US Politics: Roe, Roe, Roe you’re gone? (Hope not)

[A Horse Named Stranger]

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

ETA:  But hey, if they can actually get a substantive (e.g. Manchin's compromise from over the summer) voting rights bill cleared through the Senate - meaning it actually will become law - that's a tradeoff I will gladly take.  Understand others may disagree, but I think that's the most important bill.

I am not sure. But if Biden's agenda gets effectively killed by Manchin, and democrats lose at the next GE (which I consider a distinct possibiliry), then what's gonna stop the Grand Fascist Party to undo those voting rights protection? Surely not McConnel's deep rooted believe in Democracy.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I am not sure. But if Biden's agenda gets effectively killed by Manchin, and democrats lose at the next GE (which I consider a distinct possibiliry), then what's gonna stop the Grand Fascist Party to undo those voting rights protection?

Well, the GOP wouldn't be able to undo the bill legislatively until after the 2024 elections.  That's two cycles where the bill will be in place (barring court battles) - including, most importantly, the 2024 election itself.  That's worth it to me.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Isn't that kinda too optimistic. Mid-terms gonna suck with the tnthusiasm gap and all. Isn't there a more likely the scenario that either the house or the senate will fall. So that's gonna be two bad obstructive years, before 2024. And you just hope Democrats can pull it off regardless.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Isn't that kinda too optimistic. Mid-terms gonna suck with the tnthusiasm gap and all. Isn't there a more likely the scenario that either the house or the senate will fall.

Even if the Dems lose both chambers next year Biden would still veto any repeal.  It's not optimistic, it's just simply a fact the GOP can't repeal the bill legislatively until winning the presidency (unless, I suppose, both Biden and Harris died and Speaker McCarthy became president). 

Moreover, repealing an extant law is significantly different than blocking a bill from becoming law.  Collins, Murkowski, and McCain all opposed the passage of the ACA, but they also voted against its repeal.  It would be very difficult for the Senate GOP to repeal the law, especially considering it will almost certainly be considerably more popular than the ACA.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

Even if the Dems lose both chambers next year Biden would still veto any repeal.  It's not optimistic, it's just simply a fact the GOP can't repeal the bill legislatively until winning the presidency (unless, I suppose, both Biden and Harris died and Speaker McCarthy became president). 

 

I obviously meant after Biden heading into an election defeat after a 2 year standstill (legislatively).

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

Moreover, repealing an extant law is significantly different than blocking a bill from becoming law.  Collins, Murkowski, and McCain all opposed the passage of the ACA, but they also voted against its repeal.  It would be very difficult for the Senate GOP to repeal the law, especially considering it will almost certainly be considerably more popular than the ACA.

That I could buy into to some degree. However the ACA having real world impact on both Democrat and Republican voters make it a different beast to something less tangible likesay voting rights - which will impact Democrat voters way more.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, Kalsandra said:

From what I've read that may be pessimistic. They're realizing that they can't get it done for this period and are working on something that has a chance. 

I personally do think it is dead, but not because of this - but because Manchin simply doesn't want it at all. All he's doing is running out the clock so it can look like negotiations just didn't finish, but at the end of the day he got what he wanted and dems have zero leverage with him now. 

My relatively well-informed sources think it is dead in its current form.  Here's what I'm hearing:

• Any tax reform applicable to 2021 is functionally dead.  Compliance forms (i.e., 1099s, W-2s etc.) are due Jan. 31, and people will be making investment decisions this year.  While technically possible to make retroactive changes, it's politically and practically nearly impossible.
• Tax reform proposals applicable to 2022 are more palatable and possible.  As a practical matter, they would really need to be in place by 3/1 to be retroactive to 1/1 (but again, technically possible).     
• What is more likely to happen is that a very skinnied down version, extending popular programs like the child credit, is likely to pass in the last two weeks of January so that it can be touted during the State of the Union.  Everything else will be scrapped because of the inability to reach compromise on key points.

But who knows.   I will say, really smart money said that if they didn't get it done before August it wouldn't happen, and look where we are....

[DMC]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I obviously meant after Biden heading into an election defeat after a 2 year standstill (legislatively).

Biden is looking at a 2 year legislative standstill basically no matter what.  Major/controversial bills (other than the budget) do not get passed in the last two years of the president's term.  So, I guess I just don't view that as a relevant factor on Biden/the Dems (re)election chances in 2024.

