Pelosi: Bipartisan infrastructure vote will happen Monday

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

House Democrats will honor their commitment to moderates and vote early next week on a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday.

-snip-

Whether the bill will pass, however, remains an open question. And liberals are already predicting it won't.

"It cannot pass," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Friday. "I don't bluff, I don't grandstand. We just don't have the votes for it."

Behind Jayapal, liberal lawmakers have been lining up by the dozen to oppose the infrastructure bill, not to protest the policy, but because they want to vote first on a larger, $3.5 trillion social spending package that stands as the second piece of President Biden's two-part domestic agenda.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pelosi-bipartisan-infrastructure-vote-will-happen-monday/ar-AAOMNTw

---

All or nothing is a losing proposition.

[bluewater]

1. Isn't the date for this vote just an artificial deadline?

If it doesn't pass on 9/27 can't another vote just be re-scheduled?

There's no reason progressive and moderate Democrats can't keep trying to reach a compromise after 9/27 and vote on it again, is there?

Surely, if Speaker Pelosi sees that the votes are not there to pass it, the vote can be re-scheduled in any case, right?

[FBaggins]

4. Yep - but it was part of a committment

Moderates weren't going to let the $3.5T reconciliation package even move to committee where they could start their work unless there was a commitment to hold this vote and to get Senate moderates' buy-in on the larger package before that came to the floor.

[bluewater]

5. The commitment was to just hold a vote on 9/27

And besides, wasn't there a commitment to pass both bills if people voted for the infrastucture bill first?

Why, yes, there was...

And yet two "moderate" Democrats in the Senate now say they won't be voting for the 3.5T "Build Back Better" bill.

Hmmmm.

[FBaggins]

8. No... it was to hold the vote and NOT vote on the larger package until it got through the Senate

They explicitly didn't want to be used to pressure Senate moderates... they wanted the pressure to go in the other direction.

[bluewater]

12. Nope, the commitment was that passage of both bills were to be LINKED.

Now some "moderate" Democratic senators are making public statement contrary to that commitment.

As Democrats charge ahead with writing their massive $3.5 trillion spending bill, which they aim to pass on a party-line vote through budget reconciliation, at least one moderate Republican is warning the bipartisan infrastructure bill may lose GOP votes because it's too intertwined with the reconciliation bill.

"I think Nancy Pelosi did this whole process a real disservice by linking them together so strongly and she continues to do that. And that makes it very difficult to bring Republicans to the party," Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus (PSC), told Fox News Wednesday. "I think for honest, forthright fiscal conservatives, it's hard to get excited about the trillion dollar deal if in any way it makes it more likely that the three-and-a-half trillion dollar deal passes."

https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-may-abandon-infrastructure-bill-115540323.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAvvWTtQQUi--cAMKawX25cn0iqldKj2yaugJs2H6DmaHYCHmkSW-FvGZl_vDyP_fEo8W_B_jjLO10F8BsNZe04MfuvybTbr3RWFobCwEns4Cnky02-YntPfHvE16mRM9r6OjxOkFM9eGZpNk-GoX2FSlEoYW87t5vJJVMx_cQIu

[FBaggins]

18. Nope.

The deal with the moderates changed that... upsetting the CPC. Pelosi committed to Monday's vote and that the larger bill wouldn't be brought to the floor without pre-conferencing it with moderates in the Senate. That clearly "decoupled" the two for the moderated because they knew that the larger bill wouldn't come out of the Senate before the 27th.

[bluewater]

21. Nope, Speaker Pelosi did not make a commitment to give up linkage of the 2 bills.

The fact is that some "moderates" now want to renege on the commitments all sides made earlier in linking the two bills.

One side can renege on a on a commitment, but that in no way means the other side agreed to some "new arrangement".

[PoliticAverse]

24. If the vote on the bi-partisan bill is happening Monday then clearly the bills aren't linked now. nt

[bluewater]

26. Not so. PASSAGE of both bills remains linked.

There is no guarantee that the infrastructure bill will pass on 9/27.

The 9/27 vote is an artificial deadline and if that vote fails there is nothing to stop both sides from continuing to work in good faith to pass both bills.

[PoliticAverse]

27. What you are saying is if the vote Monday fails the bills can be linked again. n/t

[bluewater]

32. What I am saying is that the PASSAGE of both bills has been linked.

Some people want to renege on that linkage, it remains to see if they can get want they while doing that.

