Voting Rights

 A lot of my Democratic friends are wringing their hands over legislation in certain states that is designed to suppress voting.  Laws have reduced early voting, eliminated drop boxes, and stricter regulation on mail in ballots are all designed to suppress voting.  These provisions don't worry me.  If anyone wants to vote and makes an effort then even with these changes, they will be able to vote.  The concern is whether their votes will be counted.

What concerns me are new laws that would allow incumbent state legislatures to void the election results over some pretense of voting irregularities.  It's an attempt to use the Big Lie about the 2020 election to disenfranchise your vote and create an incumbency that no longer is accountable to the people.

We have had elected politicians (Dem and GOP) choose their voters using partisan gerrymandering.  This goes one step further.  This allows incumbent politicians to decide whether or not to count legal votes.  Do we want politicians elected in 2020 to pick whose vote will count in 2022 or 2024?  To paraphrase our greatest President.  We, all of us. conservative, moderates and liberals, need to continue the work of creating a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  

Rating Biden's Performance

 An update from my post of Feb. 11 - a score card on what I felt were the biggest policy issues at the time.

1) Covid pandemic.   The federal government has done what it can do.   Biden's executive order on the vaccines mandate of large corporations has not gone well.   Good try but ineffective.  

Grade: A-

2) Economy.  Labor market is strong but we have inflation partially due to the helicopter money from the ARP.  

Grade: B+

3) Democracy.  The best hope is Manchin's revised Voting Rights Act which is blocked by the GOP Senate filibuster.   

Grade:  Incomplete

4) Domestic terrorism.  On second thought there is little that can be done.  The Justice Department has made domestic terrorism a priority.

Grade: Pass

5) Poverty.   It all depends on the remnants of the American Family Plan that make it into the Build Back Better Act.

Grade:  Incomplete but a plus for effort.

6) Immigration

Grade: Incomplete

7) Infrastructure investments.  The bi-partisan AJP passed.

Grade:  A+ 

8) Climate Change

Grade: Incomplete but a plus for effort and a minus for not promoting effective policies.

9) Foreign Affairs.  Much less important but this was an easy one.  All Biden had to do was not be Trump.

Grade: A

Bill Gates on Climate Change

This is my summary of Bill Gates thoughts on Climate Change.

First, he makes the assumption that the US and other rich nations need to get to Net Zero (NZ), hopefully by 2050.  For this we will need new breakthrough technologies that are both cost-effective and can be massively scaled.   While the solutions may be more expensive than current practices the difference in cost (which he calls the green premium) must be manageable in order for them to be useful to developing countries.

He makes two other points which are controversial.  One, is that we should not make any investments in any technology that will not be part of a net zero solution.   Secondly, we should not focus on intermediate goals, e.g.  reduce carbon emissions by 30 per cent by 2030.  His starkest example is that power companies should NOT be incentivized to convert from coal to natural gas! 

Prior to reading his book I had the opposite view.  My view had been that we needed to rejoin the Paris Accords, then make specific commitments to exceed our 2030 goals, and then encourage or even pressure other countries to exceed their goals.  One of the ways to do this is to convert from coal to natural gas.  I believe that in the US the conversion from coal to natural gas has done more than all of the renewable energy projects in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Gates says no.  The goal is not to meet some intermediate goal but to get to NZ as soon as possible.  Once a new natural gas power plant is built it may stay in use 30, 40, 50 or more years.  The same is true for incentives for hybrid cars including plug-in hybrids.  They may reduce GHG emissions a little but they are not part of a NZ economy.

Implicit in all of this is that we will need significant public and private investment to get to NZ.  Especially as it pertains to public investment limited resources should not be spent on anything that is not part of a NZ economy.

The main areas that need new solutions are electric energy generation, travel, food production, and specific industries like steel and cement.

The easiest for me to understand is electric energy generation.   Gates's first premise is that renewables need to be a major part of the solution but they will be insufficient to get to net zero.  The challenge is that since renewables energy production is intermittent it will not always match demand.   

In order to have a NZ grid we need renewables combined with one the following breakthrough technologies; (1) energy storage, (2)  nuclear power or (3) fossil fuel, presumable, natural gas with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).  To make these potential solutions cost-effective will need large investments in basic research and development.   Since none of the solutions are close to becoming commercial products only the federal government can fund these investments.  Once we make progress on the basic science and technology to the point where they are close to commercially viable then the private sector can fund product development.

