US Politics: CPAC - Finding new ways to bring America to Rune.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Okay, a tiny bit of drama, Tuberville just had an amendment to ban transgender kids from youth sports. Manchin voted for it, but Murkowski voted against it so it still failed.

Eta: actually nevermind, this one was going to take 60 votes to pass, so it was a free vote for Manchin. But it does show where Republicans stand, including Collins apparently, which I'm a little surprised by. Good for Murkowski though.

With Murkowski, it's like if President Shinra was really pro transgender rights too.

[Fez]

In non- Senate or COVID bill news, LOL...

All about that grift. Trump wants to charge licensing fees for use of his name.

[Fury Resurrected]

51 minutes ago, Fez said:

Ever since gay rights got too widely accepted (even though they aren't as well enshrined as they need to be yet), Republicans needed to find a new "other" to demonize.

Also, I didn't see the Carlson thing, I never watch anything on Fox on principle, but the Asian thing could be the opposite. Republicans have been doing a full court press recently to attract Asian American voters. There's evidence that a lot of Asian American populations swung pretty hard towards Trump (comparatively) over concerns about rising crime rates and the belief that Democrats don't care enough about anti-Asian racism.

ETA: Another amendment just got adopted, and by voice vote too; it was Murkowski's to redirect $800 million in the bill away from school funding (out of $12.8 billion) and towards various wraparound social service programs for homeless children. 

I'd still be a bit surprised if Murkowski voted for final passage, there's going to be a lot of pressure from her colleagues to deny any bipartisan tag on the bill. But her interest in making that kind of substantive, rather than performative, change to the bill makes me wonder.

No, it’s still racist. There’s this whole weird “model minority” thing about Asian people as if they were monolithic and it is used to be like “see? BIPOC could pull themselves up by their bootstraps just like us and the Asians did!” I have also seen people bringing up Asian Americans’ perceived tendency to keep to themselves as an example of segregation of races being a good thing.

[Fez]

48 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

No, it’s still racist. There’s this whole weird “model minority” thing about Asian people as if they were monolithic and it is used to be like “see? BIPOC could pull themselves up by their bootstraps just like us and the Asians did!” I have also seen people bringing up Asian Americans’ perceived tendency to keep to themselves as an example of segregation of races being a good thing.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying I don't think its a dogwhistle to the racists right now, but rather a "Hey Asians! We love you, we swear, please vote for us."

 

Anyway, the Senate has passed the American Rescue Plan on a party line vote, 50-49. At $1.9 trillion it is the second largest stimulus bill in nominal dollars (the CARES Act last March was $2.2 trillion), and is almost double the GDP size of the 2009 stimulus (9.1% vs 5.5%). And while it is smaller than the CARES Act, it has the potential to have a much longer lasting impact. The expanded child tax credit, which is fully refundable (so people will get the difference if their tax bill isn't large enough to use the credit) is by far the largest effort to end child poverty in the US. It is supposedly temporary, but like all tax credits, it will probably be very hard to ever end. There's a ton of other really important provisions throughout the bill, $1.9 trillion is a huge amount of money after all.

Joe Manchin is an asshole. Thank god for Joe Manchin. Without him, McConnell would still be majority leader and none of this would've happened. And incredibly thanks to Stacey Abrams and everyone in Georgia who pulled off a run-off double miracle. And fuck the Biden/Collins voters in Maine who ensured that Joe Manchin was so indispensable. 

Now the House needs to pass the amended Senate bill, and hopefully before March 14 so there's no lapse in existing benefits for people.

[Mindwalker]

@Fez I only "watch" Fox when they come up in other people's YT shows, so at least I don't directly support them. I try to avoid it anyway because watching that stuff just as unproductive for me as doomscrolling. A mix of anger and wanting the human race to be annihilated...

The mention of Asians reminded me of these claims that whites are mre intelligent than AA, and see, that's totally not rascist, because Asians are even more intelligent than whites. See, just science! But I didn't know they are trying to pander to Asian Americans now.

