Daily Archives: April 11, 2021

As President BidenJoe BidenBiden eyes bigger US role in global vaccination efforts Trump says GOP will take White House in 2024 in prepared speech Kemp: Pulling All-Star game out of Atlanta will hurt business owners of color MORE races ahead with a mammoth plan to bolster the nation's infrastructure, Democrats are gambling they'll get a political boost from an accompanying proposal: the tax hikes designed to defray the massive costs.

Biden on Wednesday outlined a slate of tax reforms aimed at raising $2.5 trillion much of it from large corporations to underwrite the new infrastructure spending. The proposal was quickly roasted by Republicans, who have long portrayed Democrats as the party of higher taxes and are now warning that Biden's plan would hurt small businesses and kill American jobs.

Yet national polls have consistently revealed that tax hikes on corporations and other wealthy taxpayers enjoy strong support among a broad array of voters, including independents. And some Democrats are practically drooling at the prospect of bringing that debate to the national stage to highlight the GOP's resistance to a popular concept.

If they fight the infrastructure bill over asking corporations to pay more in taxes, that's a total loser, Rep. John YarmuthJohn Allen YarmuthDemocrats see political winner in tax fight McConnell knocks Kentucky Democrat over support for nixing filibuster Democrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP MORE (D-Ky.), chairman of the Budget Committee, said this week in a phone interview.

It's just sort of a nonsense argument, and I think that's an indication of how vulnerable the Republicans are on this issue, he added. The issue sets up perfectly for those, like us, who are promoting significant investment in infrastructure and saying to major corporations, Since your businesses depend on infrastructure, you can do more to pay for it. "

The idea is hardly new. Democrats have sought for decades to close tax-avoidance loopholes enjoyed by corporations and other wealthy taxpayers, largely to no avail. And Republicans in 2017 were able to expand those benefits as part of former President TrumpDonald TrumpHarry Reid reacts to Boehner book excerpt: 'We didn't mince words' Man arrested for allegedly threatening to stab undercover Asian officer in NYC Trump says GOP will take White House in 2024 in prepared speech MOREs tax overhaul, which included a reduction in the corporate rate from 35 to 21 percent.

But after a year of turmoil caused by the coronavirus crisis when stocks soared but millions of low-income workers lost their jobs Democrats think the uneven economic impact of the pandemic has shifted public opinion enough in their favor to make the controversial tax hikes a political asset.

Indeed, a new Morning Consult/Politico survey found that 54 percent of voters support sweeping infrastructure improvements financed by tax hikes, including 73 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents.

When the biggest corporations evade taxes, or pay a net rate on the average of something like 7 or 8 percent, smaller businesses and individuals have to make up the difference, Rep. Dan KildeeDaniel (Dan) Timothy KildeeDemocrats see political winner in tax fight Lawmakers say manufacturers are in better position to handle future pandemics The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Biden to hit road, tout COVID-19 relief law MORE (D-Mich.), a senior member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, told The Hill. So I think that, as much as it is about pay-fors, it's also about tax fairness.

As ammunition, Democrats are pointing to a recent report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive think tank, which found that 55 of the nations largest corporations including Nike, FedEx and Salesforce paid no federal taxes in 2020 despite enormous pre-tax profits. In some cases, the companies received a substantial federal rebate.

The report was reminiscent of last years revelation that Trump, a self-proclaimed billionaire, had paid only $750 in federal income tax in both 2016 and 2017. Both reports have infuriated Democrats who are vowing to create a fairer system and all but daring Republicans to defend tax loopholes that favor the wealthy.

Freeways arent free. And corporate freeloaders like the 55 large profitable corporations who paid no federal income tax in 2020 should pay for the infrastructure and other services upon which they depend, Rep. Lloyd DoggettLloyd Alton DoggettDemocrats see political winner in tax fight Progressives up pressure on Biden to back COVID vaccine patent waiver House passes bills providing citizenship path for Dreamers, farmworkers MORE (D-Texas), another senior member of the Ways and Means panel, said in an email.