If the 9/27 vote passes they very well could.

If the 9/27 vote fails, then clearly they will have to reconsider their actions in attempting to obstruct President Biden's 3.5T "Build Back Better" agenda.

[FBaggins]

30. In effect she did

She told progressives that the two were still linked, but it was clear a month ago that unless Senate moderates could be brought to heel very quickly, the votes could not come together.

Clearly they are not currently "linked" if Pelosi says that the vote on one will be Monday (which was what the deal committed her to). There's no chance of the larger package coming out of the Senate today. Right?

One side can renege on a on a commitment

There was never a commitment by the moderates to pass them together. At that point, they weren't even going to allow the process to start in the House - which would have killed reconciliation right there.

[bluewater]

33. "in effect" means she actually did not.

Clearly they are not currently "linked" if Pelosi says that the vote on one will be Monday (which was what the deal committed her to). There's no chance of the larger package coming out of the Senate today. Right?

What if the vote on 9/27 fails? All sides will have to work in good faith to reach a compromise. Reneging on passing both bills will have failed.

There was never a commitment by the moderates to pass them together.

EDIT: The commitment was that both bills be PASSED, no one ever said they needed to be passed on the same day. The issue is that now some people are reneging on passing the 3.5T bill ever. No one ever said both bills had to be passed on the same day, just that they both get passed. Good lord.

So Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer were wrong thinking there was a linkage between PASSING both bills ?

In a win for Democrats, the House voted on Tuesday to advance their $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill that included provisions addressing the climate crisis. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said those provisions, along with the infrastructure bill, will help make major headway in combating climate change.

Schumer wrote a Dear Colleague letter on Wednesday applauding the passage of both the infrastructure and reconciliation bills in the House, and he detailed how measures within those bills will help meet President Joe Biden's climate goals. Specifically, he wrote that per an analysis on the combined impact of those bills, the country will be on track to reduce carbon emissions to about 45% beneath 2005 levels by 2030, and they will also help hit Biden's target of reducing emissions by 50% by 2030.

"The bottom line is this: we have very little time to prevent the most horrendous outcomes for our children and grandchildren," Schumer wrote. "But if we act now and act boldly, we can mitigate the worst effects of climate change and own the 21st century clean energy economy."

Schumer cited two policies in the reconciliation bill that he believes will help reach Biden's goals: the Clean Electricity Payment Program and the Senate's clean energy and vehicle tax package. He said his analysis showed those two policies alone make up almost two-thirds of the total emissions reductions in both bills and would be critical in mitigating the climate crisis.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chuck-schumer-infrastructure-and-reconciliation-help-fight-climate-change-crisis-2021-8

Were they lied to? If so, shame on the deal breakers.

[qazplm135]

37. I think this was the great mistake

we never should have passed either bill in the Senate (or House) until we had both bills worked out.

We should have kept quiet and done the negotiating in silence. We could have said we were working on a bill but kept quiet about what the topline number was. But politicians don't seem capable of such nuance these days.

Now, each side is using their bill as leverage, and yes I think the Speaker made a mistake in effectively giving in to one side over the other. Now, no one knows what's going to happen on Monday. I think if the bipartisan bill passes, moderates will feel zero importance to passing the reconciliation bill. Which I'm guessing a lot of progressives think too.

Thus, there's a decent chance it fails, which means we are back to square one. With recriminations all around, no trust, and no bills.

We should have had all of this in house, with it all wrapped up before we presented it to the public.

[bluewater]

46. I agree with your analysis

But, in all fairness, I think the Speaker did not expect fellow Democrats to renege on the consensus to pass both bills.

Clearly, that was a mistake.

[qazplm135]

50. I don't think you can assume anything

when negotiating stuff like this...they assumed, and you know the rest.

[qazplm135]

13. and if it passes

moderates will decide that we don't need reconciliation right now, and not vote for it.

[FBaggins]

19. No... it will just be much smaller

And possibly much later

[bluewater]

22. Or... the "moderates" will have to stop obstructng the President's agenda

If they lose the vote on 9/27.

The 9/27 vote is just an artificial deadline and all parties can continue to work for a compromise after that.