 

[Jaxom 1974]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

In non- Senate or COVID bill news, LOL...

All about that grift. Trump wants to charge licensing fees for use of his name.

I look forward to the history books simply having a listing for, "Number 45" and just leaving it at that.  Anything that helps scour the name from normative practices...

[The Anti-Targ]

Interesting US minimum wage video.

I did not realise we had the 3rd highest minimum wage. Aussie #1.

That minimum wage to house price ratio is pretty crazy. To get back to the 1950 ratio the minimum wage would need to be $27/hr. But I think in most developed countries the minimum wage to house price ratio has been on a similar track, so it's not the best measure of how much the minimum wage specifically has eroded over time. Perhaps minimum wage vs rent would be a good measure.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

On 3/4/2021 at 4:22 PM, Fez said:

A lot actually. If not for the filibuster, the ACA almost certainly would've been repealed. If not the reconciliation rules causing the repeal bill to be such an unholy mess, McCain almost certainly voted for repeal.

Other bills House Republicans passed that probably would've passed the Senate if not for the filibuster, include::

• Repeal of Dodd-Frank
• Outlawing abortion nationwide after 20 weeks
• Gutting most remaining state gun control laws
• Expanding the criteria that allow the death penalty to apply in criminal cases

Fair enough! Doesn't change my overall position on the filibuster, and it seems like the vast majority of Senate Democrats now lean towards eliminating it too. 

In any case, I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised with what Biden and the Democrats have just passed. They went big with their initial proposal and didn't chase Republican votes. Manchin and others exacted baffling concessions that made the bill worse, but didn't totally cripple it. And they seem likely to pass a big infrastructure bill later in the year on a majority basis. The Democrats really seem to have learned something from '09. 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

At $1.9 trillion it is the second largest stimulus bill in nominal dollars (the CARES Act last March was $2.2 trillion), and is almost double the GDP size of the 2009 stimulus (9.1% vs 5.5%).

Yeah I think it should be noted how much of a political accomplishment passage of this bill is.  It is almost double the size of the 2009 stimulus by any metric - a booming death knell to the deficit hawks within the party.  Moreover, the final bill is virtually exactly the amount of Biden's initial proposal.  With not a vote to spare - and with Manchin determined to flex his outsized influence - that is very impressive. 

Further, the "concessions" to Manchin and moderate Dems were much more cosmetic/performative rather than substantive.  And while I rolled my eyes at Biden courting moderate republicans early on, perhaps that exercise - while similarly purely performative - helped maintain his "bipartisan" image that certainly does prop up his approval.  And it didn't delay the bill's passage, at least long enough to have any substantive effect.  The fact he's going to get this signed into law before March 14 while having to deal with impeachment - and not even having an organizing resolution until two weeks into his presidency - just makes it more impressive.

The only downside is the minimum wage hike.  It was baffling why he included it in the proposal in the first place and it remains baffling now.  It was always almost assured that the parliamentarian was going to rule against it, so I'm not sure what its inclusion served other than royally pissing off the left.  I guess it forced Manchin to publicly admit he is opposed to a $15 hike - thus demonstrating the Dems don't even have 50 votes anyway - but that hardly seems worth it.

Ironically, perhaps the upside was it satisfied Sanders and preserved the working relationship between the two.  But the cost is now he (as well as AOC/Omar) is aiming his fire at moderate Dems in his own caucus.  It does not seem wise to exacerbate that intraparty rift just to keep Sanders off your back - both politically and policywise.

[Mindwalker]

As for the fears of ricochet politics resulting from abolishing the filibuster, Ezra Klein discusses this here:

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ironically, perhaps the upside was it satisfied Sanders and preserved the working relationship between the two.  But the cost is now he (as well as AOC/Omar) is aiming his fire at moderate Dems in his own caucus.  It does not seem wise to exacerbate that intraparty rift just to keep Sanders off your back - both politically and policywise.