Unveiled Wednesday, Biden's tax plan features a series of reforms designed to compel large corporations and businesses to contribute a larger share of earnings to the federal government. It does so largely by hiking the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent; prohibiting companies from shifting profits to low-tax havens overseas; and creating a new 15-percent minimum tax on large companies that report profits to investors, but no liabilities to the IRS.

Treasury Secretary Janet YellenJanet Louise YellenBiden eyes bigger US role in global vaccination efforts Democrats see political winner in tax fight WHO chief laments 'shocking imbalance' in vaccines for poor countries MORE briefed House Democrats on the proposal on Tuesday. And Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiSunday shows preview: Democrats eye two-part infrastructure push; Michigan coronavirus cases surge Pence pleaded with military officials to 'clear the Capitol' on Jan. 6: AP Democrats see political winner in tax fight MORE (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Democrats are hoping to move the entire package infrastructure and tax provisions alike through Congress and to Biden's desk by August.

The president is open to policy suggestions from lawmakers in both parties, Pelosi said. But it can't be too small, she added, because what we're talking about now needs to be transformative and it has to be big.

Democratic leaders are seeking a delicate balance.While liberals in the party are supportive of massive new infrastructure spending even pressing Biden to go bigger than his $2 trillion proposal the partys moderates are wary of both the size of the package and the effects on deficit spending.

Does it really have to be a $2 trillion package at this moment? I don't think that we should concede that, said an aide to a centrist Democrat in the House. At the very least, we should try to pay for as much of this as possible.

They can afford few defections.

Pelosi has just a razor-thin majority in the House, made even thinner by the recent death of Rep. Alcee HastingsAlcee (Judge) Lamar HastingsDemocrats see political winner in tax fight The Hill's Morning Report - Biden bumps up vaccine eligibility amid 'life or death' race Biden mourns passing of Rep. Alcee Hastings MORE (D-Fla.). And the split is an even 50-50 in the Senate, where Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinClose the avenues of foreign meddling Democrats see political winner in tax fight MSNBC's Joy Reid pans Manchin, Sinema as the 'no progress caucus' MORE, a moderate West Virginia Democrat, is already flexing his outsized influence in opposing Bidens plan to raise the corporate rate to 28 percent.

Those internal frictions have not been overlooked by Republicans, who are fighting to make the tax package as uncomfortable as possible for centrist Democrats in tough battleground districts.

With that in mind, the Republicans this week are highlighting another report, sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers, predicting that an increase in the corporate rate to 28 percent combined with the elimination of several other corporate benefits would cost the country 1 million jobs in just two years. And the Republicans' campaign arm has pounced, launching a broad-based email campaign linking vulnerable Democrats across the country to the threat of heightened unemployment sparked by Biden's proposal.

No president has ever raised business taxes to rebuild an economy, Rep. Kevin BradyKevin Patrick BradyDemocrats see political winner in tax fight The Hill's Morning Report - Biden may find zero GOP support for jobs plan GOP seeks new line of attack on Biden economic plans MORE (Texas), senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, told CNBC this week. At the end of the day, we're going to see slower hiring, [and] we're going to see less investment in the U.S.

Democrats remain undaunted. Infrastructure was among just three named policy priorities they'd championed on the campaign trail in 2018, when they won control of the House. And after COVID-19 relief, it remains the top domestic priority of Biden, who's already using the bully pulpit in an effort to sell his plan to the public at large.

If the early debate is any indication, the Democrats' pitch is going to lean heavily on the concept of fairness.

You've got Amazon whose entire business is built on having adequate infrastructure and they paid 1.2 percent last year and zero [percent] the two years before that. And they made $30 billion, said Yarmuth.

That's not fair in anybody's book.

Link:

Democrats see political winner in tax fight | TheHill - The Hill

WASHINGTON When a Republican lawmaker approached Representative Veronica Escobar, a Democrat, on the House floor recently with a routine request that she sign on to a resolution he was introducing, she initially refused.

Ms. Escobar personally liked the man, a fellow Texan, and she supported his bill. But she held the Republican, who had voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election just hours after rioters stormed the Capitol, partly responsible for the deadly attack and questioned whether she could work with him.