Gates doesn't disparage choices individuals might make like installing solar panels on their properties, buying a hybrid or becoming a vegetarian.  But he says these choices should not be subsidized.  Any green technology they require material subsidies cannot be scaled to the developing world; think India or sub-Sahara Africa where currently there may be close to a billion people with no access to electricity.  They will need cost-effective solutions or they will use fossil fuels.  In fact, they will use more fossil fuels than they currently do.

Those we are concerned about climate change say "follow the science".   Gates agrees but also says follow the math and the economics.   His view is right from the Seven Habits of Highly Successful People, i.e. Plan with the End in mind.  He thinks like a project manager and a business executive.

Last point and this was not part of Gates book.  The Build Back Better Act currently proposes up to a $12,000 tax credit on EVs.   While I agree that EVs needed tax credits to get started we should not extend or enlarge these credits.   This is a subsidy for millionaires and billionaires and it is coming at the cost of limiting poverty programs like the child tax credit.   It's a reminder that the Dems have a donor class which includes wealthy suburbanites who want to drive a luxury EV or install solar panels but they want someone else to help pay.

NDT not FDR

The debate within the Democratic party regarding Biden's domestic program AGENDA certainly hurts the party.  One question is who is to blame?  Some of those being accused are Manchin or Sanders, Jayapal or Gottheimer, and certainly Sinema.   

Perhaps the answer is Biden, Pelosi and Schumer.

In early August the Senate passed the American Jobs Plan aka the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the Senate budget resolution crafted by Sanders.   

In retrospect the situation in early August may have mislead the Dems into thinking they could they could pass legislation in line with the budget resolution. Things looked up then, things look much different now.  

At that time Biden had a set of victories; a successful vaccination rollout, passing the popular ARP, passing the popular AJP in the Senate with bipartisan support, a recovering labor market, a growing economy and a record stock market.   Biden, Pelosi and Schumer had visions of an FDR-like administration and decided to "go big" and transform the American Family Plan into the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better Act - which now included immigration reform and a set of infrastructure programs related to climate change that were omitted from the AJP. 

But Biden wasn't elected to be FDR or LBJ.  He was elected to be NDT - Not Donald Trump.

Since August we have had the Afghanistan withdrawal, delta variant, higher inflation, and a nasty intraparty squabble.  Biden's popularity has sunk and the VA and NJ election results were terrible.  

Perhaps Biden, Pelosi and Schumer - all over 70 - thought this was there last chance to make history.  Were these experienced pols all naive?   Whatever the reason, the decision to transform the AFP into the BBB act and, temporally link it to the AJP now looks like a major, unforced error.

While the economy is still strong and the labor market continues to improve the latest inflation figure (>6%) has become an issue. The BBB Act is inflationary.   By additional taxes on the wealthy and on profitable corporations the ACT transfers money from saves to spenders.   In general, this is a good idea.  However, giving that the current inflation stems from demand and the BBB Act increases demand.  

And the BBB Act is still a work-in-progress.   There have been last minute changes to the bill that have not been thoroughly vetted.  The Senate has not agreed to the House version.   Some provisions of the bill will increase wealth and income inequality while other provisions seek to reduce poverty.  Frankly the bill is a mess.   The idea that the bill could be drafted and agreed by the end of Sept. now looks hopelessly naive.  

An Alternative Narrative

After Biden's win and the miracle of the Georgia Senate races the Democrats found themselves in control of the executive branch and a small majority in both Houses.  The Senate majority needed all 50 Democratic Senators to agree on legislation and to agree to use budget reconciliation to overcome a GOP filibuster.

Biden had formulated an excellent three-part plan.  

The American Rescue Plan (ARP) for emergency funding of programs made necessary by the pandemic.

The American Jobs Plan (AJP), an infrastructure investment, funded by an increase in corporate taxes.

The American Family Plan (AFP), domestic spending programs on health, education, child care, etc. funded by an increase in personal incomes taxes.

The ARP was a $1.9 trillion plan which included enhanced federal unemployment benefits, a child tax credit, loans to small businesses, expansion of ACA subsidies, vaccination rollout and funds for state and local governments.  The plan was an enormous expansion of domestic spending - completely unfunded.  Budget reconciliation was used to pass it in the Senate.  The plan was popular, progressive and (mostly) pragmatic.