[PoliticAverse]

28. If there still has to be a "compromise" to Biden's agenda then someone must be obstructing it. n/t

[bluewater]

34. One side hasn't even stated what it is they actually want...i.e. the "moderates"

President Biden said as much at his press conference. He has been working tirelessly to pin them down on what eactly they want in the reconciliation bill, to no avail so far.

[PoliticAverse]

35. It's possible they want none of it. n/t

[qazplm135]

36. if the size was the issue

we'd be hearing the moderates putting forward their own version now.
It's not the price, it's the very idea.

And much smaller and much later is pretty useless.

[FBaggins]

38. Don't be silly

Their role was to empower the moderates in the Senate. That's where the action is.

Pelosi's strategy in the past was to help Schumer by passing a progressive bill in the House first... pressuring Manchin (and perhaps a couple of others) to get on board with an already-passed bill. The moderates in the House just had to keep that from happening. They'll sign on to whatever comes out of the Senate

[qazplm135]

40. nothing will come out of the Senate

there's ZERO reason for Manchin or Sinema to agree to anything once their bill is law.

Manchin will amp up talking about waiting, Sinema will continue "raising issues" and nothing will happen.

Moderates were already empowered, they had a link between their bill and the much larger caucuses bill.

They don't want to be empowered, they want to be the deal makers.

And progressives are going to be left holding nothing.

Which is indeed..."silly."

[FBaggins]

47. Sure there will

Manchin has already said that he'll support another trillion... perhaps as high as $1.5T. I take that as an opening position and they'll actually meet somewhere north of $2T.

If he wasn't open to some amount of democrats-only reconciliation, he could have just killed it a month ago (as could the moderates in the House). Then it would have been "my infrastructure bill or nothing at all... you choose"

Everything else in this debate has been around who had the leverage to move that final amount up or down.

[qazplm135]

49. the only thing he's said

is to toss that out. He says nothing else. What's he for? What's he against? What's the final number?
Biden literally asked him those questions, and still we have nothing.

And if this was just about negotiating, then we wouldn't have the insane push to vote for the bipartisan bill on Monday. We wouldn't have Sinema quoted as saying if the bipartisan bill fails, reconciliation is dead.

And if all of this is true, then why not delay the bipartisan bill until this is hashed out?

Guess what you don't have when the other bill is voted on and yours isn't?

[bluewater]

42. "Their role was to empower the moderates in the Senate." WHAT!!!!!

Ah, thanks for this admission.

So, according to this view, the "moderates" in the house were not negotiating in good faith about what should go into the reconciliation bill?

WOW, just wow.

"They'll sign on to whatever comes out of the Senate"

WOW, really!??!??! OH MY GOD.

So you are saying the "moderates" in the House will sign on to WHATEVER Manchin and Sinema force on the rest of the Democrats in the Senate?

GOOD LORD.

Have we REALLY been reduced to THIS? These two get to derail the President's agenda and we are all supposed to sit by and let that happen?

[FBaggins]

48. I don't see any "admission" in there. It was clear a month ago

Heck... it was clear when the Senate passed the "bipartisan" bill in the first place.

As for "good faith" - you keep imagining some commitment to pass both bills together. That was a "commitment" between Pelosi and House progressives (basically between Pelosi's right hand and left hand). IOW, there was no deal at all. Just an agreed-upon strategy by those who didn't like Manchin's counter-strategy.

The House moderates never signed on to such a deal. All they agreed to was to allow the reconciliation process to begin. They never said that they would support whatever came out the other end. Let alone that they were linked.

[bluewater]

51. So the intention by "moderates" was ALWAYS to obstruct the President's agenda?

Last edited Fri Sep 24, 2021, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

That's an eye-opening admission and I hope that you are wrong when you insist:

"The House moderates never signed on to such a deal."

This could explain the President's falling poll numbers and why polls show we Democrats would lose control of the House if the election was today. Voters are starting to believe that President Biden will not be able to have Democrats deliver on his promises by enacting his agenda.



That said, I think that Speaker Pelosi's and Majority Leader Schumer's public statements on the linkage of passing both the infrastructure and reconciliation bills clearly show that both felt a consensus had been reached.

Regardless, continued obstruction of President Biden's agenda, and the Speaker's and Majority Leader's efforts to enact it, by a handful of "moderates" is worse than counter productive, it's politically suicidal.