Moments after declining, however, Ms. Escobar had second thoughts.

Go ahead and count me in, Ms. Escobar recalled telling the man, whom she declined to identify in an interview. But I just want you to know that what you all did I havent gotten past it. And it was wrong, and it was terrible. And its not something that I think we should gloss over.

In the immediate aftermath of the assault on the Capitol that left five dead, irate Democrats vowed to punish Republicans for their roles in perpetuating or indulging former President Donald J. Trumps fiction of a stolen election that motivated the mob that attacked the building. There was talk of cutting off certain Republicans entirely from the legislative process, denying them the basic courtesies and customs that allow the House to function even in polarized times.

Democrats introduced a series of measures to censure, investigate and potentially expel members who, in the words of one resolution, attempted to overturn the results of the election and incited a white supremacist attempted coup. But the legislation went nowhere and to date no punishment has been levied against any members of Congress for their actions related to Jan. 6.

What has unfolded instead has been something of an uneasy dtente on Capitol Hill, as Democrats reckon with what they experienced that day and struggle to determine whether they can salvage their relationships with Republicans some of whom continue to cast doubt on the legitimacy of President Bidens victory and whether they even want to try.

I dont want to permanently close that door, Ms. Escobar said. But I cant walk through it right now.

Republicans have felt the breach as well. Representative Michael Waltz, Republican of Florida, who did not vote to overturn Mr. Bidens victory but joined a lawsuit challenging the election results, said feelings ran raw after the mob violence at the Capitol.

I had some candid conversations with members that I have a good relationship with. There was a lot of heated emotion, Mr. Waltz said. Still, he said, I didnt experience a freeze.

He recently teamed up with Representative Anthony G. Brown, Democrat of Maryland, to round up 70 Republicans and 70 Democrats for a letter to the Biden administration laying out parameters for an Iran nuclear deal.

The dilemma of whether to join such bipartisan efforts is particularly charged for centrist Democrats from conservative-leaning districts, who won office on the promise of working with Republicans but say they find it difficult to accept that some of those same colleagues spread lies that fueled the first invasion of the Capitol since the War of 1812.

Adding to the tensions, most Republicans insist that they did nothing wrong, arguing that their push to invalidate the election results was merely an effort to raise concerns about the integrity of the vote. Some have reacted angrily to Democrats moves to punish them.

Days after Representative Jason Smith, Republican of Missouri, voted to throw out electoral votes for Mr. Biden, an aide to Representative Cindy Axne, Democrat of Iowa, curtly rebuffed a request from his office to discuss writing insurance legislation together.

Our office is declining to work with your office at this time, given your bosss position on the election, the aide wrote in an email to an aide to Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith later sought to turn the tables on Ms. Axne, posting the email on his official Twitter account after she highlighted her work with Republicans.

Thats odd, Mr. Smith wrote, appending a screenshot of the exchange. This is the last message my staff got from you. Are you no longer kicking Republicans off your bills?

A spokesman for Mr. Smith did not respond to a request to elaborate on the incident.

Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, who was in the House gallery on Jan. 6, said she had taken it upon herself to try to facilitate a reconciliation or at least an airing out of differences.

Its been a really challenging time, she said. Literally, people were murdered in our workplace. For some people, that is deeply troublesome, and for some people, they want to move on faster than others are ready.

In the days after the attack, the wounds it laid bare seemed almost too deep to heal. As the mob tore closer to lawmakers on Jan. 6, Representative Dean Phillips, a mild-mannered Minnesota Democrat known for fostering bipartisan relationships, shouted at Republicans, This is because of you!

Afterward, lawmakers nearly came to blows on the House floor and got into heated arguments in the hallways. Some Democrats were so nervous that their Republican colleagues might draw weapons on the floor that House leaders set up metal detectors outside the chamber, drawing loud protests from gun-toting lawmakers in the Republican Party.

Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and the chairwoman of the Administration Committee, released a review of Republicans incendiary remarks on social media before the attack.