Since infrastructure spending was an issue both parties supported in principle it was decided to try to pass a bipartisan bill.   It took months on negotiation but on August 10th the bill passed the Senate.  To win GOP support some initiatives, particularly programs to address climate change were omitted from the bill.  But the party had come up with a plan to put everything that was left out of the AJP into a third bill, the Build Back Better (BB) Act.   The American Family Plan which was focused on social issues morphed into $3.5 trillion of new domestic spending that was included in the budget that passed the Senate on Aug 11. The intention was to pass the third act using budget reconciliation again with the understanding that this bill would never get GOP support. 

The idea was that since the party was likely to lose either the House or Senate in the mid-terms it made sense to "go big".  There was only going to be one chance and this was it. So the AFP morphed into the BBB. Since the AJP did not raise taxes the initial idea behind the BBB Act was to include increases in both corporate and personal income taxes.

The catch was that there were at least two Democratic Senators opposed to many of the programs in the budget.   The leadership of Pelosi and Schumer had hoped to pass both bills at the same time.  The hope was that by delaying the vote on the AJP in the House pressure would be on the moderate Dems to support the BBB Act.   The leadership and the House Progressive Caucus simply did not trust the moderates to cooperate on the BBB unless they tied it to the much more popular AJP.   They had reason to be cautious as the key Dem Senators, Manchin and Sinema, were plainly opposed to elements of the BBB but were not being clear as to what they would support or even if they would compromise at all.  

Therefore, when the AJP came to the house the House Progressive Caucus (HPC) refused to support it until the BBB was agreed.   Then a small House "moderate" faction intervened.  They refused to support the budget resolution.   Passing the budget resolution was a pre-requisite for using reconciliation.  They wanted to vote on the AJP immediately and then work on the BBB Act.   But the HPC was unwilling to give up whatever leverage they thought accrued from delaying the vote on the AJP.   Pelosi then agreed to vote on the AJP no later than Sept 27.

This was her statement:

In consultation with the Chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am committing to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill by September 27. I do so with a commitment to rally House Democratic support for its passage.

Then the House set off to work on the BBB with the hope that it would be complete by the end of Sept and both bills could be approved.   The challenge was that the $3.5 trillion in the budget reconciliation was very far off of what could be passed in the Senate.   Negotiations dragged on through the month of Sept.  It was difficult pinning down Manchin on the size of the act and what programs he strongly opposed.  It was even more difficult pinning Sinema down.  When Sept 27 came, the BBB was not close to complete.  The HPC told Pelosi they would not vote for the AJP even though they supported it.  They were reluctant to give up any leverage to Manchin, Sinema and the House "moderates".   So, Pelosi pulled the vote.  Somewhat surprisingly the House moderates did not make a fuss.   They understood that the votes weren't there to pass the AJP yet. 

Over the next month negotiations (mostly private) continued to work on the bill.  On Oct. 28th Biden announced a "framework" had been agreed at $1.75 trillion.  But the bill hadn't been written and Manchin did not commit to support it.  On Nov. 1 he made a statement that he was withholding support for the "framework" and wanted to understand the costs.  In his defense the"framework" had one obvious problem.  It only funded the child tax credit for one year which was an important anti-poverty feature of the AFP.  

Finally on Nov 5 the moderates agreed in principle to support the BBB "framework" once the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost and economic impacts.  With that the HPC supported the AJP and it passed.

A Silver Lining?

Yesterday the House finally passed the American Jobs Plan aka Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill (BIP).   This could have been passed in late September and it if had the Democratic party may have done better in the NJ and Virginia elections.   It isn't clear that having this bill passed in Sept would have changed the results in those elections but surely the failure to pass it did not help.

As a reminder of the short history of this bill.  It was passed in the Senate in August with a bipartisan vote.  At the same time the Senate passed a budget resolution that would allow other elements of Biden's domestic policy agenda (Build Back Better) to be crafted and passed with only Democratic votes using budget reconciliation which would prevent the GOP from using a filibuster.

It was clear to anyone who paid attention that the $3.5 trillion dollar budget was ill-formed policy and bad politics but somehow a number of Dems thought spending $3.5 trillion was progressive and realistic.  The legislation then went to the House.  At that point some centrist Dems negotiated with the House leadership that the AJP would be voted on independently of a vote on the BBB act.  These Dems are part of bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus although it's not clear if they have ever solved any problems up to now. The House leadership agreed to a vote on the AJP on Sept 27th independent of the BBB Act.  The House then passed the budget and began working on the BBB Act.