[FBaggins]

66. No more so than I think that his intention was to obstruct theirs

Last edited Sat Sep 25, 2021, 09:15 AM - Edit history (1)

They were all elected with their own platforms. The things that a president can get when he has 56 Senate seats and 250 House seats are very different from what he can get when a single vote switch can sink an entire package.

This could explain the President's falling poll numbers

That's ridiculously backwards. A president's poll numbers influence his ability to persuade politicians that his "coat tails" can be of use to them. One of the reasons that they're trying to press the bills through right away is because that's usually when presidents have the most political capital to spend.

That said, I think that Speaker Pelosi's and Majority Leader Schumer's public statements on the linkage of passing both the infrastructure and reconciliation bills clearly show that both felt a consensus had been reached.

That's even more ridiculous. When the president even hinted at that three months ago, it shut the entire process down. There's no question that Pelosi/Schumer agreed with progressives (i.e., themselves) that this would be the strategy. But there was never any sign that moderates agreed to it.

[bluewater]

76. *cough* The two bills remain linked despite a few "moderates" obstructing passage.

That 9/27 vote on the infrastructure bill isn't even going to occur because it would have lost.

The fact remains that President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Schumer and the vast bulk of Democrats in Congress always viewed the passage of both bills as being linked and vital to advancing the Democratic Party's programs, the protestations of a few "moderates" who decided to obstruct president Biden's "Build Back Better" agenda notwithstanding.

Go figure.

[FBaggins]

78. That *cough* didn't age well, did it?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215901044

[bluewater]

79. How can we tell for sure? *cough* a vote on 9/27 was "guaranteed" too, wasn't it?

Seriously, I really hope that all parties can agree on a framework going forward for passage of both bills; passage doesn't have to be simultaneous, but I can't See the Progressive Caucus passing the infrastructure bill without ironclad assurances.

Can that be accomplished by Thursday? Time will tell.

I would not be surprised if this Thursday vote also gets postponed, cancelling the 9/27 vote has set a precedent.

On the other hand, I would also not be surprised to hear a public announcement from all sides on the final scope of the Reconciliation Bill expediting a vote on the infrastructure bill.

[bluewater]

80. That *cough* aged VERY WELL... lol

In A Win For Progressives, Nancy Pelosi Raises The Bar For Infrastructure Vote
Source: Huffington Post

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested Wednesday that Democrats need to agree among themselves on the text of a major budget bill before the House can vote on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. Her comments appeared to raise the bar for an infrastructure bill to move forward, making it far less likely a vote will occur on Thursday as planned.

Progressive Democrats in the House have threatened to withhold their votes from the infrastructure bill until the House and Senate also pass the Build Back Better bill, which contains major Democratic priorities on paid leave and child care.

In response to a question about the progressive threat, Pelosi implied there does need to be an agreement on “legislative language” for the budget bill in order for the infrastructure vote to occur. “I think that we come to a place where we have agreement in legislative language ― not just principal ― in legislative language that the president supports,” Pelosi said Wednesday.

Centrist Democrats have insisted the House pass the infrastructure bill this week, and a vote has been tentatively scheduled for Thursday. Party leaders have said they would pass the infrastructure bill in tandem with the budget, but in the past week Pelosi’s commitment seemed to waver, and progressives have insisted they would tank the infrastructure bill if the vote happened.

Asked Wednesday if she was specifically saying there had to be an agreement on budget bill text before the infrastructure vote, Pelosi said she wanted the two things done “simultaneously.”

Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-infrastructure-budget_n_61547db9e4b075408bd1c326

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Any bets that Gottheimer will move to delay the vote?

The Sabotage Squad will probably make the rounds of the Sunday shows and try to craft a media narrative that “the spoiled progressives are going to ruin everything” by supporting Biden’s two-track process…

And when that doesn’t work, and the progressives stand firm, I wouldn’t be surprised if Gottheimer asks to delay the vote, and claims they are making real progress on the reconciliation bill, so the vote on the bipartisan bill can wait…

[OnDoutside]

15. He already was doing that on MJ.

[Budi]

3. I'll trust Speaker Pelosi. Her successful guide, "Count the Votes" has not failed her.

[PoliticAverse]

7. Does that mean you think it will pass Monday? n/t

[bluewater]

9. I can't see Speaker Pelosi putting it to a vote if it will lose.

We'll have to wait till 9/27 to see if a vote is actually held and the outcome.