Some Democrats, particularly the most progressive lawmakers from safe districts who rarely found occasion to work with Republicans even before the riot, have pressed to penalize the G.O.P. systematically in its aftermath, arguing that there can be no return to normalcy. A spreadsheet of Republicans who voted to overturn the election, outlining how many states electoral votes they moved to cast out, has circulated widely among Democratic offices.

But there has been little action to truly cut Republicans out of the work of Congress. When Representative Sean Casten of Illinois moved to punish a Republican who had voted to overturn the election results by forcing a recorded vote on his bill to rename a post office the kind of measure that normally sails through unchallenged only 15 other Democrats joined Mr. Casten in opposing it. As some rank-and-file Democrats sought to expel the Republican conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia from the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the move was not a leadership position. (Leaders did, however, take the unusual step of stripping Ms. Greene of her committee seats.)

The reluctance stems, at least in part, from politics. Democrats owe their majority to a group of lawmakers from competitive districts who say their constituents elected them to work with Republicans to get legislation done.

Retreating or closing myself off to any kind of conversations or working with folks on the other side of the aisle it doesnt feel like an option for me, said Representative Sharice Davids, the only Democrat in the Kansas congressional delegation. Even when it feels hard.

Representative Susan Wild, Democrat of Pennsylvania, was in the House gallery on Jan. 6 and had what she believed was a panic attack as she crouched on the floor and heard the noise from the mob grow closer. But she said in an interview that she had moved past the election issue, adding that she was not one to hold grudges.

I havent talked to a single Republican about that day. Nothing. At all, said Ms. Wild, who has resumed working with Pennsylvania Republicans on legislation, even though most of them voted to overturn the election. I dont want it to get in the way of other things that I want to work on with them. I know that it would, because I would be angry.

Many House Republicans have refrained from discussing the attack, while some have tried to rewrite history and argue that they never claimed the election was stolen, despite their objections. One tried to remove mentions of the assault from a resolution honoring the police officers who defended the Capitol that day. Some have continued to deny that Mr. Biden was legitimately elected, while still others have sought to deflect attention from the riot or downplay the factors that drove it.

When the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing recently to examine domestic extremism in the military, Representative Pat Fallon, Republican of Texas, complained that the session was political theater and a waste of the panels time.

The chairman, Representative Adam Smith of Washington, tartly replied that the topic deserved discussion, since 20 percent of the people that have been arrested from the Capitol Hill riots had a history of serving in the military.

Representative Rodney Davis of Illinois, the top Republican on the Administration Committee, objected to Ms. Lofgrens report cataloging his colleagues incendiary social media posts.

One Democrat, Representative Brad Schneider of Illinois, recently removed a Republican from a bill the two had worked on together for years, in line with his new policy of collaborating only with lawmakers who publicly state that Mr. Biden was legitimately elected.

But he said he had drawn some optimism from a blunt conversation with Representative Jody B. Hice, Republican of Georgia, whom he has worked with on environmental issues, about a speech Mr. Hice gave questioning his states electoral votes for Mr. Biden.

Mr. Hice said in a statement that he was proud that he and Mr. Schneider could put aside our differences on many of the hot-button political debates of the day to work together.

Still, Mr. Schneider said that many other Republicans were still questioning Mr. Bidens legitimacy and that some were even continuing to put lawmakers at risk with incendiary remarks.

The fact that there is how many at this point? that its not an insignificant number who are still trying to have it both ways, makes it harder to get something done in Congress, he said.

Visit link:

Democrats Are Torn Over Working With G.O.P. After Capitol Riot - The New York Times

Like death and taxes, its long been a fact of life that Iowa and New Hampshire kick off both the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries.

However, the nightmarish hellscape that was the Iowa caucuses in the 2020 Democratic primary the Iowa Democratic Party released barely any results the night of the caucuses because of technical problems heightened calls for ending Iowas reign as the first state to vote in the primary calendar.

But in some ways, the push to bump Iowa and New Hampshire from the start of the primary process has long been picking up steam among Democrats. Iowa and New Hampshire are two very white states 85 to 90 percent of each states population is non-Hispanic white and in 2020 neither state did much to influence the nomination race for a party that is now about 40 percent nonwhite. Now-President Biden won the Democratic primary despite finishing fourth in the Iowa caucuses and fifth in New Hampshires primary.

