill passes. They can vote no and if enough do, maybe even prevent it from [assomg with “present.”

    and they might even demand that the Senate pass it before a House infrastructure vote comes.

    That’s too much. What they’ve been demanding is that passage in the Senate be assured for the big bill, before a vote takes place in the House for the small bill – and must in some way have indicated they won’t take being double-crossed lightly.

    They may be taking their cues from Bernie Sanders. If he’s satisfied, enough of them will be so they will let the small bill pass.

    It’s going to be fun watching Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer try to navigate through these rough waters. I remain hopefully that both bills go down to abject failure

    That’s where we’re heading, with Biden constantly saying that the infrastructure bill will pass the day after tomorrow or next week.

    Of course they could start all over, and bring in some Republicans.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  17. Progressives want to be in charge of democrats in congress. 214/221 The squad says bye bye nacy she is out as speaker and she knows this.

    asset (b8a063)

  18. especially if he is farting up a storm. (Oh my, I seem to have stretched that cliché well beyond its breaking point. Apologies

    Not just cliches. Puns, too. 😁

    norcal (b9a35f)

  19. Question, and this is fairer now:

    Has Biden done better WITH the vaccine that Trump did without? My gut feeling — and this is not to praise Trump — is that Biden has been less effective and unable to lead. Instead he has used this time to try to push a hard Left wish list through a divided Congress, all the while being less effective than Trump where it matters most — dealing with current problems.

    As with most relationships, people always hope it will get better, but it doesn’t and the next year is going to be brutal if Biden cannot be lead.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  20. Kevin,

    It’s an interesting counterfactual. If Trump had been re-elected, I imagine he would have pushed the vaccine hard. I wonder how many on the left would have been anti-vaccine because it was touted by Trump. I doubt it would have been that many, because lefties in general are more afraid of the virus than those on the right. Witness the draconian measures taken in blue states versus red states.

    Actually, Trump failed to lead on the vaccine. He should have pushed it hard even after losing the election. Because he didn’t, anti-vaxxing became associated with the MAGA cause. Even Trump wimped out a few months ago when a crowd he was talking to booed his mention of the vaccine. He quickly said something to the effect of, “Unless you don’t want the vaccine, of course.” He yielded to the monster he helped create.

    norcal (b9a35f)

  21. My second thought was “Oh yes, the old James Jeffords switcheroo.”

    I mean, based upon the Speaker’s latest move, it seems that Sen. Manchin is down to a choice between quietly caving and looking like a wimp or voting no and then leaving the party. I don’t see him voting no and then remaining; he would be far too much of a pariah to the progressive wing and I don’t imagine that Biden or Schumer require his vote on any other major legislation in the coming year.

    If Biden and Pelosi are really shrewd, they might conclude that letting the Senate fall into GOP hands is in their best interests. It means that the House can continue to advance left-wing legislation which keeps the progressive wing happy, knowing that it won’t be brought up in the Senate, and Biden (or Harris) can run for reelection in 2024 bitching and moaning about how the GOP Senate won’t do anything with all of the great legislation that the House is passing. Schumer likely doesn’t want to lose his status as Senate Majority Leader and all of the perks that entails, but at the same time he might be tired of trying to placate both Bernard Sanders and Joseph Manchin at the same time. Sometimes you’re better off having the standing guy outside the tent pissing in, especially if he is farting up a storm. (Oh my, I seem to have stretched that cliché well beyond its breaking point. Apologies.)

    JVW (ee64e4) — 11/3/2021 @ 5:49 pm

    I don’t think Manchin would have to leave the Democratic party if he keeps saying no…

    The third scenario, is that he’s tugging his party back towards the center. Him leaving and caucusing with the GOP really doesn’t do anything for him, outside of maybe saving his election chances later (a possibility, sure).

    whembly (ef8c84)

  22. norcal (b9a35f) — 11/4/2021 @ 12:14 am

    He quickly said something to the effect of, “Unless you don’t want the vaccine, of course.” He yielded to the monster he helped create.

    Yes, people making personal medical decisions is a monster he helped create.

    This new feature of people demanding people “get vaccinated” and the bully attitude that goes with it is obnoxious.

    It’s also a fairly transparent lie we keep tolerating that debating covid policy is anti-vax, i.e. against all vaccines.

    frosty (f27e97)

  23. It’s an interesting counterfactual. If Trump had been re-elected, I imagine he would have pushed the vaccine hard. I wonder how many on the left would have been anti-vaccine because it was touted by Trump. I doubt it would have been that many, because lefties in general are more afraid of the virus than those on the right. Witness the draconian measures taken in blue states versus red states.

    I actually think that the blue-state governors, the Democrat Party and the media (birm) would have resisted any federal mandates, and that the Left would have made it all about “greedy drug companies.” I also think that an election that Trump won (again) while losing the popular vote would have been called illegitimate, and there would have been pressure on legislatures in, say, PA, to “respect the people’s vote” and send a different slate.

    Neither party seems to be much for principle when it stands between them and getting over on the other party.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  24. The last I heard, the small bill was likely to come up for a vote today (Friday) on the House floor.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1584 secs.