President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

[Derec]

They support Build Back Better by a 43 point margin.

The poll Omar is referring to seems to be the same poll by a left-wing think tank that ZiprHead was quoting. How about a poll by an unbiased polling outfit?
Also, how much do people know about what is in the bill. For example, how many West Virginians itemize their deductions, and out of those, how many pay more than $10k in state and local taxes? And what about West Virginians who do not have children? Because between the SALT deduction expansion (aka a "tax cut for some rich") and subsidies for people with children, that's almost the entire B³ dollar amount! If you are not in one or the other group, B³ is not really benefitting you much, unlike BIF.

Shahid Buttar is running against Nancy Pelosi in CA-12 -- he did so in 2018 and 2020. Back when BIF was passed:
Shahid Buttar for Congress on Twitter: "We are witnessing capital assault democracy yet again.

A legislature democratically passing a bill is an assault on democracy? What has this Butter person been smoking?

I would have voted against the bipartisan infrastructure privatization package.

Well, then it's a good thing he did not win.

 

[Derec]

Impact of your “NO”:

- no more child tax credit payments

There will still be a child tax credit, just not quite as generous as under B³. There is also EITC which is mostly benefitting those with children as well.

- no immigration protections

Wasn't possible under reconciliation rules anyway.

- no public transit investments

There are public transit investments

- no $ for making flood insurance more affordable

Don't keep rebuilding in floodplains. I do not see why federal government should subsidize flood insurance for people rebuilding their house for the 3rd time in 15 years or something.
Another impact of Manchin's "NO":
- no tax cuts for the rich (aka SALT deduction cap increase to $80k).

 

[Trausti]

Hee hee.

 

[Derec]

Fifty Shades of Whey on Twitter: "@AOC Joe Manchin's daughter, Heather Bresch, has illegally price-gouged EpiPens to steal millions of dollars from people with asthma and allergies. If there's any justice, she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. (pic link)" / Twitter

The iniquities of the daughters shall be visited upon the fathers? Also, what about Hunter Biden?
Unfortunately, Joe Biden isn't LBJ, because bringing up things like that is what LBJ would likely have done.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "@ncweaver Even if you could get 10 Republicans, the problem as I explained above is that there is only 1 vote allowed left this year per Senate rules. It’s not a political problem, it’s a procedure/rules problem." / Twitter

AOC really isn't that smart, is she? If you can get 10 Republicans for a piece of the bill (e.g. insulin), then you do not need reconciliation and the vote is not subject to the "two per year" limit.

Lakshya Jain on Twitter: "@AOC @ncweaver It's a moot point, because they won't be there, but don't the 10 R votes actually insulate it from the filibuster if they vote to break cloture with 50 Dems? That gets rid of the need for using budget reconciliation IIRC." / Twitter

Exactly. AOC misunderstood Senate rules.

That's a reasonable point, but where are we going to find those 10 Republicans?

You'd have to find them in the Senate. A tall order for sure, but one or two of the pieces of B³ could find a 60 vote majority in the Senate next year.

 

[Derec]

Michelle Hackman on Twitter: "News: The Parliamentarian has rejected Democrats' third immigration proposal, offering millions of immigrants deportation protections and work permits. Likely the end of the road for helping unauthorized immigrants through reconciliation. W/@aduehren (link)" / Twitter

A sensible decision. Illegals are not a budgetary issue and thus reconciliation is not appropriate.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Good thing the Parliamentarian’s guidance here is non binding! It’s just guidance.
The Senate can still include a path to citizenship in BBB and call a vote on it, which is why we have called on them to do so." / Twitter

Which would set a very bad precedent.

Then this disaster.

Burgess Everett on Twitter: "!!!!!!!!!!!! Manchin says he's done with BBB and it's over
"I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation"
"I can't get there"" / Twitter
What was so hard for him?

Disaster is in the eye of the beholder. And here is Manchin's statement:

“My Democratic colleagues in Washington are determined to dramatically reshape our society in a way that leaves our country even more vulnerable to the threats we face. I cannot take that risk with a staggering debt of more than $29 trillion and inflation taxes that are real and harmful to every hard-working American at the gasoline pumps, grocery stores and utility bills with no end in sight.

“The American people deserve transparency on the true cost of the Build Back Better Act. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office determined the cost is upwards of $4.5 trillion which is more than double what the bill’s ardent supporters have claimed. They continue to camouflage the real cost of the intent behind this bill.

Main point seems to be dishonest pricing of the bill.

When a handful of us in the House warned this would happen if Dem leaders gave Manchin everything he wanted 1st by moving BIF before BBB instead of passing together, many ridiculed our position.

Maybe they’ll believe us next time. Or maybe people will just keep calling us naïve.

This obstructionist tactic risked BIF as well. It was a game of chicken and the fauxgressives swerved first.

Our entire democracy is on the line. So we need to get back in there & get this sh*t done. Period

No AOC, our entire democracy in not on the line just because a bad bill might not pass. That's quite a silly thing to say!