Yet the mounting opposition to Iowa and New Hampshire voting first might not be enough to actually depose them. Ultimately, state parties and/or governments decide the timing of their caucuses or primaries. And while the national party can encourage these decision-makers to schedule their contests on certain dates, it cannot unilaterally impose its will on the primary calendar. Moreover, because Republicans seem intent on keeping the two states in prime position for the 2024 campaign, it might be even more difficult for Democrats to make any changes.

Its true, though, that Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the Democratic electorate. Back in 2019, we used data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, a survey of more than 50,000 people conducted by YouGov in conjunction with Harvard University, to reorder Democrats primary calendar based on the similarity of each states Democratic electorate to the partys nationwide voter base. We found that Iowa and New Hampshire ranked in the bottom half of states in terms of how representative they were of the Democratic Partys voters, and thus would vote near the end of the primary season. (This analysis uses data from the 2016 presidential election, but considering how highly correlated the 2016 and 2020 presidential contests were, its hard to imagine the order would change that much if we had final 2020 data, which we dont.)

States by how similar their 2016 Democratic electorate is to the U.S. Democratic electorate in terms of voters race, ethnicity and education, where lower scores mean more similar

Other includes people who identified as Asian, Native American, Middle Eastern, mixed or other.

The Democratic electorate includes anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and anyone who didnt vote for Clinton but identified as a Democrat.

Similarity is determined by Euclidean distance, where a distance of 0 means the items are identical and higher scores mean more dissimilarity.

Source: 2016 COOPERATIVE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION STUDY

Instead of the current order, a state like Illinois or New Jersey should go first by our calculations. That might be a hard sell, of course, considering a state like New Jersey has often voted at the end of the primary process, and underdog candidates would prefer not to run ads in the expensive media markets of Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.

As another option, Democrats have floated moving up Nevada, which ranked fifth in our similarity calculation and has been an early-voting state since 2008. Nevada Democrats, who have full control of state government, are even considering legislation to establish a state-run primary to try and jump ahead of New Hampshire, but its unclear whether such legislation, which has failed before in Nevada, will pass. (South Carolina is another leading alternative among Democrats, given its also an early-voting state and is one of the few states in the Democratic primary with a majority-Black primary electorate. It also proved vital to Bidens nomination in 2020.) Some Democrats even like the idea of promoting Pennsylvania, a pivotal swing state that ranked just behind Nevada in our analysis. However, in previous years Pennsylvania leaders have been reluctant to schedule an earlier date for the states consolidated primary, where it holds primaries for president and other offices on the same day.

And Pennsylvanias logistical concerns underscore one of the fundamental challenges to supplanting Iowa and New Hampshire: Doing so will require cooperation among the national parties, state parties and in the case of state-run primaries state governments, which is no easy task because these actors often have conflicting goals.

Although the Democratic National Committee can try to encourage states to schedule their contests in certain calendar windows with various carrots and sticks like handing out delegate bonuses or penalties they cant force states to cooperate. And Iowa and New Hampshire have no interest in giving up their valuable calendar real estate, which, beyond its outsized political influence, is also worth millions of dollars to each states local economy.

Take New Hampshire, where state law gives Secretary of State Bill Gardner unilateral power to move the primary date as necessary to protect the states distinction of hosting the cycles first presidential primary. This has arguably been Gardners raison dtre during his four-plus decades in office, as hes gone pretty far to keep New Hampshire first. Ahead of the 2012 GOP presidential primary, for instance, multiple states moved their primary dates up, which prompted Gardner to threaten that hed schedule New Hampshires contest in December 2011 if he had to. And in an age where theres little bipartisanship on most issues, maintaining New Hampshires privileged place unites Democratic and Republican leaders in the Granite State, so if Nevada does switch to a primary and tries to schedule it before New Hampshires primary, Gardner will just pick an even earlier date.