But because the BBB act was not ready for a vote in later September (it still isn't) the House Progressive Caucus (HPC) blocked the vote.   So the House leadership reneged on the deal. 

The BBB Act is still a mess but more on that later. 

Six Democratic Socialists (please don't call them progressive) voted against the AJP.  This meant that GOP votes were needed.   And a few GOP members of the Problem Solvers Caucus stepped up and provided the votes to pass the bill.

So here's the silver lining:

1)  The bill passed and it is an historic achievement.  The bill is progressive, pragmatic and popular.

2) The bill did not satisfy the left wing extremists.  

3)  A few GOP members voted for it.  That makes it bipartisan, just barely, but bipartisan nonetheless.  

4) The vast majority of the House GOP voted against it.  So as the projects under the act start implementation the Dems can point to the House members who voted against fixing highways, bridges and tunnels; voted against rural broadband; voted against improving the power grid, etc. 

Snatching Victory

 It's 9:30 on 9/30.   

I've been mulling over the Congressional Democrats blunder on linking the American Jobs Plan with the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better plan.

There was an agreement coming out of the Senate to pass the AJP and to support a budget that included the BBB.   There was an understanding that the Senate would not pass a BBB with $3.5 trillion in new spending but that the "process" should be allowed to proceed.

Biden originally said the bills were linked but one day after saying that they were.  He pulled back and said he wanted to sign both bills but realized he made a mistake by linking them too tightly.

In the House things quickly got more complicated.   The House leadership wanted to pass the budget, then work on crafting the BBB legislation and then voting on both bills.  The moderates in the House balked.  They would not support the budget unless the AJP was voted on first.  Pelosi then negotiated a deal where the budget would be passed and the AJP would be voted on by Sept. 27 irrespective of the BBB legislation.  She hoped that Congress would create the BBB by that time.

Well they couldn't.  The bill was too big, too controversial and too complicated.  Pelosi reneged on her commitment to vote on the AJP on Sept. 27.  The moderates did not make a big deal on this as Pelosi recommitted to a vote on the AJP that was "delinked' from the BBB.

In the meantime as today is the last day of the fiscal year Congress had to shift priorities to pass a continuing resolution to prevent a government shutdown.

So what's the path to victory?

Pass the AJP.   Reconstruct the BBB to align with Biden's original American Family Plan.  Include in the bill universal per-K, make the child credits permanent, make post high schools college education and jobs training affordable, subsidize child care,  implement paid family leave - all except pre-K - with generous means testing.

Drop from the bill altogether anything to do with immigration, climate change, and Medicare expansion.

Pay for the new spending with increases in corporate tax and personal income taxes on the wealthy.  The increase in revenues should slightly exceed the new spending so that this bill reduces the deficit by a small amount.

Then declare victory!

Snatching defeat

 
 
"Sanders wanted a large number and Manchin wants a smaller number and we’re going to work this process to try to reach common ground," said a source familiar with the White House's thinking.
 
Note the verb tense Sanders “wanted”; Manchin “wants”.
 
As an aside.. I heard on a recent Podcast the Mark Zandi (he’s a professional economist, not an academic) that many of the provisions in the AFP have been worked on for a number of years.  This somewhat deals with my concern about creating a $3.5 trillion bill in a couple of weeks. 
 
On the other hand on the same podcast (link below) his counterpart pointed out that since it is clear that the final number will not be 3.5 trillion there should be a real debate on priorities.  There’s just not enough time to have this debate.   Maybe they will use Biden’s original $1.8 trillion plan as the baseline.   This is no way to run an airline. 
 

Here’s the podcast  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/intelligence-squared-u-s-debates/id216713308

 

And a link to Biden’s original plan. 

 

What's in Biden's American Families Plan? (investopedia.com)

 

Snatching Defeat - continued

 The debate on the American Family Plan  is nicely summarized here:

Opinion | Corporate America Is Lobbying for Climate Disaster - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

The argument is something like this

- The GOP will win the 2022 election because of voter suppression and just because the party is power always loses mid-term elections.

- Therefore the Dems need to "go big" now.   If the GOP wins the election then Biden can veto all attempts to "un-do" the policies.

