Lawrence had a good guess at what Manchin and Sinema are up to, and it makes sense to me

[OnDoutside]

Basically, Manchin and Sinema have been continually evasive as to what they want IN or OUT of the Reconciliation Bill, and deliberately so. They want the Bipartisan Bill voted on first, so they will then have maximum leverage over the Reconciliation Bill. And that leverage could be destructive to Climate Change initiatives contained in the Bill, especially as Manchin and Sinema in the pocket of Big Coal/And Or Big Oil.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Manchin has specifically indicated he thinks there isn't any reason to pass the reconciliation bill

this year. So no reason for him to give specifics. He's looking out for coal interests.

Sinema opposes the prescription drug negotiation provision and the corporate/personal tax increases. So she also seems to be happy to be vague to delay the bill as long as possible.

[OnDoutside]

2. And if you believe that from Manchin, I have one of those many bridges to sell you ! He wants the

pork for WV, but nothing that cuts across his Coal/Oil masters (remember he did a huge fundraiser in Texas in August ?).

Sinema needs the pressure applied to her, as was stated, she's in a state that Biden carried.

If this was about wanting more money for their state, you'd say fair enough but their intentions are as base as you can get for a Democrat, and that's wrong.

[gojoe12]

17. He said on one

of his Sunday talk shows that he thinks we should wait until after the 2022 elections. I almost fell off my chair

[FBaggins]

3. That's about the size of it

And it’s just as true that Jayapal is also trying to create the maximum amount of leverage for the CPC’s position.

The problem with all of her rhetoric about sitting in the chamber and listening to the president’s agenda…even if we ignore that 96% of Democrats don’t agree… is that 96% of 50%+1 is not a majority.

[OnDoutside]

4. True but the ConservaDems have reneged on what was previously agreed,which is pretty shit to be fair

, and what goes around comes around on things like this. It's dirty politics to do to your own. Manchin, Sinema and Gottheimer must be laughing their asses off, but be careful what you wish for. The biggest issue currently is that Manchin/Sinema are letting this play out and are not coming to the table, and as long as they don't, the Progressive Caucus should hold firm. I'm not a Sanders fan but he is right on this, even if it means stalling both bills (which ultimately I don't believe will happen).

[FBaggins]

7. What was previously agreed to?

Sanders keeps referring to an agreement, but can’t point to any time when Manchin made such an agreement.

[jaxexpat]

5. Oh, that pesky math. Just at a moment when the whole world revolves around emotions.

The house should have voted on the infrastructure bill while it was still warm from the senate copy machine. At this point, it looks like the optimism of Nov. 2020 may serve only as spice for Mitch's famous horror soup. Manchin and Senima both represent habitats with substantial asshole constituents. They have to be licensed assholes to even run for office. That demographic factoid colors everything with mathiness which I'll bet against a emotionally charged want-really-bad any day.

[femmedem]

6. Sen. Sinema actually considers climate change a major issue.

Rachel said last night that she ran in part on combatting climate change, and according to this article, although she hasn't come out in favor of a carbon tax, she does want to pass climate-related legislation. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/24/us/politics/carbon-tax-democrats.html

But as others have pointed out, she objects to the overall cost and also objects to raising taxes for even the wealthiest Americans.

[Celerity]

8. And is dead set against the pharmaceutical price reduction part

Came out hard against it right after big pharma tossed a big chunk of change and a nice advert buy her way. 180 degree flip from when she campaigned on it.

[femmedem]

12. Yeah, that's who really owns her.

Hard to imagine any other reason she'd object to reducing prescription drug prices.

[FBaggins]

9. Which makes things even more difficult

There are two known holdouts… but they don’t want the same things. Making Sinema happy on one issue makes it less likely that Manchin will get onboard… and vice versa.