Democratic efforts to shake up the primary calendar would probably be more feasible if Republicans were on board, but theres little sign they are. Republican Party chairs from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are banding together to protect their carve-out spots at the front of the line, and potential 2024 Republican presidential contenders arent anticipating radical shifts, as theyre already visiting Iowa and New Hampshire.

One reason for the GOPs apparent lack of interest in changing the schedule may be that it has fewer concerns than Democrats about these two states being representative: Using 2016 CCES data, we found Iowa ranked as the sixth-most representative state for Republicans, based on educational attainment and born-again religious identification although New Hampshire also ranked in the bottom half of all states.

Democrats may still try to relegate Iowas caucuses after the messy 2020 event, and some Iowa Democrats have acknowledged they will have to fight to hold onto their spot. But because the GOP isnt moving to supplant Iowa, attempts at the wholesale changes many Democrats want may be a bridge too far.

Now, moving Iowas caucuses wouldnt be as involved as moving the primary in New Hampshire because they are a party-run event and dont involve the state government. But even if the DNC heavily penalizes Iowa and New Hampshire for going first by reducing or even eliminating their delegates, it risks a situation where Republicans are still competing first in those states. This could prompt Democrats in those states to still hold their contests at the same time as Republicans, hoping the inevitably intense media coverage of the races preserves their influence over the overall nomination race.

At this early vantage point, we cant say what the primary schedule will look like in 2024, or if Democrats will even have a competitive race. (Biden has said he plans to seek reelection, but hell be 81 years old in 2024.) But what we can say at this point is that making major alterations to the nomination calendar has never been easy if it were, things wouldve changed already. And attempts to remove the two states that have long had a stranglehold on the top rung might prove to be especially messy.

Read the original here:

Many Democrats Are Sick Of Iowa And New Hampshire Going First, But The Primary Calendar Is Unlikely To Change - FiveThirtyEight

Although H.R. 1 has been around for a couple of yearsit was the first thing Democrats introduced in 2019, when they took over the Houseit uses the same strategy that the party adopted for COVID-19 relief and infrastructure: Throw as much stuff as possible in and try to ram it through. A Democratic aide told Voxs Andrew Prokop that about 60 separate bills were rolled together to make this bill. That worked with the relief package, but its creating complications for H.R. 1.

Read: Democrats only chance to stop the GOP assault on voting rights

Many Democrats support certain versions of campaign-finance reform, for example. But some of them, such as Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, are uncomfortable with the federal government meddling with state power over election administration (though its been done plenty in the past). Black Democrats are eager to roll back changes such as Georgias new law, which Senator Raphael Warnock has branded Jim Crow in new clothes, but The New York Times reports that some of them are also wary of independent commissions handling redistricting, a central idea of the bill but one that might carve up majority-minority districts, especially in the South.

All of the proposals are plausible reforms to improve democracy, though many Republicans disagree with these ideas. The various elements of the bill arent really at odds with one another, even if their supporters are. But they represent different theories about the most perilous threat to Democrats and to their voters.

Movements to reform campaign finance have been around since Mark Hanna pioneered the big-money campaign in 1896. Many have been bipartisan, culminating in the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. But in the 21st century, campaign-finance reform has largely been a progressive priority. Left-of-center concerns grew especially sharp after the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision, and for a time, many Democrats viewed that decision as the most pressing matter in politics. Unrestrained corporate donations would warp democracy, they warned, and also swamp Democratic candidates with donations to GOP candidates.

David A. Graham: The GOP abandons democracy

In 2016, Hillary Clinton placed that worry at the center of her presidential campaign. We need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them, she said in her nomination-acceptance speech. And we'll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United! (This was somewhat personal for Clintonthe Supreme Court case centered on a film attacking herthough she also enjoyed the support of super PACs that the decision had enabled during the campaign.)

Of course, Clinton did not move to overturn the decision, because she did not win. But her loss and the 2016 election were the beginning of the eclipse of campaign-finance reform as a central issue for Democrats. The rise of the fundraising platform ActBlue, and especially the astonishing small-dollar success of Senator Bernie Sanderss primary campaign, showed that Democrats could compete by amassing small donations. Meanwhile, pro-Clinton spending (both by her campaign and by outside groups) far outpaced pro-Trump spending. In 2020, the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, barely mentioned Citizens United during his campaign.