Joe is playing a clever game of 4d Chess. He wants to get AOC annoyed enough to primary Schumer and thus cleverly deposing of Chuck. All payback for voting against the Iran deal in 2015.

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

The only downside is the minimum wage hike.  It was baffling why he included it in the proposal in the first place and it remains baffling now.  It was always almost assured that the parliamentarian was going to rule against it, so I'm not sure what its inclusion served other than royally pissing off the left.  I guess it forced Manchin to publicly admit he is opposed to a $15 hike - thus demonstrating the Dems don't even have 50 votes anyway - but that hardly seems worth it.

I think it was a combo of House progressives demanding they get a high profile vote on raising the minimum wage (and a standalone bill would likely get ignored, since the media would assume its going nowhere in the senate), and a lack of certainty about the parliamentarian. There was a chance she was would rule it could stay in, and, if she had, maybe $15 wouldn't have flown, but perhaps the moderates would've been okay with $10 or $11. Or allow regional variation based on the GSA schedule or something. Any of those would've been getting than no increase at all, and it was worth taking the chance.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think it was a combo of House progressives demanding they get a high profile vote on raising the minimum wage (and a standalone bill would likely get ignored, since the media would assume its going nowhere in the senate), and a lack of certainty about the parliamentarian.

I really don't think this is true.  The high profile vote clearly doesn't help their cause either when it's tied to reconciliation - all it does is suggest less support than there actually is.

As for the parliamentarian, the chances were always very minimal whereas the chances Manchin would block a $15 hike anyway were always very high.  It's true they perhaps could have worked out a deal, but that would have bogged down the passage of the overall deal - almost certainly passed the March 14 deadline - and quite likely the moderate Dems would have demanded further (and more substantive) concessions.  In almost every respect, the downsides vastly outweigh any potential upside.

[IheartIheartTesla]

With all those amendments floating around, it would be odd not to have a $15 hike somewhere in the bill. My take is they (as in Sanders and co) knew it would fail, but just wanted to gauge the temperature among their fellow Democrats.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

With all those amendments floating around, it would be odd not to have a $15 hike somewhere in the bill.

True but that's fundamentally different than including it in the initial proposal - which is dangling it in front of progressives when in actuality Biden was clearly resigned to its fate and had no interest fighting for it.  I think it was a clear political mistake (and unforced error) that Biden and co. underestimated how pissed off the left was going to be at its omission - and more importantly who they were going to be pissed off at.

I also reject the notion that this really is a more "high profile" vote than a standalone bill.  The vote yesterday is obviously going to be overshadowed by the passage of the bill.  Whereas if they waited a month or so, the wage hike could have news cycles to itself, Biden could make a full-throated push for it, and the Senate could almost certainly reach a deal that would get 49 votes with something very close to Sanders' original proposal.  Then the anger can be directed where it belongs - at Republicans and Manchin.  This seems like a much better outcome than what happened for all involved.

[Mindwalker]

I agree it was unwise to include it in the bill unless you're willing to fight tooth and nails for it (like, bribe Manchin).

My impression has always been that Biden wasn't really terribly interested in the wage hike, and I thought maybe he included it as a bargaining chip with Republicans (still not realizing that they'll obstruct everything anyway, hoping for a bipartisan vote).

[Fez]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

I really don't think this is true.  The high profile vote clearly doesn't help their cause either when it's tied to reconciliation - all it does is suggest less support than there actually is.

As for the parliamentarian, the chances were always very minimal whereas the chances Manchin would block a $15 hike anyway were always very high.  It's true they perhaps could have worked out a deal, but that would have bogged down the passage of the overall deal - almost certainly passed the March 14 deadline - and quite likely the moderate Dems would have demanded further (and more substantive) concessions.  In almost every respect, the downsides vastly outweigh any potential upside.

 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

True but that's fundamentally different than including it in the initial proposal - which is dangling it in front of progressives when in actuality Biden was clearly resigned to its fate and had no interest fighting for it.  I think it was a clear political mistake (and unforced error) that Biden and co. underestimated how pissed off the left was going to be at its omission - and more importantly who they were going to be pissed off at.