Krugman also makes the case to "do something" on climate change even though he knows these policies are inefficient and will have minimal impact on the global climate.   He's correct that a policy that might work - carbon tax, tariff and dividend cannot be passed now.

While Joe Manchin offers an alternative view:

Manchin Jolts Democrats by Urging ‘Pause’ on $3.5 Trillion Bill (msn.com)

The argument is something like this:

- We can win the 2022 election if the party runs on achieving results.  The economy will be strong next year with unemployment around 4% and the stock market at all time highs.  We will not have any of the military in a war zone.   We win as long as we don't get pinned by the GOP as tax and spend liberals whose policies have resulted in higher inflation, higher taxes and higher budget deficits.

- We were not elected with a mandate for massive change.  We were elected to deal with the pandemic but mostly to not be Trump.  Biden simply by returning to norms with respect to language and style, embodies this.

- But if we "go big" we will certainly lose the midterm elections.  Biden will then have to spend the next two years vetoing bills.  We then will lose the 2024 POTUS election.

- On the other hand if we go slow we will win the 2022 elections, expand the majorities in both houses and take advantage of a good economy to then continue to press for progressive policies.

The reaction to Manchin's position was immediate:

The chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Representative Pramila Jayapal, replied “Absolutely not” on Twitter to Manchin’s idea of a pause.

Snatching Defeat - continued

Written: Aug 25 after House reached a compromise

Looks like a decent compromise.   I wish that no one would claim a “win” – much better for everyone to say that they didn’t get what they hoped for but that they can live with the outcome.

 

Perhaps the best part of the deal – if I understand it – is that Pelosi will direct the House to pass a bill that the Senate will also pass.     That means negotiating up front prior to bringing it to a vote in the House.

 

I don’t see how they can get this done in a month.   You would think that a 3.5 trillion dollar spending bill that presumably will also be a 3.5 trillion dollar tax increase would require  deep analysis on taxes, cost/benefit analysis of elements of the plan, overall economic impact, budget impact, etc.  This should properly take months to do this with open hearings with testimony from experts.  Instead they seem like they want to get this done in Sept along with raising the debt limit and presumably passing spending bills for fiscal 2022.  

 

My guesstimate is that AFP will come in closer to 1 trillion or 100 billion/year over 10 years.   That would be quite a victory and as Bob referred to it as “a down payment”.   

 

Last comment

 

What the press calls “moderates” voted for

 

900 billion In Covid relief in Dec, unfunded
1.9 trillion in Covid relief in Feb (ARP) also unfunded
1 trillion in infrastructure partially funded but no increase in taxes or fees
3.5 trillion budget to be funded primarily by tax increases

 

 

Snatching Defeat - continued

 Written: Aug. 11

For a brief time I thought the Dems in DC had come up with a good plan.

 

Pass the bipartisan American Jobs Plan (AJB) , pass a budget without the GOP which “outlined” the American Family Plan with the implicit promise from the Manchin wing of the party that they would pass the American Family Plan (AFP) using reconciliation to bypass the filibuster.

 

The Sanders wing of the party could tell their supporters that the AFP would solve all the countries problems.  The Manchin wing could tell their supporters that  the actual AFP bill would be much smaller than 3.5 trillion.  Both sides could claim victory.  All that was needed was for the House to pass the American Jobs Plan and approve the budget.   The details of the AFP would be hashed out over months of intraparty negotiation.  In the meantime Biden gets another big win.

 

But then as I understand it the House will not vote on the AJB until the AFP passes in the Senate.   I just don’t understand the thinking.  The AFP will be a messy intraparty conflict  which will play out over the next 2-3 months.  In the meantime the AJB is blocked by the House.   Does anyone understand this?  What’s the plan – to put pressure on the Manchin wing of the party so that all of the
“progressives” in the House get their way?    I don’t see how that can work.  Manchin has the leverage and he’s been a team player up to now.  

 

If the next elections decide whether we have a functional democracy it may be the biggest threat is not the state legislatures in Georgia or Arizona.    The biggest threat may the House of Representatives in DC.

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

 Written Jul 22:

A short time back I was very optimistic about Biden’s administration policies and the outlook for the next election.   His focus on vaccinations was working.  His 3-way policy of America Rescue Plan, Jobs Plan (infrastructure) and Family Plan (anti-poverty and social safety net improvements) made sense.

