Note that this does not lock Manchin in to supporting the final reconciliation bill that is brought to the Senate floor under the budget resolution, just that he's supporting the resolution itself that contains the reconciliation instructions to the various committees.
The budget res only instructs to committees to return legislation within (wide) parameters (example in screenshot). The actual size of the package and its details are TBD, and can/will include negotiations and, of course, require a maj vote in Senate.
Every indication is that Manchin wants to get to yes, which means (1) he'll almost certainly vote for the final package; (2) he'll have a lot of negotiating leverage over its size and components. All still TBD.
And of course this is true for any Senator in the coalition supporting the budget resolution. Manchin just has a much more credible threat to reject a final deal, giving him more leverage, especially if there are no GOP votes.
Here's a good reconciliation primer from CRS. If you are interested in procedural aspects of the budget act and reconciliation process, some good starter follows are @mollyereynolds, @bindersab, and @joshHuder.
It was wild. Maybe 3/4 Yankees fans there and 1/4 Mets fans. Huge collective gasp, then about a 2 second pause, and then dozens of screaming matches started all around me. At one point, some guy gave me the move where you put your hand under your chin and flick it at someone.
I remember driving back home to Upstate, me and a buddy, listening to WFAN, Tony on the overnight, and he opened the show with I DON’T WANT ANY CALLS ABOUT ANYTHING BUT THIS CLEMENS PIZZA DEAL SO DON’T EVEN BOTHER WE’RE GOING STRAIGHT THROUGH ON THIS ALL NIGHT.
With many norms crumbling in the face of ever-increasing partisanship on Capitol Hill, it's worth pointing out ones that are not: POTUS cabinet nominees aren't barely skating by on party-line votes, they're sailing through with massive supermajorities.
That's not particularly surprising (at least it isn't to me); a sense that POTUS should have the ideological team he wants, so long as they are neutrally competent, still pervades executive nomination politics. A massive number or executive noms go by voice, or with 80+ votes.
But I think it probably surprises a lot of people, who have (not unreasonably) taken to thinking that partisanship is an overwhelming driver of vote position in Congress across all areas of legislative life.
That's not quite yet true on the executive nominations front.
A bunch of different people have brought up family Bibles today, so here are some pics I just had my mom take of ours, including birth records back to the 1860s, and a temperance pledge page!
These pics don’t really capture the heft of that beast. It’s probably 9x12 inches, and it easily weighs 10 pounds.
Not sure what year it was produced, it’s clearly from my mom’s maternal grandmother’s family (Dum), my great-grandmother is Mary Elizabeth Dum, born 1883 as listed on the births page.
This isn’t that surprising. The Trump rallies are unified around Trump, and he quite obviously gave up last week. No one wants to stand around protesting in the cold for no discernible reason. Loud voices on the internet do not automatically translate into well-attended rallies.
There are only two regular events that bring the whole of the United States government together, the annual State of the Union Address, and the quadrennial inauguration. They are very different events, and reflect very different qualities of our Constitutional system.
I’ve written at length about the State of the Union, and how it is the singular event that most reflects the intentions of the Constitution: the president, coming to the Capitol, to ask the representatives of the people to enact laws he thinks are good.
The quadrennial inauguration is different. In some ways, it’s *not* reflective of our constitution; at times, it can feel more like a coronation of a monarch than any feature of a republic.
As we inaugurate a new president and begging a new administration, my regular reminder that the president is not the legislator-in-chief. We have a perfectly capable Congress—indeed a better institution—for that job.
The president’s job is much tougher: governing. 1/
The primary job of the president is to govern. That is, to implement and execute American foreign policy that he is largely responsible for designing, and to use executive discretion to sensibly administer domestic policy set in broad strokes by Congress.
Of course POTUS is involved in designing the domestic policy. He has both the veto and a strong position from which to be a leader.
But executives aren’t vital to legislating. They are absolutely vital to governing, from crisis scenarios to mundane policy execution.