3 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That I could buy into to some degree. However the ACA having real world impact on both Democrat and Republican voters make it a different beast to something less tangible than voting rights - which will impact Democrat voters way more.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Making it easier to vote is very popular among all voters - and obviously impacts them equally, not just Democrats.  You're right that healthcare is a more salient issue than voting rights, but that could be used as an argument for the GOP wouldn't repeal the law just as much as an argument for why they would.

Finally, under this scenario, the GOP will have just won a trifecta in the 2024 elections.  That really takes the wind out of the sails for the GOP irt claiming the voting rights bill helped the Dems "cheat" to victory.  That's not how the right/Trump's grievance politics works.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

• Any tax reform applicable to 2021 is functionally dead.  Compliance forms (i.e., 1099s, W-2s etc.) are due Jan. 31, and people will be making investment decisions this year.  While technically possible to make retroactive changes, it's politically and practically nearly impossible.
• Tax reform proposals applicable to 2022 are more palatable and possible.  As a practical matter, they would really need to be in place by 3/1 to be retroactive to 1/1 (but again, technically possible).     
• What is more likely to happen is that a very skinnied down version, extending popular programs like the child credit, is likely to pass in the last two weeks of January so that it can be touted during the State of the Union.  Everything else will be scrapped because of the inability to reach compromise on key points.

First, Pelosi quickly stated she would try make the bill retroactive if they do it in time.  And even if they can't, that obviously doesn't necessarily mean the entire bill is dead.  Second, Pelosi already stated she's not going to pursue passing the child credit on its own.  It doesn't make much sense to try anyway since that's one of the things Manchin has a problem with in the first place.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Meant to say less tangible likesay voting rights. Then the sentence makes more sense. Will edit it right after this response.

Either way, after the 2016 election, he still kept on whining about the election being rigged. That genie is not going back into the bottle. So I don't think them winning the trifecta would mean for them to stop going after voting rights. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Either way, after the 2016 election, he still kept on whining about the election being rigged. That genie is not going back into the bottle. So I don't think them winning the trifecta would mean for them to stop going after voting rights. 

I never said it would get Trump to stop whining.  Clearly, nothing will.  What I said is it makes his supporters - and consequently his members in Congress - a lot less likely to care about repealing the law.

[DMC]

In the most random news of the day, Biden has nominated Michelle Kwan as Ambassador to Belize.

To be clear, the random part is to Belize - Kwan does have a history as a diplomatic envoy.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Like I said, Manchin's compromise bill is perfectly fine, so this isn't a debate on substance, it's about whether to do a carve out.

The bill has a lot of good top line items, but the actual enforcement of some of them seems unclear to me. As of right now I worry it’s too little too late, and we still don’t know if it will pass. It’s impact on 2022 might not be that substantial, and even if it is I don’t know if it will bail Democrats out in the midterms. After that, assuming Republicans retake Congress, good luck in 2024 following the chaos that will be the two years leading up to it.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The bill has a lot of good top line items, but the actual enforcement of some of them seems unclear to me. As of right now I worry it’s too little too late, and we still don’t know if it will pass. It’s impact on 2022 might not be that substantial, and even if it is I don’t know if it will bail Democrats out in the midterms. After that, assuming Republicans retake Congress, good luck in 2024 following the chaos that will be the two years leading up to it.

I don't know what "enforcement" problems are unclear to you.  As for its impact on 2022, well, one of the reasons Dems are pushing for it now is because the redistricting/gerrymandering provisions would need to be passed pretty soon before states finalize their maps.  The policy impact of the bill on elections for 2022, or any cycle, obviously remains to be seen, but it'd be the same.  If, OTOH, you mean will passing the bill impact the Dems attracting more voters, no I don't think so (but I don't think so for the passage of the reconciliation bill either). 

As for the Republicans winning the midterms having a negative effect on Biden's reelection chances, there's very intuitive and well-founded reasons the opposite may be true.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know what "enforcement" problems are unclear to you. 

Take the 30 min wait time cap for example. How is that going to be enforced in red counties/districts/states?

Quote

If, OTOH, you mean will passing the bill impact the Dems attracting more voters, no I don't think so (but I don't think so for the passage of the reconciliation bill either). 

