Manchinometer a little greener today, per @GarrettHaake and @frankthorp: "My goodness, we're agreeing on childcare, we're agreeing on pre-K, we're agreeing on homecare...And we're working on climate very progressive, I think in a good way and we'll get something done I believe."
Manchin said he pointedly did not sign off on BBB framework because he had outstanding issues, but also emphasizing points of agreement. It's a little confusing, because if his concern about temporary programs is real then childcare/pre-k is a huge disagreement. But not clear yet
More on this: "Basically things that would run out in 10 years makes that a much more expensive piece of legislation than what we’re seeing it is right now. Maybe they’re thinking that it’ll just expire and nothing will be done or extended. I don’t know. We’re working through..."
So there's either some fundamental disagreement over the bill right now that would require potentially eliminating major chunks of it or they just need to dot some i's and t's on drugs and immigration. Guess we'll find out!
This runs into the whole Sinema issue, but seems like one obvious potential solution is keeping the framework spending and raising more revenue as a cushion/net deficit reducer. There's still lots of ways to do it IF you can get her to sign off.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
. @MattBruenig digs into the D's current child care plan, which boosts wages for workers, but doesn't add benefits for higher income families for the first 3 years. The danger is a huge short-term spike in child care prices for people who don't get aid. peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/10/20/dem…
A spox for HELP cmte responds to Bruenig: "The requirement to ensure workers are paid a living wage has a three-year phase in, similar to the benefit phase-in for parents. The spike in wages will mirror the increase in subsidies for families...."
"...during the transition years, there are quality and supply grants to support providers directly. Moreover, Brueing’s ‘solution’ is flawed, and will actually have the opposite of effect of what we are trying to accomplish..."
The one thing I'd mention is that there are huge broad political trends Shor is great at identifying, but the reason so many "this is what the next 10 years look like" predictions fail is that they're constantly overtaken by events.
Changes in party demographics have had a huge influence on what those parties want and do in office, for example. But electorally, they're small potatoes versus 9/11, Iraq, the Great Recession, COVID, even Afghanistan now, etc etc etc. And those events also remake the parties.
The most controversial part among R's of Mitch McConnell backing infrastructure is whether it helps or hurts Democrats trying to pass their $3.5T megabill.
The key q here is how likely R's think Manchin/Sinema are to kill it and under what circumstances. nbcnews.com/politics/congr…
The anti-deal take is shared by folks like Trump and Cruz and articulated here by @philipaklein. D's say the two bills are linked and must pass in tandem. If you pass one, you're triggering the other one. If you kill it, you might blow them all up. nationalreview.com/corner/joe-man…
R's got VERY excited, for example, when Manchin said this during talks
. @Nate_Cohn is right lack of resistance to Biden's economic agenda is a big deal. But I think even he undersells the scale of the policy, which may also affect the politics. It isn't just "infrastructure," it's climate, health care, education, taxes... nytimes.com/2021/07/20/us/…
In Obama era, the theory was presidents have a unique ability to focus on ONE big sweeping reform, barn storm the country gathering support, and tell Congress to hammer it out. That's how ACA worked. Biden is different....
D's seem to be almost borrowing from Trump's playbook of doing too many controversial things at once for opponents to focus on anything. Items that individually would be career-defining in past WH's like universal pre-K are afterthoughts right now that barely even get discussed.
In 2020, a handful of GOP officials in key roles stood up to an all-out campaign to throw out the election results and install Trump as president again.
. 46% of GOP support state legislatures overturning 2020 vote, per research by @leedrutman.
Once that’s on the table, you get to scary places real quick. For one it creates a perverse incentive to run a botched election in order to justify politicians deciding results later.
Deep dive by @JeffreyASachs into the anti-CRT bills and how — regardless of whether you agree with their core concerns — the legislative language could prevent teaching even basic history and concepts arcdigital.media/p/laws-aimed-a…
One thing I appreciate about @JeffreyASachs approach to this story is acknowledging that both A) there is a partisan political effort going on that's deliberately lumping a lot of stuff together under "CRT" and B) there IS an actual change here that people are reacting to.
Because "CRT" is deliberately used as a vague catch-all term to categorize and then demonize things its critics don't like, you get a muddled debate where elites are arguing 1970s academic texts and long-running philosophy debates and average people about something else.