 

[Derec]

Rashida Tlaib on Twitter: "Families and children won't get the child tax credit help they need next month because of Joe Manchin. I can't believe it's controversial to say this when he's literally telling the press he intends to kill the CTC. The truth needs to be told. Enough." / Twitter

Nobody is proposing to attempting to kill CTC. The only thing that will happen is that the increase in CTC, which was originally passed as a temporary COVID-related measure, will not be made permanent.

 

[Derec]

Progressive Caucus on Twitter: "Delaying Build Back Better until 2022 will have immediate consequences.
The House passed a bill agreed to by nearly 50 senators, and with @POTUS' promise that he could deliver the votes needed to make it law.
The Senate cannot adjourn for the year until their work is done. (pic link)" / Twitter

[emphasis mine]
I know fauxgressives believe math is racist, but "nearly 50 senators" means less than 50 senators, which is a minority. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Cori Bush slams 'alarming' delay on Dems' spending bill, says it shouldn't be 'at the feet' of Joe Manchin | Fox Business

Manchin has every right to support or oppose any legislation at his own discretion. Just like Cori Bush. Just like any other lawmaker.

Rep. Cori Bush Wednesday lamented delays in Senate negotiations on Democrats' massive reconciliation spending bill, including the fact that Sen. Joe Manchin essentially has veto power over the legislation because the Senate is split 50-50.
"We must not undermine our power as a government nor the power of the people by placing the fate of Build Back Better at the feet of one senator: Joe Manchin," Bush, D-Mo., said.

But every senator has the same power - any Democrat could withold his support from B³, and likewise any Republican could announce his support, rendering Manchin moot.

"Today’s reporting that the Build Back Better Act may be put on the shelf for the foreseeable future is alarming," Bush added. "To my community, I promise you that I am doing everything in my power to ensure that this decision does not become permanent."

What power exactly does Cori Bush believe a congresswoman form Missouri should be able to exercise over a senator from West Virginia?

 

[Derec]

That’s not what Derec thinks. He said that states like Florida and Georgia are subsidizing Californians’ high state and local tax rates.

More accurately, individual taxpayers in those states are subsidizing high state and local taxes in states like CA and NY.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Impact of your “NO”:

- no more child tax credit payments

There will still be a child tax credit, just not quite as generous as under B³. There is also EITC which is mostly benefitting those with children as well.

For people living paycheck to paycheck, the credit should be monthly, not once a year as part of a tax return.

 

[Shadowy Man]

That’s not what Derec thinks. He said that states like Florida and Georgia are subsidizing Californians’ high state and local tax rates.

More accurately, individual taxpayers in those states are subsidizing high state and local taxes in states like CA and NY.

That doesn’t change my point. Tax payers in California are subsidizing those states more. If we took away the ability for states’ taxpayers to subsidize each other those in Florida and Georgia would be worse off than those in California so it seems an odd complaint to make.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Impact of your “NO”:

- no more child tax credit payments

There will still be a child tax credit, just not quite as generous as under B³. There is also EITC which is mostly benefitting those with children as well.

For people living paycheck to paycheck, the credit should be monthly, not once a year as part of a tax return.

Yes. Applying this monthly allows these families to spend the money as they need it, instead of getting out of the red every March.

And I can't wait until the GOP argues Biden is responsible for lower tax refunds (due to the prepaid Child Tax Credit).

 

[blastula]

https://www.filesforprogress.org/memos/bbb-wv.pdf

VOTERS SUPPORT THE BUILD BACK BETER PLAN We tested support for the Build Back Better plan, the $3.5 trillion budget proposal Democrats in Congress are now considering. We find that likely voters in the state support this proposed investment plan by a margin of +43 points. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans support the plan by margins of +86 points, +33 points, and +22 points.

Yeah, how about a poll that is not from  Data for Progress, a "left-wing think tank"?

As opposed to the prestigious MBE Research poll? Both polls could be called push polls, though at least the MBE one was more recent.

 

[ZiprHead]

Disaster is in the eye of the beholder. And here is Manchin's statement:

“My Democratic colleagues in Washington are determined to dramatically reshape our society in a way that leaves our country even more vulnerable to the threats we face. I cannot take that risk with a staggering debt of more than $29 trillion and inflation taxes that are real and harmful to every hard-working American at the gasoline pumps, grocery stores and utility bills with no end in sight.

“The American people deserve transparency on the true cost of the Build Back Better Act. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office determined the cost is upwards of $4.5 trillion which is more than double what the bill’s ardent supporters have claimed. They continue to camouflage the real cost of the intent behind this bill.

Main point seems to be dishonest pricing of the bill.

Manchin is using a Republican talking point. The bill sent to the CBO for scoring was not the bill in question. It was a figment of Lindsey Graham's imagination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Impact of your “NO”:

- no more child tax credit payments

There will still be a child tax credit, just not quite as generous as under B³. There is also EITC which is mostly benefitting those with children as well.

For people living paycheck to paycheck, the credit should be monthly, not once a year as part of a tax return.

Adjust your withholding. You get it in every paycheck unless you're below the point where you pay any income tax.

 

[Derec]

For people living paycheck to paycheck, the credit should be monthly, not once a year as part of a tax return.