It's not exactly what I was getting at, but I actually do think it passing would help turn out the vote, though I can't say if it would more so than BBB. A lot of people supported Dems with the assumption that they'd do something on voting rights and delivering nothing will likely lead to a lot of people staying home imo. 

Quote

As for the Republicans winning the midterms having a negative effect on Biden's reelection chances, there's very intuitive and well-founded reasons the opposite may be true.

Biden's approval right now isn't great. There's a real risk that he's unable to deliver much else outside of what has to pass for the remainder of this Congressional term, and nothing will happen after that if Dems lose control of either chamber of Congress. Biden's approval will probably still be in the low to mid 40's in 2024 and if Republicans nominate a good candidate he may face a serious uphill battle. Thankfully Trump's looming threat of running is hurting other potential candidates right now (I don't think he'll run unless Biden looks incredibly weak).

[Mlle. Zabzie]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

First, Pelosi quickly stated she would try make the bill retroactive if they do it in time.  And even if they can't, that obviously doesn't necessarily mean the entire bill is dead.  Second, Pelosi already stated she's not going to pursue passing the child credit on its own.  It doesn't make much sense to try anyway since that's one of the things Manchin has a problem with in the first place.

I hear all that.  I'm just passing on what I'm hearing from my (pretty well connected on the tax side) sources.  The tax increases, if they pass, almost certainly won't be retroactive to 2021.  And, while it is certainly possible for increases for 2022 to be retroactive to 1/1/2022, the further this goes into the year the harder that gets for LOTS of reasons.  Anyway, I guess we'll see?  I have at least four more weeks of my clients asking me "what is going to happen" like I actually know or something.

ETA:  apparently, Manchin is in favor of the child tax credit, but wants a permanent extension rather than a one year extension.  He is worried about how to pay for it, but thinks that could be some kind of bipartisan pipe dream compromise with the GOP?  Anyhow, the BBB is dead.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Take the 30 min wait time cap for example. How is that going to be enforced in red counties/districts/states?

Yeah the enforcement there would likely be of the fire alarm variety, but that's pretty low on the list of provisions I care about being codified.

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

nothing will happen after that if Dems lose control of either chamber of Congress.

Again, nothing significant is going to happen regardless of the midterm results.  The most recent example of any significant/controversial bill passing after the midterms is welfare reform in 1996, and that's a very bad example for a host of reasons.  The important aspect of retaining the Senate is to to continue to confirm judges at Biden's very impressive rate thus far.  Other than that, the most important elections in the midterms are probably the gubernatorial elections in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to ensure the GOP can't enact similar voter suppression bills in those states (although this would obviously be moot if the Dems passed a voting rights bill).

9 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I have at least four more weeks of my clients asking me "what is going to happen" like I actually know or something.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

59 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah the enforcement there would likely be of the fire alarm variety, but that's pretty low on the list of provisions I care about being codified.

I don't think it's just that one issue though. Need to go back and read another summary of the bill, but the last time I did my takeaway was there's a lot of good ideas in here, but I was not sold on how they could be enforced, and that's assume the feds wanted to.

Quote

Again, nothing significant is going to happen regardless of the midterm results.  The most recent example of any significant/controversial bill passing after the midterms is welfare reform in 1996, and that's a very bad example for a host of reasons.  The important aspect of retaining the Senate is to to continue to confirm judges at Biden's very impressive rate thus far.  Other than that, the most important elections in the midterms are probably the gubernatorial elections in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to ensure the GOP can't enact similar voter suppression bills in those states (although this would obviously be moot if the Dems passed a voting rights bill).

You're right, and I should have phrased that better. I'm not concerned about passing more legislation of significance, that wasn't in the cards unless the midterm results were completely atypical, but if Dems retained control they could at least hope to run the government in a functional way. If Republicans retake either chamber (or worse both) it's safe to guess that they'll try to completely fuck over Biden, no matter how much it hurts their supporters, and I doubt they'd be punished at all for it. They can do serious damage to him and a "not named Trump nominee" can largely skate over their terrible behavior. 

And on that note, I think this specific dumbass is going to be the one that does it:

 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't think it's just that one issue though. Need to go back and read another summary of the bill, but the last time I did my takeaway was there's a lot of good ideas in here, but I was not sold on how they could be enforced, and that's assume the feds wanted to.

