Dems plot spring sprint for party-line spending deal with Manchin

[Chomsky]

I can’t imagine Progressives being for fossil fuel subsidies, but we shall see.

No matter what occurs presently, the long-term transition away from fossil fuels is going to be painful!

 

[ttwtt78640]

It seems that due to partisan programming, the individual items of BBB are well supported. But when you label it as the Democratic BBB bill, Republican constituents don't want it.

This is exactly the same as with the ACA. When presented as 'the ACA', it polls well. When presented as 'ObamaCare', Republicans refuse it.

That (bolded above) is a frequent claim, yet those items are never presented as an alternative to (trade for cutting?) any (lower priority?) current federal “budget” items.

I like Manchin’s idea - any increases in federal revenue must be split evenly between new federal program spending and deficit reduction - actually funding current (existing) federal spending. That differs from Biden’s BBB plan of only funding (most of) new federal spending with federal revenue increases.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No matter what occurs presently, the long-term transition away from fossil fuels is going to be painful!

Yep, and much more so for those with lower incomes. Promising “green” tax breaks for those not paying federal income tax are worthless. IMHO, the Progressives will try to attempt to use that fact to establish a UBI or BIG with more negative income tax schemes like ‘refundable tax credits’ available to those with no taxable income.

 

[Craig234]

They need to cut it into smaller bills. Start with the more easily digestible stuff to attempt getting the GOP on board.

It doesn't work that way. Democrats can pass one reconciliation bill per year. Anything else needs 60 votes because Republicans filibuster it, which would need 10 Republican votes.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It doesn't work that way. Democrats can pass one reconciliation bill per year. Anything else needs 60 votes because Republicans filibuster it, which would need 10 Republican votes.

It obviously does work that way (or we would have no federal “budget” deficit), but only for items with sufficient bipartisan support. After all, Obama kept 98.6% of the “Bush” (personal) federal income tax rate cuts and Biden appears to be willing to do (nearly?) the same with the “Trump” (personal) federal income tax rate cuts.

The normal (average?) annual federal “budget” now contains about $1T in “stimulus” funding - spending beyond what annual federal revenue pays for.

 

[Chomsky]

That (bolded above) is a frequent claim, yet those items are never presented as an alternative to (trade for cutting?) any (lower priority?) current federal “budget” items.

I like Manchin’s idea - any increases in federal revenue must be split evenly between new federal program spending and deficit reduction - actually funding current (existing) federal spending. That differs from Biden’s BBB plan of only funding (most of) new federal spending with federal revenue increases.

At the least, I'd like the new legislation to be revenue-neutral.

 

[ttwtt78640]

At the least, I'd like the new legislation to be revenue-neutral.

That fails to address the consistent nonsense of congress critters (and the POTUS) accepting $1T (or more) federal “budget” deficits as being normal. Since 2000 we have added about $25T to our national debt, which includes adding about $6T in 2020 and 2021 alone.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Dems plot spring sprint for party-line spending deal with Manchin

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says the resuscitation of the bill once called Build Back Better is a “high priority” for his caucus. But a revival won't be easy.

www.politico.com

--

O.K., this is fine & dandy.

But then, what about Sinema?

--

I don't see this going anywhere . . .

They just need to have the Democratic lobbyists pay her more than the republicans have been.