Making both of them happy moves the bill will away from story by the rest of the caucus

[femmedem]

13. Agreed. It's hard to see how the Democrats are going to resolve this.

I hope Democratic leadership is smarter than I am.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. The MAXIMUM leverage revolves around lifting the debt ceiling. We need to look closely at that

As a progressive I accept the reality that the 3.5 Trillion dollar version of the Build Back Better Bill is dead. Whatever finally passes will be cut back/watered down from there. I'm not happy about it but I get it. A new compromise has to be negotiated between President Biden's original vision and what Manchin and Sinema support instead. But as it is playing out, as Lawrence points out, currently those two will have all of the leverage, and the vast majority of Democrats almost none, in those "negotiations".

Meanwhile it is increasingly seeming like the best and perhaps only way to prevent the U.S. from defaulting on its debts is to raise the debt ceiling through the reconciliation process, which Democrats can do despite Republican obstruction. If an amendment to raise the debt limit is included as part of the Build Back Better reconciliation package, suddenly that bill becomes must pass legislation. Lots of political games being played in Washington, but even most in the G.O.P. don't want to destroy the credit standing of the United States through a first time in history default on our debts.

Special corporate interests like the Business Round Table are leaning heavily on centrist Democrats to strip corporate tax increases out of the Build Back Better bill, but the last thing those same groups want is a a U.S. default, which would wreak total havoc on the U.S. economy. The clock is running on default, in three weeks the last train out of that catastrophe must heave the station. If Democratic leadership decides to make the Build Back Better Bill the vehicle that carries the provision to lift the debt ceiling, there won't be time left to introduce a different reconciliation measure instead if the Build Back Better Bill goes down.

That is the ultimate leverage, on centrists and progressives alike. Neither side would get everything it wants. Each side could claim a partial victory if Democratic Congressional leadership crafts an honest good faith compromise taking the priorities of both sides into account. Then package that legitimate compromise bill together with raising the debt ceiling and put it up for a vote. Manchin and Sinema will no longer be holding all the cards. Special business interests will insist on passage then.

[FBaggins]

11. That leverage option doesn't actually exist

Because that isn't how reconciliation works.

Let's say that Manchin and Sinema woke up today and said "we'll back the entire $3.5T if you add another $0.5T to the bill specifically for a Manchin/Sinema monument in both AZ and WV". It couldn't happen... because the authorizing resolution that made reconciliation possible caps the bill at $3.5T.

The reconciliation process begins when each house agrees on a budget resolution that includes "reconciliation directives" for each budgeting committee to follow. If a measure goes outside of those directives, the resulting bill is no longer shielded from filibuster. And the current resolution doesn't include language about lifting the debt ceiling.

So... in order to fix the debt ceiling through reconciliation (whether as a stand-alone bill or as part of BBB), both houses will first have to pass a new budget resolution.

Which can't happen without the centrists agreeing to it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Two things.

Yes, clearly it would have to comply with "the reconciliation directives." What makes you sure that it wouldn't? I know you made up a possible example that would exceed the maximum expenditure cleared through the budget resolution, and obviously that wouldn't fly. That particular scenario becomes moot as long as the package remains below the 3.5 Trillion cap. Some alterations to the reconciliation bill, that has been under negotiation for some time now are obviously possible, some new things in, some old things out, because the final bill has not yet been settled on but keeps potentially being revised. Are you saying that the inclusion of a lifting of the debt ceiling is not permissible in the current bill while other modifications are?

Second, assuming that for some parliamentary reason that a rise in the debt ceiling can not be amended to the current reconciliation bill that already cleared the budget committee process, that means a new reconciliation bill must be initiated from scratch. assuming that reconciliation is the best avenue available for lifting the debt ceiling in the face of a Republican filibuster. In that case can't the Build Back Better proposal (new compromise) be bundled into that new reconciliation bill?

[FBaggins]

16. Two replies

Are you saying that the inclusion of a lifting of the debt ceiling is not permissible in the current bill while other modifications are?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Reconciliation directives come in three categories:

• increases or decreases in spending by specified amounts over a specified time
• increases or decreases in revenues by specified amounts over a specified time
• modifies the public debt limit.