I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about here.  The key provisions - e.g. a national early and mail voting standard; automatic and same-day registration; safeguards from partisan removal (or overruling) of legitimate election officials, as well as voting purges - would inherently be "enforced" by, well, the supremacy clause.

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If Republicans retake either chamber (or worse both) it's safe to guess that they'll try to completely fuck over Biden, no matter how much it hurts their supporters, and I doubt they'd be punished at all for it. They can do serious damage to him and a "not named Trump nominee" can largely skate over their terrible behavior. 

If the Republicans retake either chamber then at least that chamber would have a stake in actually governing.  It's completely counter-intuitive to think that would make them more likely to fuck with actual governance than when they're entirely in the minority/opposition like they are now.  We may be in for more shutdown battles and worse policy outcomes on the budget/CRs, but that's very unlikely to be bad politically for the Dems based on the very clear habit of the GOP overreaching when they retake Congress under a Dem president (an inclination that only increases along with their increased extremism and radicalization).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about here.  The key provisions - e.g. a national early and mail voting standard; automatic and same-day registration; safeguards from partisan removal (or overruling) of legitimate election officials, as well as voting purges - would inherently be "enforced" by, well, the supremacy clause.

And a state government in turn can not enforce them or find loopholes around, and they can do this in a number of ways before we even consider the courts. You're applying the past like the present is reflecting that. It isn't. 

Quote

If the Republicans retake either chamber then at least that chamber would have a stake in actually governing.  It's completely counter-intuitive to think that would make them more likely to fuck with actual governance than when they're entirely in the minority/opposition like they are now.  We may be in for more shutdown battles and worse policy outcomes on the budget/CRs, but that's very unlikely to be bad politically for the Dems based on the very clear habit of the GOP overreaching when they retake Congress under a Dem president (an inclination that only increases along with their increased extremism and radicalization).

It's also counter-intuitive to think that a victorious candidate would claim widespread voter fraud, but that's happening all over the country. 

There's a bare minimum threshold Republicans would need to meet, but that's it. Beyond that they can do whatever they'd like to kneecap Biden, even if it would hurt their own base. Just look at the reaction to those who voted in favor of the infrastructure bill. They were the responsible Republicans in this instance and they're also the ones receiving death threats from their constituents. Again, applying the past to guide your future in these times is like using a map from the 1950's to get from New York to LA in 2022. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And a state government in turn can not enforce them or find loopholes around, and they can do this in a number of ways before we even consider the courts. You're applying the past like the present is reflecting that. It isn't. 

No, it would immediately be "considered" by the courts.  If you think this SCOTUS is going to strike down such provisions that's another argument, but the way you're depicting this simply doesn't make sense and doesn't reflect reality.

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's also counter-intuitive to think that a victorious candidate would claim widespread voter fraud, but that's happening all over the country. 

I don't see how "victorious" GOP incumbents backing up Trump's lie is relevant.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There's a bare minimum threshold Republicans would need to meet, but that's it. Beyond that they can do whatever they'd like to kneecap Biden, even if it would hurt their own base. Just look at the reaction to those who voted in favor of the infrastructure bill. They were the responsible Republicans in this instance and they're also the ones receiving death threats from their constituents. Again, applying the past to guide your future in these times is like using a map from the 1950's to get from New York to LA in 2022. 

This is all a bunch of nonsense.  What, exactly, can they do to "kneecap" Biden other than shutdown the government - which NEVER works for them?  In terms of the GOP members that voted for infrastructure getting death threats, that only serves to demonstrate my point.  Those members are also the ones far more likely to win in competitive elections, so attacks from the right on them is beneficial to the Dems if you wanna look at it as a zero-sum game.

Finally, this notion that you can't use five to ten years ago as informative is just dumb - especially considering McConnell was the leader at that time.  Honestly, the best outcome electorally for the GOP would be for them to retake the Senate and lose the House (which is probably the least likely outcome, tbc).  McConnell clearly is not going to do anything too stupid - or at least try to make sure the House GOP doesn't do anything too stupid - as evidenced by his behavior throughout the past 11 months.  You could say McCarthy is further right and more likely to disrupt than Boehner, because he is, but again him making dumb political decisions to appease his right flank/Trump only serves to benefit the Dems politically.