I also reject the notion that this really is a more "high profile" vote than a standalone bill.  The vote yesterday is obviously going to be overshadowed by the passage of the bill.  Whereas if they waited a month or so, the wage hike could have news cycles to itself, Biden could make a full-throated push for it, and the Senate could almost certainly reach a deal that would get 49 votes with something very close to Sanders' original proposal.  Then the anger can be directed where it belongs - at Republicans and Manchin.  This seems like a much better outcome than what happened for all involved.

I disagree. Consider how little attention the voting rights bill or police reform bill that the House passed last week got. Bills just don't get much attention unless there's a real chance they might become law. Minimum wage was a big part of a lot of campaigns last year, and it was priority to a lot of members to make a very visible push for it.

 

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Fez said:

Consider how little attention the voting rights bill or police reform bill that the House passed last week got.

They don't get attention passing the House.  Hell, the House passed a minimum wage bill in July 2019.  But if Schumer takes up the bill and forces a cloture vote, that will get attention.  Especially if Biden uses the bully pulpit to highlight Republican obstructionism.  Same goes for HR1 and the Floyd bill for that matter.

[Fez]

15 hours ago, DMC said:

They don't get attention passing the House.  Hell, the House passed a minimum wage bill in July 2019.  But if Schumer takes up the bill and forces a cloture vote, that will get attention.  Especially if Biden uses the bully pulpit to highlight Republican obstructionism.  Same goes for HR1 and the Floyd bill for that matter.

Maybe. But those are all ifs, the COVID bill was a guarantee. Also, I think a cloture vote only gets attention if there's any possibility the filibuster is getting modified or eliminated.

 

And speaking of which, Manchin just gave a really important interview on the Meet the Press this morning, where he:

• Again reiterated that he will not support removing the filibuster. HOWEVER, he did say "If you want to make it a little bit more painful, make him stand there and talk, I'm willing to look at [it]." The talking filibuster has been a lesser reform being pushed for a while that, AFAIK, Manchin has never announced support for before.
• Said that he has no problem with party-line reconciliation votes, so long as there's genuine attempt at bipartisanship first. Which is great, since there's going to be another big one around infrastructure/climate later this year.
• Said that he was open to using reconciliation to pass an ethics and voting reform bill if a deal with Republicans can't get worked out.

That last point is particularly interesting, because it's pretty widely agreed that almost none of HR1 would survive under the current reconciliation rules. One possibility is that Manchin doesn't realize that, but I think he's smart enough that he does. Another possibility is that he's fine just passing whatever tiny amount of reforms could get through, although that would seem to belie his first two points, which make it sound like he wants to get a lot done this Congress. A third possibility would be that he's open to changing the rules around reconciliation to some extent; which is a big assumption still, but would be a huge relief.

[DMC]

43 minutes ago, Fez said:

Maybe. But those are all ifs, the COVID bill was a guarantee. Also, I think a cloture vote only gets attention if there's any possibility the filibuster is getting modified or eliminated.

?  The only two ifs were if Schumer brought a bill to the floor and if Biden would use the bully pulpit.  Both of those are virtually sure things too..if Biden employed that strategy instead.  Anyway, I don't really get your argument here - you're saying the media only pays attention if it has a real chance of becoming law, but the vote on the amendment didn't have any chance of passing; hell, it still required 60 votes - but whatever.

47 minutes ago, Fez said:

That last point is particularly interesting, because it's pretty widely agreed that almost none of HR1 would survive under the current reconciliation rules.

Yeah I haven't looked at it yet but that sounds like a pretty huge deal.  Of course, sounds like he couched it in language he can always renege on, but still.  "Ethics and voting reform" are two of the three prongs of HR1.  Another option, beyond what you mentioned, is simply he would be in favor of overruling the parliamentarian if, say, that's included in the next reconciliation bill.  That'd be pretty awesome.