But what do I know.

[Hortensis]

45. Yes, she's famous for not bringing bills to vote if she doesn't have them.

But the cray-cray of this era is infectious.

Congressional Democrats, always liberal, are able to be more their true liberal selves now than ever, including Biden, since they can't gain anything by reaching agreements with the Republicans. Yet it's looking like some of th people in the progressive caucus new to this big arena may not realize that and are unable to value this moment in history. It certainly makes me nervous when people who need both feet set ready to take historically progressive steps are weeping and melting down over something that can't be included instead.

[PoliticAverse]

52. Except she wants this vote to fail as it goes against her plan. n/t

[Hortensis]

61. Well, she's very new to this, and that'd include having a "plan," but

there are many around to help her, including Nancy and Biden. I just hope we're seeing her version of playing strong -- not inadequacy and irrationality. and the kind of radical willingness to flip a coin with America's future that a key few displayed in 2016.

We fully intend to someday come through with our promises to the Dreamers AND to the millions of children and families whose lives are being transformed by the child tax credit, a planet that desperately needs us to commit big time to the battle against climate change, and many others. Just hope she's as committed.

[PoliticAverse]

65. Actually my "she wants this vote to fail" was referring to Pelosi...

since having this vote wasn't her desired plan.

[PoliticAverse]

6. Are Republicans still whipping against the bill? Are there more than 5 House Republicans in support?

[WHITT]

10. Yepper

The GQP is whipping against.

[qazplm135]

11. So is telling half your base to suck it up

we need both bills, and we should delay the vote so that both bills can pass.

The only reason to force the bipartisan bill to a vote is to make the reconciliation bill easily opposed.

If the roles were reversed and the bipartisan bill was being held up but the reconciliation bill was about to go forward, moderates and centrists would be saying the exact same thing, and they'd be right.

[WHITT]

16. Rep. Jayapal

sez they only need a few more weeks to finish reconciliation bill. The anti-worker, anti-consumer, corporate Senate Repub bill got delayed by MONTHS.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

53. Anti worker?

That's the second time you've thrown that out. If there's something anti-worker about it please elaborate because you're the only one I've heard make that claim.

[WHITT]

64. Yep

Second time? I've lost count how many times over the past few months.

The bill promotes and funds corporate welfare they call 'public/private partnerships', where they build roads, but charge tolls that workers all over the country will have to pay to the corporations on their way to work and again on their way back home, for the rest of their lives, build bridges and charge tolls that workers all over the country will have to pay to the corporations on their way to work and again on their way back home, for the rest of their lives.

That's only one small aspect of the numerous negatives in the bill:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215773168#post66

And there's even more negatives than that.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

20. I want both bills too but I also believe all or nothing is a losing proposition

Jayapal is from a safe district. She won't lose if nothing gets done. Many other people will.

[bluewater]

25. It's not "Now or never". The 9/27 vote is an artificial deadline.

All sides can reach a compromise and after that date and pass both bills.

[qazplm135]

41. that too

we could simply delay, and get both, so why folks are against that would seem to be because they don't want both.

[bluewater]

44. Exactly

That has become quite clear.

[qazplm135]

39. most of the moderates opposing are from safe districts too

that argument is a red herring, particularly in the House.

And those moderates STILL have progressives in their districts they need to turn out for them.

All or nothing IS a losing proposition, it's just you don't seem to realize that in this case it's moderates win, progressives pound sand, and if you want the whole party working together to win everywhere...that's a losing proposition.

The simplest answer is to postpone the bipartisan bill until we have some sort of resolution on the reconciliation bill and pass them together. Progressive have been willing to do that, moderates have not, and you are rewarding the latter for reasons I don't understand if you say you want both bills passed.

Moderates ain't voting for a reconciliation bill if they have the bipartisan bill. They ain't. There is zero reason for them too. It won't help them in their districts, it could hurt a little bit, that was the point of progressives agreeing to the bipartisan bill, to cover them there. They now appear to want the cover and leave progressives out to lunch.

That's a formula for a party at war with itself and that rarely leads to wins.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

55. Wow.

We are going to have a hard enough maintain the majority as it is. If we deliver nothing I guarantee we'll lose.

The all or nothing is what Jayapal is threatening.

