10 votes

White House offers GOP reduced $1.7 trillion dollars infrastructure plan in attempt to compromise

8 comments

  1. [8]
    Kuromantis
    (edited )
    Link
    Alternative title: Democrats Cuck their own legislation to try to get Republicans to support them, One Last/More Time... But more seriously, I'm not sure how large is this 500 billion dollar cut...

    Alternative title: Democrats Cuck their own legislation to try to get Republicans to support them, One Last/More Time...

    But more seriously, I'm not sure how large is this 500 billion dollar cut as opposed to other compromises the Democratic part has made in it's past. Also I'm not sure of there's indicating this is a permanent cut or am alternative proposal.

    Anyway, here are some snippets from the article:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House put forward a $1.7 trillion infrastructure counteroffer Friday to Senate Republicans, dropping from President Joe Biden’s sweeping $2.3 trillion proposal “in the spirit of finding common ground.”

    White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki disclosed the new offer as talks were still underway between key Cabinet secretaries and GOP senators at a crucial stage toward a deal. Skepticism had been rising on all sides amid complaints about the lack of significant movement off the opening bids. Republicans had offered a $568 billion plan.

    “This proposal exhibits a willingness to come down in size,” she said at the press briefing.

    But the memo makes clear Biden is not interested in the Republicans’ idea of having consumers pay for the new investments through tolls, gas taxes or other fees. Instead, the administration is sticking with his proposal to raise the corporate tax to pay for the new investment, which is a red line for Republicans.

    One strategy that had gained momentum would be for Biden to negotiate a more limited, traditional infrastructure bill of roads, highways, bridges and broadband as a bipartisan effort. Then, Democrats could try to muscle through the remainder of Biden’s priorities on climate investments and the so-called human infrastructure of child care, education and hospitals on their own.

    But, administration aides believe, if such an “infrastructure only” bipartisan deal is far smaller than Biden’s original proposal, the White House risks a rebellion from Democrats who could claim that the president made a bad deal and missed the moment to pass a sweeping, transformational package.

    Anyway, the big takeaway from this IMO is that, while some people (mostly people who portray themselves as political moderates) like to talk about how Democrats feeling they lost with a trifecta is ridiculous, but this is why. With a literal 50%+1 'majority in the Senate, abolishing the filibuster, admitting DC and probably into the union, proper voting rights and more that would make the US government and people more functional, democratic, Democratic and general better are off-limits, and the first 2 years of the Biden presidency will be lacking the votes to do most of anything meaningful.

    6 votes
    1. [2]
      stu2b50
      Link Parent
      I'm not a big fan of that narrative. It presumes that the democratic party should be more homogenous, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. For one, it's not like Manchin or Sinema...

      I'm not a big fan of that narrative. It presumes that the democratic party should be more homogenous, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. For one, it's not like Manchin or Sinema are being propped up by the D's; rather, it's the opposite. In particular, Manchin's district is just unwinnable by a more party adherent Democrat.

      And Manchin is entirely preferable to a republican candidate. In a multiparty government, Manchin, Sinema would be in a smaller party that's in a coalition with the big D Democrats - it's a weak coalition, but having the majority coalition is infinitely better than not.

      Same for the left wing. I don't think progressives want AOC, etc. to shut up and do what Biden wants either, even if it would be more politically advantageous to have a unified front.

      12 votes
      1. spctrvl
        Link Parent
        I don't entirely disagree, but I can't help but wonder if right wing democrats' repeated and gleeful torpedoing of enormously popular democratic party planks isn't seriously hampering the party's...

        I don't entirely disagree, but I can't help but wonder if right wing democrats' repeated and gleeful torpedoing of enormously popular democratic party planks isn't seriously hampering the party's national efforts. Having Manchin instead of a republican in West Virginia is good and all, but less so if it's costing us seats elsewhere.

        7 votes
    2. [5]
      babypuncher
      Link Parent
      What do you expect them to do? Not pass any legislation? Because that is what happens if they cannot entice 9 votes from across the aisle.

      Democrats Cuck their own legislation to try to get Republicans to support them, One Last/More Time...

      What do you expect them to do? Not pass any legislation? Because that is what happens if they cannot entice 9 votes from across the aisle.

      10 votes
      1. [3]
        spctrvl
        Link Parent
        I was under the impression that the plan was to pass this bill through budget reconciliation, which would not require any republican votes. They're certainly not getting 10 votes from the...

        I was under the impression that the plan was to pass this bill through budget reconciliation, which would not require any republican votes. They're certainly not getting 10 votes from the republican party no matter the bill, as has been demonstrated ad nauseum, Republicans are categorically incapable of negotiating in good faith or participating in a government that they don't control. Rather than eviscerating their own bill, the Democrats should have used the political capital gained by republicans blocking a popular infrastructure bill to rework or eliminate the filibuster.

        8 votes
        1. [2]
          babypuncher
          Link Parent
          This year's budget reconciliation was already used on COVID relief spending

          This year's budget reconciliation was already used on COVID relief spending

          2 votes
          1. spctrvl
            Link Parent
            From the Wikipedia article on budget reconciliation:

            From the Wikipedia article on budget reconciliation:

            In April 2021, the Senate Parliamentarian — an in-house rules expert — determined that the Senate can pass two budget reconciliation bills in 2021: one focused on fiscal year 2021 and one focused on fiscal year 2022. In addition, the Senate can pass additional budget reconciliation bills by describing them as a revised budget resolution that contains budget reconciliation instructions.

            10 votes
      2. Kuromantis
        Link Parent
        Alright, I do admit that quip isn't too serious, and that this time around the Democrats do have their hands tied far worse than they have at any point they have held the government in a decent...

        Alright, I do admit that quip isn't too serious, and that this time around the Democrats do have their hands tied far worse than they have at any point they have held the government in a decent amount of time and did what I described, and that the 3 red state Democrat senators don't have much of a choice to do anything assuming they don't genuinely believe what they're saying. My actual point is the part about their very narrow majority, it's just that this reminds me of all the other times they did this.

        1 vote