Opinion Democrats Are Turning Their Big Spending Bill Into Absolute Trash
Smearing Popularism Does Not Help Black Voters
Persuasively rebutting David Shor requires scrutinizing his arguments, not stigmatizing them.People like me — city-dwelling college graduates who know what a “Senate parliamentarian” is — comprise an extremely small share of the American population. But we are damn near the only people who earn a living by writing about politics, or helping the Democratic Party win elections.
It feels like Democrats are losing the plot.
As the party began trying to piece together its big social-spending and climate package, a split emerged between lawmakers who wanted to pass fewer programs (but do them well) and those who wanted to pass more programs (even if it means doing them poorly). A big part of this argument boiled down to how long policies should be funded for. The less-is-more crowd, dominated by party moderates, wanted to set policies in place permanently. The more-for-less brigade, dominated by progressives, wanted to fund programs temporarily in order to make their budget math work, essentially rolling the dice on the idea that they’d be renewed before they sunset.
It's All About Spending, Stupid. The Dems Blew Their Moment by Obsessing Over Taxes
Even though the Build Back Better bill looks likely to pass, the Democrats blew their moment by focusing on taxes rather than spendingSubstantial increases in corporate taxes, capital gains taxes and income taxes also may fall by the wayside. That’s a far cry from the relentless drumbeat over the past year of making “the wealth pay their fair share” that has animated much of the Democratic caucus.
At the moment, the side intent on doing lots of things poorly in order order to check off items on their to-do list appears to be, hands down. And as a result, the bill quickly seems to be degenerating into a pricey heap of policy trash, much of which will probably blow away within a few years.
Take paid leave. Democrats initially envisioned an expansive program that would provide 12 weeks of leave for new parents and people who get sick or have to take care of a loved one. But it was costly, probably somewhere above $500 billion. Democrats could havethe expense by focusing only on paid leave for parents, which would have fixed one of the most obviously embarrassing gaps in our family policy (we’re literally the only in the world that doesn’t guarantee it, after all). But instead, they’re considering this Hefty bag of kitchen scraps, as the reports :
Free community college, child tax credits, and affordable housing are among safety net measures on the chopping block as Democrats struggle to find middle ground with centrist holdouts
Democrats are fuming at harsh cuts Manchin and Sinema want in Biden's social spending bill. Some are floating another Democratic-only bill next year.Pelosi is bracing lawmakers for the massive cuts required to assemble a spending package capable of clearing their threadbare majorities in the House and Senate, garnering the votes of a small centrist faction made up of figures like Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.
In private meetings with Democrats on Capitol Hill over the past week, including one late Wednesday, White House officials have put forward a cost-cutting alternative. They pitched a new, roughly $100 billion plan that would offer four weeks of paid parental, family and sick leave beginning in 2024, according to three people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the conversations.
The program would be smaller in size and shorter in duration than what House Democrats unveiled earlier this year, and it would not be authorized on a permanent basis, these people said, though they cautioned that the details are subject to rapidly changing talks and could still evolve.
Bidenthe four-week plan during a town hall on Thursday.
Now, I do not know for sure if this would be the crappiest parental leave program in the entire world. But I am fairly confident it would be the—aka the club of rich and semi-rich nations. Even Mexico manages to offer 12 weeks. Today, the average American who takes unpaid parental leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act spends away from their job. This wouldn’t even cover that.
Democrats fight one another in Washington as Americans struggle
As Democrats battle one another in Washington, cost-of-living spikes and a slowing economy are putting growing pressures on Americans and worsening the political environment that will decide the party's fate in the midterm elections. © Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images US President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi depart following a meeting with the Democratic caucus at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on October 28, 2021. - Biden met with Democratic Party leaders on his signature social spending legislation,after he will address the nation before leaving for summits in Europe, the White House said.
Or consider Obamacare itself, the cathedral to neoliberalish policy solutions that Democrats are apparently intent on never, ever actually completing. The party added major but temporary improvements to their marquee health law as part of the coronavirus relief bill they passed in March, by making its insurance subsidies much more generous and widely available, ensuring that fewer middle-class families would be priced out of coverage. (Previously, Americans could only get subsidized coverage if they earned less than 400 percent of the poverty line, or about $106,000 for a household of four). The party would now like to extend those fixes for longer, while also offering a version of Medicaid in states that have refused to expand it. Together, the changesthe biggest remaining holes in the Affordable Care Act.
In theory, lawmakers could do all of this permanently, thus finally finish the job they started in 2010. But that would be expensive: Therecently estimated that over 10 years, the package would cost around $532 billion, more than Democrats really want to devote to this issue (especially since a lot of the beneficiaries live in red states that almost never vote Democrat). And so the Biden administration is talking about extending the new Obamacare subsidies for , according to Politico, taking them to 2025. The Washington Post suggests it . Either way, there is a strong chance that the GOP will control at least one house of Congress by then. And given that most Republicans would rather walk over broken glass while being pelted with beer cans than vote to expand the ACA, it seems somewhat dicey that these reforms will last.
Pro-pharma Democrats kill bill to lower drug costs — advocates ask: “What did they get for that?”
How will Kyrsten Sinema be rewarded for killing off Democrats' prescription drug plan? History offers some clues Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., arrives for a senate vote in the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, October 28, 2021.