 

The first part American Rescue Plan was done through reconciliation which was the right move.  The final bill had only a few concessions to the more moderate Dem Senators.   Biden said it might be “too big” but that was a risk he was willing to take as opposed to it being too small.  Not it looks like it was a too big and we have some “transisent” inflation but by and large this was a progressive, pragmatic and popular bill.

 

Next up was the American Jobs Plan which Biden negotiated as a bipartisan bill.   This was also a good idea.  It may be a little smaller than some wanted but it looked progressive, pragmatic and popular.

 

The next step would be to take bows for an improving job market, a strong stock market, reduction in child poverty from the American Rescue Plan’s child tax credits.   Then take another bow for negotiating a bi-partisan infrastructure bill which eluded Obama and Trump.  Then take another bow for having a sane foreign policy and trade policy.

 

The American Family Plan should have been on the back burner with the idea that the Senate would use reconciliation to pass a Dem bill in 2022.  The Dem caucus would be informed that this bill would be passed and would include some of the non-physical infrastructure elements that the Jobs Plan left out.  But the Dem leaders should have kept a low profile on this and given vague answers.   Eventually  the bill would strike a balance of Sanders and Manchin which no matter how it turned out would be a victory for Biden in 2022.  No one who wants to win in 2022 wants Sanders to write this bill.

 

Then the unforced error.  Publicly tying the bipartisan American Jobs Plan with the upcoming partisan American Family Plan.

 

So now we have uncertainty over the Jobs plan.  The Rescue plan is being critized for temporarily high inflation and some dislocations in the job market.   The Family Plan is being critized for the large increase in spending and in the deficit even before the size of the bill has been determined.   We know that it is hypocritical for the GOP to complain about deficits but we also know that the general public has a short memory.    

 

Bottom line -  The Dems gave the GOP some actual policy talking points.   Unforced error.

 

 

Update on COVID Relief

 In some ways it has gone as expected.  The House Dems pass the full bill with no concessions to the GOP.   The bill had some non-COVID relief items.   They get no GOP votes and the GOP used these non-COVID elements as a talking point.

The Dems have one chance this fiscal year to pass a spending bill through reconciliation so they added these non-COVID elements.  It is either this bill or wait until next year.

In the Senate they are sure to remove the minimum wage increase which not only doesn't belong in a COVID Relief bill it's presence will prevent passing the bill in the Senate using reconciliation.

Actually this is not a good timing for passing a minimum wage bill when unemployment is so high.  But the bill was going to gradually phase in the increases.  But what is good is to have the GOP vote against it again and again.

Some left wing members of the House want the Senate to put the minimum wage increase back in the bill.  Once again they show no common sense, no political acumen.  Let's hope the make their little point and then cooperate.

Re getting the GOP to work with Biden.   The vote in the House and the comments from the Senate seem to indicate that the GOP is not at all interested in working with the Biden administration.

In the meantime Trump made a speech to CPAC.  The speech attacked members of the GOP.  This is turning out right now the way I hoped.  Trump splits the party. 

Tie Maker, COVID Relief, the Biden Administration and the GOP

 I wrote this in early Feb.

Some musing about politics -channeling my inner Heather Cox Richardson

 After the GA runoff election all the talk was about the 50-50 Senate split and that VP Harris would be the tie-breaker.  Perhaps more important are the two Senators who are the tie-makers, Angus King (Maine) and Joe Manchin (WV).  The GOP has their RINOs.  The Dems have these two who are BAD – Barely a Democrat.  

 My first thought about Manchin was positive.  I’ve thought for awhile that the Dems have been too focused on cultural issues, global warming  and identity politics.  Instead I’d like to see a focus on economic justice.  Dems needs to push policies that help the working poor.  Who would be a better spokesperson for the working poor than a Dem Senator from WV? Then I looked at Manchin’s voting record with some dismay.  He is Barely a Democrat.

 

But it is what it is.   Manchin may be the decisive vote on a number of progressive policies.  The good news is that this makes the Bernie-wing of the party less able to torpedo the conversation.  I don’t see how Sanders will be able to move Biden from his pragmatic, progressive policies. 