[bluewater]

57. Wow, If we obstruct the PRESIDENT'S AGENDA, we will lose.

A handful of "moderates" should not be able to block what the President, and the entire Democratic Leadership in Congress and the bulk of all elected democrats in Congress are trying to accomplish.

Look, the Presidents approval rating is now at 43%. If the election were held today polls show we would lose the House.

I think, in large part, this is due to Republicans and a small handful of "moderate" Democrats blocking president Biden's agenda.

IMHO, this has to stop.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

58. Don't disagree but half a loaf is better than.

[bluewater]

59. Passing ONLY watered down bills that Republicans can also claim credit for....

isn't half a loaf.

It's a 100% guarantee that the rThugs take control of the House in 2022.

Guaranteed.

They will claim they held the line on "wasteful Democratic spending" while providing "real" infrastructure improvements.

How does that help us as democrats when over half of that infrastructure bill was already gutted in the Senate? In it's weakened form, it will do much less to improve the economy, and if any degree of improvement is made, the Republicans will take credit for it claiming they made it "cost effective".

I can see all the attack ads already.

[qazplm135]

63. why do you keep pushing this false dichotomy

Monday is an arbitrary deadline. Are you saying moderates won't vote for anything if the vote is delayed a few weeks??

[qazplm135]

62. our way or nothing is what the moderates are threatening

the idea that one side is playing team ball and the other isn't is ridiculous.

Moderates can easily play team ball by postponing the arbitrary Monday deadline so both bills pass.

Why do you have a problem with that? Why do they?

Probably because some don't actually want both bills to pass, just the one they favor.

I "guarantee" if you don't have progressives on board, we lose too. And if you think they'll take getting told to pound sand and then turn out to vote, you're crazy.

Tell you what, if progressives had the reconciliation bill ready to go, and the bipartisan bill was being held up by progressives, you'd be complaining about that to high heaven, you'd be saying delay the reconciliation bill.

[FBaggins]

67. As are the progressives

Why do you have a problem with that? Why do they?

I don't think that they have a problem with that. The fight is over what is contained in that second bill and what gets cut. Moderates are willing to threaten that we get nothing at all if they don't get the cuts they want... and progressives are also willing to threaten that we get nothing at all if they don't get everything they want.

Both sides recognize that they're going to lose some of what they want. How much they lose depends on how the vote on the first bill goes. If it passes, moderates have more leverage over what remains. If it fails than progressives have more leverage.

[qazplm135]

68. Lol

They absolutely do have a problem with that. The demand is to have the vote and pass it Monday. There's no point in continuing when you deny basic facts.

[FBaggins]

69. Sorry if that wasn't clearer

I didn't mean that moderates don't "have a problem" with a proposal that they should unilaterally disarm. I meant that nobody has a problem seeing through that transparent attempt to gain leverage (as was clear from my second paragraph).

[qazplm135]

70. How is

Delaying until both bills can pass unilaterally disarming? You're just spinning out words at this point.

[FBaggins]

71. This really isn't complex

Imagine a bill with ten things in it that progressives want (ranked from least to most progressive - but all democratic policies). But they don't have the votes to get it passed... but moderate democrats support things 1-6. The bill is intentionally written this way because 7-10 couldn't pass on their own even without a filibuster.

In a normal world, it might get debated for months with one side saying "hey... why don't we at least pass all the things we all agree on?" and the other side saying "we're not stupid... without tying 7-10 to 1-6, we would never get 7-10". and they would probably end up agreeing on 1-8.

Now enter two critical factors - the filibuster and the tightest legislative margins in history. The moderates realize that there are almost as many republicans as democrats and they say "the president promised to work across the aisle and there are some things that both parties agree on" (though some progressives disagree) "let's put 1,2 and 3 together with -1, -2, and -3 and show the world that we can be bipartisan." and that quickly gets passed without worrying about the filibuster because republicans are willing to trade 1-3 for -1 through -3.

That leaves the initial bill with only 4-10... with progressives still wanting all of them, but moderates only wanting three of the seven. That means that the new compromise position might just include 5/6/7. Because progressives can no longer threaten to deny moderates 1-6... but only 4-6. They don't have as much to trade.

By letting the compromise pass the Senate, progressives lose a big piece of leverage. By passing it before there was even a reconciliation structure passed in the House, they gave moderates more control over the process. That's leverage that they would give up if they allowed a delay.