Then there’s the child care program, which for several days now has been the subject of a complicated but raging debate aboutin the making. Without rehearsing every detail, the basic question is whether Democrats are about to essentially repeat the mistakes they made with Obamacare, by passing reforms that increase the quality of child care services and increase access to the poor, while simultaneously making it impossible for parts of the middle and upper-middle class to afford daycare. One way to avoid this issue in the long term would be to simply cap what all families have to pay at some reasonable amount, which for a moment it would be the party’s approach. But on Thursday a Democratic Senate aid told me that the conversation seems to be headed toward limiting subsidies to families that earn less than 200 percent of the state’s median income. If so, lawmakers are getting ready to make the same critical mistake that they’re currently trying to fix when it comes to health care policy. History is on repeat, but skipping straight from tragedy to farce. (Also, the funding would probably be temporary.)
I could go on. For instance, it looks like instead of a full new dental benefit in Medicare, Democrats might settle on a morethat wouldn’t really be sufficient for serious care. But you get the idea. Instead, I want to talk about the bigger picture. Democrats really seem to be gambling on the most dangerous possible strategy with this bill, both from a political and policy perspective.
Biden sets off high-stakes scramble over spending framework
Democrats are scrambling to fill in the details of their social and climate spending plan, after President Biden's proposal for a scaled-back bill lit a fire under lawmakers who want to see their personal priorities included. The White House had hoped to unify the party by unveiling a new framework for the $1.75 trillion bill, bridging divisions between progressives and moderates and unlocking the stalled-out bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed the Senate months ago.
At the moment, Democrats could take this bill down four different paths:
First, they could pass a few good programs, and make them permanent. This has the obvious advantage of making solid, potentially popular policies that will be hard to dislodge.
Second, they could pass a slightly larger number of stingier programs, but also make them permanent. The downside here is that voters might not be as happy with the policy results, but it will probably be possible to come back and fix up any flaws the next time Democrats have a trifecta in 10 years or so. This is basically the Obamacare model. The law has waned and waxed in popularity over the years. But one reason it survived the GOP’s many assaults is that all of its main pieces were permanent. Despite having a trifecta, Republicans simply couldn’t repeal the law in 2017 because three of their senators—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and John McCain—voted no. If the ACA had been scheduled to lapse, however, the party wouldn’t have needed 50 votes. Trump & Co. could have just let it happen, and the dissenters wouldn’t have made a difference.
Third, they could pass a few good initiatives temporarily, with the hope that the results will be so popular that Democrats will either ride to re-election and renew them or Republicans Republicans will feel compelled to keep them around. There are some cases where this strategy might work. For instance, I am pretty sure that if Democrats manage to fund a new Medicare dental benefit for even a few years, it will be renewed from now until the universe freezes over because nobody in Washington wants to take the political risk of stripping a new entitlement from seniors (hell hath no fury like an AARP member scorned).
Democrats’ shrinking health care ambitions
Fixing Obamacare is near the top of Democrats’ health care priorities, but other proposals may have to be cut.Lawmakers appear likely to prioritize proposed fixes to the Affordable Care Act in the forthcoming budget reconciliation bill, but some of the party’s other ideas for expanding health coverage may end up getting cut out of the legislation.
But overall, it seems like a sort of dubious gamble, given the structural disadvantages Democrats face in Congress and the fact that elections are often determined by macro factors like the state of the economy rather than voters’ responses to policy. Again, it seems highly likely that Republicans will control at least one chamber of Congress by 2025, if not sooner. Democrats might be able try do some horse trading with the GOP by agreeing to renew parts of the Trump tax cuts that are set to expire that year in return for, say, renewing paid leave. But it’s not clear how much leverage the Biden administration would really have in that scenario, since many of the Trump cuts benefit middle-class households whom Biden has promised to protect from tax hikes (the unpopular corporate rate cuts are already permanent).
Fourth, they can pass lots of half-baked legislation on a temporary basis, which seems to be the path the party is now on. The inherent problem with this gambit is that Democrats probably aren’t going to get re-elected campaigning on a bunch of half-measures that some voters might actively hate, such as, say, a potentially dysfunctional child-care program that alienates your brand new base of upper-middle-class voters in suburban swing districts by making it impossible for them to find a daycare option. And if Republicans win, they won’t feel many compunctions about letting those sorts of programs expire.
Why are Democrats bumrushing door No. 4? There’s lots of blame to go around. It starts with the fact that Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin simply don’t want to spend enough money to enact the party’s entire agenda. Meanwhile, progressive members have refused to prioritize issues, and are instead trying to partially cover as many of their bases as possible. Part of the reason why may boil down to magical thinking about their chances of fixing temporary programs down the line. But also, fundamentally, Democrats are a big-tent party with members with a vast array of genuinely worthy pet causes that each come with their own, specific coalitions that members feel the need to placate. As a result, the party’s agenda gets pulled in a billion different directions, to the point where it starts to shred. Republicans don’t have these problems to the same extent because they can simply pass tax cuts that broadly benefit swaths of their support base like “corporations” and “wealthy business owners,” even if they create some losers along with winners, and then spend the rest of their time harping over culture issues. It’s naturally easier for them to focus.
Regardless of the precise reasons why though, this is where we are. Democrats appear to be squandering a historic opportunity to make permanent fixes to America’s social safety net, in favor of a scattershot effort to make all of their constituencies at least a little bit happy for a few years. Maybe they’ll change course. But if not, they shouldn’t be surprised if one day the garbage they serve up gets tossed out.
Not just Sinema: Sen. Bob Menendez took $1M from pharma; shoots down bill to lower drug costs .
Democrats in Congress who take big money from Big Pharma are pushing to keep prescription drug prices soaring Bob Menendez and Kyrsten Sinema Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images