 

The other item on my mind is how Biden’s penchant for unity and compromise will play out with this version of the GOP.  The first test will be Biden’s COVID relief bill.  This bill can be passed without any GOP votes using budget reconciliation but it will need Manchin’s vote.  There are two options for Biden.  Make some amendments to the bill on the fringes to get 10 GOP Senators to vote for the bill.   The obvious choices are to target the direct payments and to remove the minimum wage (which has little to do with COVID emergency relief).   Perhaps even adjusting the additional unemployment payments so that they start at $400 and are reduced to $300 after the unemployment rate hits say 6%.  Then eliminate the payments when unemployment hits 4.5%. 

 

What should be non-negotiable is extended unemployment benefits, aid to state and local governments, some targeted individual direct payments, aid for school openings and aid for vaccination roll-out. 

 

If the GOP doesn’t go along then just make small changes so that Manchin votes for the bill and use reconciliation to pass it 51-50. 

 

The important take-away is Biden and the Dems should not make concessions to the GOP and then have them vote overwhelmingly against the bill.  This is the lesson to be learned from Obama’s first two years as POTUS.

 

I think Biden, Pelosi and Schumer get it.  Let’s hope.

How to win in 2022. Pragmatic, progressive and popular policies

Since the election I have turned to looking at how the Democratic party under Biden's leadership can move the country towards more progressive policies.

It's no secret that I dislike  some of the policies of the populist left.  The press simply uses the term progressive wing of the party but it is more than that - it is populist and tribal.  That's one reason I favored Biden from the outset.  He was always my first choice to be President even when he wasn't my first choice to be the Democratic nominee.

So Biden won and the Senate is 50-50 and here we are. 

The idea now is to pass pragmatic, progressive policies - no overreach and no concessions to the populist wing or to the GOP.   The idea is to pass a set of policies that are not only popular to the voters that matter but will be popular in practice because they are good policies.

The voters that matter are the center-left independents and the voters in WI, PA, OH, GA and AZ.  The goal is to win a more effective majority in the Senate and then work push more progressive policies in Biden's last two years.  Looking at 2022 Senate races the Dems have to defend seats in GA and AZ just to maintain the 50 seats.  But there are opportunities in WI (Ron Johnson) and OH, PA and NC will not have GOP incumbents.

So what are the policies

- the COVID relief bill even if paired down a little from the current 1.9 trillion House bill
- successful management of COVID vaccinations

- expansion of ACA
- modest infrastructure bill
- immigration reform focused on Dreamers

And a set of executive orders to support:

- racial justice
- climate change
- environmental protections
- immigration reform

- restore US role in foreign affairs

What are the threats?  Basically overreach in government spending, immigration reform and climate change.   

Current Issues Prioritized

1. Covid pandemic.  The first choice is obvious.  
2. Economy.  I am not referring to GDP growth or the stock market.  The #1 economic issue is the labor market.  Headline unemployment greater than 6% but that understates the issue.  Labor force participation rate is also down.  Second concern is small business bankruptcies.  And, a new term "scarring" caused by the pandemic.
3. Democracy.  Without dealing with the threats to democracy none of the items below can be addressed.  Threats are legal voter suppression, illegal voter intimidation, gerrymandering, peaceful transfer of power, disenfranchisement of citizens in DC and the territories,
4. Domestic  terrorist, white supremacism,   racism and police violence.
5. Poverty.  This may be the biggest issue and the hardest to solve.  Need for access for affordable health care, housing, child care and post-high school education. Note affordable does not mean free.  Other needs are increase to minimum wage, food security and free pre-K schooling. 
6. Immigration reform.  Path to citizenship for Dreamers and path to legal status short of citizenship for immigrants who have settled in the US.
7. Investments in infrastructure and basic research.  Short term objectives are to create jobs.  Long term objectives are to increase labor productivity which will create jobs and increase wages.
8. Climate change.  This is a global issue not a US issue.  Also this is a long-term issue.
9. Restoring US diplomatic role in the world.  Also a long-term issue.  

I will from time-to-time update a score card for the Biden administration.

Tracking the GOP

 Leading Trumpers

Ted Cruz*
Josh Hawley*
Marco Rubio*

Lindsey Graham

Tom Cotton*

Ron Johnson

Rick Scott*

Tommy Tuberville

John Kennedy

Dissenters

Mitt Romney
John Kasich*
Liz Chaney*

Lisa Murkowski

Pat Toomey

Ben Sasse*

Susan Collins

Bill Cassidy

Rob Portman

Nikki Hawley*

On the Fence/Weasels

Mitch McConnell

Kevin McCarthy

* potential 2024 candidates