Tax credits are usually applied at tax-time though. And what about people who live paycheck to paycheck but have no children?
And mind you, the increased CTC does not even begin to phase out until $150k (for married people) and does not fully phase out until $400k.

So basically a childless person making $20k is getting less from B³ than somebody with children making 10 times as much.

 

[Derec]

That doesn’t change my point. Tax payers in California are subsidizing those states more.

They are not "subsidizing states". It's taxpayers paying for federal programs that can be spent in other states. That's normal for federal spending.
That is very different than taxpayers in state A effectively paying for state and local programs in state B. Especially when it is less well off people who subsidize state and local taxes of people making much more because SALT deductions are a very regressive tax break.

 

[Derec]

As opposed to the prestigious MBE Research poll? Both polls could be called push polls, though at least the MBE one was more recent.

I am not familiar with MBE, and thus can't opine on it, but my point is that DfP was founded specifically to support left wing and "progressive" causes and policies.

 

[Derec]

Manchin is using a Republican talking point. The bill sent to the CBO for scoring was not the bill in question. It was a figment of Lindsey Graham's imagination.

It is true though. When Manchin wanted the B³ whittled down to $1.75T from $3.5T the House Dems thought they were slick and did not cut any programs, but used accounting gimmicks to make the bill appear to cost half. The most expensive portion, the increased CTC, was only funded for one year, even though obviously Dems do not intend for it to expire in 2023.

Manchin wanted real cuts in programs, but it seems that the White House did not want to change the bill passed by the House too much.
Vox has an interesting take on this.
Two ways to read Manchin’s “no” on Build Back Better

All year, Manchin has criticized these plans’ overall cost, and urged Democrats to bring the amount of the bill down to $1.75 trillion over 10 years. The White House met this demand in a creative way — they kept almost all of the new programs in the bill, but set many to expire after a few years, which made the bill’s 10-year cost look cheaper.
Since early November, Manchin has made clear he was not a fan of this approach, saying it entailed “shell games” and “budget gimmicks.” He demanded the bill do fewer things, and fully fund those things over 10 years. But Democratic leaders resisted, not wanting to upset progressives or any constituencies by cutting their favored priorities.
[...]
Again, Manchin has been saying this since early November, so it hardly comes as a surprise. And if Manchin really did make an offer to the White House this week, as Psaki claims, that suggests he has an idea of what he’d accept. What’s odder is that there’s been no known effort from the White House or top Democrats to revise the bill in that way, even though he was long known to be the crucial swing vote. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi briefly seemed inclined toward a bill that would do “fewer things better,” but she reversed course after House progressives disagreed, instead crafting a House bill that exemplified the “keep everything in, but set it to expire soon” approach.

So there is a chance that a version of the bill may pass yet, if the Dem leadership (esp. Biden, Schumer and Pelosi) grow some balls/ovaries and resist the fauxgressives' maximalist demands.

Edited to add another, very short, article about an offer made by Manchin to the White House.

Manchin Made Private Offer to White House

It says Manchin offered a $1.8T bill, fully funded for 10 years, but it would not include increased CTC.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Impact of your “NO”:

- no more child tax credit payments

There will still be a child tax credit, just not quite as generous as under B³. There is also EITC which is mostly benefitting those with children as well.

For people living paycheck to paycheck, the credit should be monthly, not once a year as part of a tax return.

Adjust your withholding. You get it in every paycheck unless you're below the point where you pay any income tax.

I mention this because I used to do VITA (Voluntary Income Tax Assistance) for my shipmates. I told them and told them and told them about adjusting their withholding. Almost to a person, they preferred that one fat check once a year. I told them they are giving the government an interest free loan. Doesn't matter. These were mostly enlisted personnel in the lower paygrades. Not poor but definitely living paycheck to paycheck.
It may be the same monetarily but one fat check once a year is a source of happiness for them. There is not the financial discipline to actually save it month over month to come to the same ends. They mostly said they were going to pay off their credit card(s) with it which I took with a grain of salt.

But for folks so poor they cannot make it paycheck to paycheck, those monthly checks are a big help for the necessities.

Were it me, I'd make "Exemptions" true and difficult to change. Make sure folks are close to even-steven come tax time without owing. This way they do have more of their own money to spend month over month before having to rely on the food locker.

 

[TV and credit cards]

For people living paycheck to paycheck, the credit should be monthly, not once a year as part of a tax return.

Tax credits are usually applied at tax-time though. And what about people who live paycheck to paycheck but have no children?
And mind you, the increased CTC does not even begin to phase out until $150k (for married people) and does not fully phase out until $400k.

So basically a childless person making $20k is getting less from B³ than somebody with children making 10 times as much.

Yeah, it's a problem. There's no love for the single person most anywhere in the tax tables.
I know. I've been in that boat for many years. In my most recently employed years I've had to claim S0 + withhold even more just to avoid a sizable tax bill. The government hates single people. I know. But on the whole, if I had to choose between being a single guy having to take the standard deduction, getting raked over the tax code and being married with many children, I think I'd just as soon let Uncle Sam have his way with me. It's almost like he knows how happy I am and is penalizing me for it.