Why would they do that without getting anything in return?

Now the question becomes what the republicans think their chances are of killing both bills. If they don't think that Manchin (etc.) will hold firm... they may provide the votes to pass the infrastructure bill over CPC objections. Which would then put the CPC in the position of voting "yes" and pretending they're team players who will trust the moderates. It they think the entire thing might fall apart, they might take the risk of letting the CPC kill the bill - in the hopes that moderates will revolt and allow nothing to pass.

The key to this entire puzzle is understanding why progressives don't want the vote to even occur. If they had nothing to fear, why would they care if a vote comes up that they expect to win? Obviously, they aren't sure that the vote will fail.

[qazplm135]

72. And by passing the bill moderates gain leverage

really weird why you only seemed concerned with one sides motivations.

Also, no not everything in the bipartisan bill are things that progressives want, nor is everything in there a democratic priority.

Everything you've tried to analogize this to is skewed and wrong. It's downright disingenuous.

The bipartisan bill was not something progressives wanted, and the reconciliation bill isn't really something moderates want.

The whole point was that EACH would get what they wanted by tying the two SEPARATE bills together.

You keep trying to rewrite history, and twist what is going on in a way to make this all about progressives.

This is a pointless exercise. I'm done wasting my time.

[FBaggins]

73. It's leverage that they've had all along

Else the infrastructure bill never would have gotten off the ground. Heck... the leverage was clear all the way back in January.

Also, no not everything in the bipartisan bill are things that progressives want

That was in the example above. That’s measures -1/-2/-3 that moderates gave republicans in exchange for their support.

The whole point was that EACH would get what they wanted by tying the two SEPARATE bills together

That was the initial example. 1-10 includes some things that all Democrats support and some that only the progressives wanted. Progressives wanted to use things that moderates wanted to entice them to accept things they didn’t want. But progressives don’t have the votes to get those on their own. If they had, there would have just been a single reconciliation bill

[bluewater]

77. It's "leverage" they never really had, apparently.

The insistence by a few "moderates" that the infrastructure bill be passed today has gone up in smoke; that vote has been cancelled and for good reasons.

President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Schumer and the vast bulk of Democrats in Congress have always said that passage of both bills were linked, and they remain so.

Now it's time for all Democrats to negotiate in good faith and pass both the infrastructure bill and a strong reconciliation bill and to STOP OBSTRUCTING President Biden's "Build Back Better" agenda.

[rpannier]

75. The original bill was greater than 3.5

They came down about 40%
Now that 'moderates' want it to come down again (which would be anywhere from a total of 2/3 to 5/6)
At what point are the moderates expected to give?
What are people like Jaypal cast in the bad light?
From my perspective, she is not the all-or-nothing person.
She (and her allies) have given
Maybe the moderates should accept the 3.5 this time and both will pass

[WHITT]

14. But

All or nothing is a losing proposition

Caving to the corporate Dems is a losing proposition.

[drray23]

17. hopefully it does not pass.

and the speaker is putting it up for a vote to show moderates that both bills have to be linked and passed together as was originally agreed.

if it passes you can kiss goodbye to the reconciliation package which has the Bulk of Biden's agenda. Moderate democrats will just take the same position Manchin is taking in the senate and say we need a "pause" and that bipartisan bill is enough.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

23. I hope not

I'm sick of this purity game where nothing gets done.

[bluewater]

29. A handful of obstructionists should not be able to hamstring the President's agenda

It take both sides to reach a compromise, and yet one side ( The "moderates" ) still has not stated what exactly they want in the reconciliation bill.

Time for them to talk straight and let things get done, right?

[PoliticAverse]

54. You could argue one senator shouldn't either but that's what happens when the Senate is 50-50. n/t

[bluewater]

60. True. It's even worse when two Senators are obstructing the President's agenda.

And one seems more unreasonable than the other.

[awesomerwb1]

31. Not a fan of her

Or any Dem who believes in all or nothing ("my way otherwise the establishment/corporate Dems cheated!!&quot .

[mcar]

43. Pelosi has never lost a vote

I highly doubt she'd bring it to the floor if she didn't have the votes.

[PoliticAverse]

56. This vote failing would be a win for her. n/t

[andym]

74. Sometimes a failure is needed to succeed later

and this is clearly the strategy. Sends a message to the Senate as well.