If the directives don't include an instruction to modify the debt limit, then that can't be added later by the committees or on the floor.

They have to send new instructions - whether that's to modify the existing resolution or to create a new one. Either way takes a new vote on the floor... which Manchin (or House moderates) would have to agree to.

In that case can't the Build Back Better proposal (new compromise) be bundled into that new reconciliation bill?

Absolutely!

If the moderates sign off on the plan. This brings us right back to the current dilemma.

So it could be used to get around Republicans... but not to get around Democratic moderates.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Thanks for both replies. So, it keeps coming down to 51 votes. I think that is doable without...

...ceding total veto power to a handful of so called "moderates" ( I include the quotation marks because the strong majority of Democratic Congressional moderates do not belong to what I prefer to call the "obstructionist" Democrats whose stance flies in the face of the vast majority of both Democratic Caucus members.)

At this point I suspect that the only way Democrats can win 51 votes in the Senate, for example, for a legitimate good faith compromise Build Back Better bill (rather than one whose terms are literally dictated by a handful of obstructionists) is by including that revised legislation in a new reconciliation bill that includes a provision for raising the debt limit.

You rightly point out that such legislation can not move forward if either Manchin or Senema refuse to go along with it. Lately it seems that the U.S. Senate can only accomplish virtually anything through brinkmanship. The current debt ceiling crisis is a text book example of brinkmanship at the ultimate level, because not only is it essential that the debt ceiling be raised, there is almost no time left to spare to get that done via the reconciliation route, which increasingly appears to be the only path left open. Therefor if both Pelosi and Schumer let it be known to all Democrats in Congress that they intend to support the introduction of a new reconciliation bill which includes both lifting of the debt ceiling AND a good faith compromise Build Back Better Act which they will determine the exact provisions of in the absence of an agreement being reached before then by "warring" Democrats in Congress, it's game on. No doubt that legislation would authorize a lesser amount than 3.5 Trillion for Build Back Better, so even before final details get hammered out about what is in and what is out, Manchin and Senema could claim an initial victory.

It would be the last train leaving the station before the U.S. defaults on its debts. If either progressive or moderate holdouts among Democrats kill its passage, or even delay it's progress through Congress, the U.S. will default because there will be no time left for another bite at that apple. Absolute brinkmanship votes, failure is not an option. Corporate interests currently calling the shots DO NOT WANT the U.S. to default on our debt. They could then accept some of the changes they want in Biden's agenda, but not all of them, or see the economy fall apart. Same for the progressive wing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. P.S. to my post above regarding the role of the Senate Parliamentarian

When the Senate Parliamentarian made a ruling that thwarted the will of the Republican majority in the Senate when they controlled that chamber, they fired that Parliamentarian and replaced that official with someone who saw things the way they wanted. That is hardball politics but perfectly legal. When the Senate Parliamentarian ruled against the Democrats position, as happened most recently regarding inserting an immigration reform measure into the reconciliation bill, Democrats took that provision out. I'm not suggesting that Democrats act with the same reckless abandon as Republicans every time the Parliamentarian disagrees with them, but if it comes down to changing the Parliamentarian or defaulting on the national debt to proceed with a Build Back Better bill that included raising the debt ceiling, Democrats won't suffer much in the way of ill consequences if they do the former.

[FBaggins]

18. The parliamentarian can't get around the will of the majority

When Republicans replaced the parliamentarian, it didn't really have any effect except from a PR perspective. The parliamentarian merely advises the presiding officer (the VP or whoever is in the chair at the time). The presiding officer can choose to accept or reject that advice.

The problem there is that the presiding officer has no constitutional authority either. Her decisions only carry weight to the extent that a majority of senators agree with her. It takes only a single senator to call for a vote on the matter and put it on the floor. If the chair doesn't have 51 votes behind her... it doesn't matter what she or the parliamentarian had to say.