See the rest here:

Democrats Are Short on Votes and Long on Irony - The Atlantic

WASHINGTON A top Senate official ruled on Monday that Democrats could use the fast-track budget reconciliation process for a second time this fiscal year, potentially handing them broader power to push through President Bidens agenda, including his infrastructure plan, over Republican opposition.

The decision by the parliamentarian means that Democrats can essentially reopen the budget plan they passed in February and add directives to enact the infrastructure package or other initiatives, shielding them from a filibuster that requires 60 votes to overcome.

It came as Democratic leaders were contemplating how to use their slim majorities in the House and Senate to enact Mr. Bidens infrastructure proposals, including a huge public-works plan he released last week and a second initiative to be released in the coming months to address economic inequities, provide paid leave to workers and support child care.

But the decision has potential significance beyond those plans, and even the current Congress. The guidance could substantially weaken the filibuster by allowing the majority party to use budget reconciliation a powerful tool that allows measures related to taxes and spending to pass on a majority vote multiple times in a single fiscal year. That would dilute the power of the minority to stall or block such legislation in the Senate, the latest bid by the party in power to chip away at the arcane filibuster rules.

It was not clear how Democrats would use their newfound power, or for what. But the preliminary guidance from Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, most likely gives them additional opportunities to push elements of Mr. Bidens agenda through the 50-to-50 Senate without abolishing the filibuster or watering down their proposals to win at least 10 Republican votes.

Democrats had already used budget reconciliation to push through Mr. Bidens $1.9 trillion stimulus last month without any Republican votes. But with some Democrats reluctant to dismantle the filibuster, the rest of Mr. Bidens agenda risks stalling amid Republican objections.

Seeking alternative avenues, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, had argued that the rules allowed the Senate to revisit the budget blueprint that allowed for passage of the pandemic relief plan and take at least one more crack at reconciliation before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

Because there was no precedent for doing so, he asked Ms. MacDonough, a nonpartisan civil servant who interprets Senate rules, for guidance. On Monday, she blessed the maneuver, according to Justin Goodman, a spokesman for Mr. Schumer, who said that some parameters still need to be worked out.

The ruling allows Democrats additional tools to improve the lives of Americans if Republican obstruction continues, Mr. Goodman said in a statement, calling the opinion an important step forward in ensuring that this key pathway is available to Democrats if needed.

Democrats already had two more opportunities to use the reconciliation process during the 117th Congress, under budget blueprints for fiscal years 2022 and 2023. But the ruling from Ms. MacDonough allows them to use the maneuver at least two more times during this calendar year alone, and could further increase the opportunities for them to do so before the end of 2022.

The option does not guarantee a smooth path for Mr. Bidens agenda; with narrow majorities in both chambers, party leaders will have to keep Democrats almost entirely united to be able to use the maneuver successfully. And reconciliation is subject to strict budgetary rules that limit what can be included.

Top Democratic officials have declined to say when they will use the budget tool again. But lawmakers and aides have floated a number of possibilities, ranging from infrastructure to immigration, that could be steered around Republican objections and into law.

Its important because it gives us a little more flexibility we dont have to push everything into one package, Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who is chairman of the Budget Committee, said on MSNBC, listing a number of priorities he wanted to pass. The ruling of the parliamentarian gives us a little bit more opportunity in that direction.

Progressive lawmakers have increasingly agitated for a change to the rules of the Senate that would allow the party to dismantle the filibuster.

But any effort to pass further legislation with a simple majority will be considerably more difficult than it was with the stimulus package, which cleared both chambers and became law in less than three months. Democrats are already haggling over what should be included in the infrastructure plan, and how to pay for it.

Republicans, who have largely criticized Mr. Bidens agenda, are likely to object to any use of the tool, which would virtually cut them out of the process. Reconciliation also consumes a substantial amount of floor time, which could otherwise be used for approving administration nominees and judicial appointments.

There are more opportunities to run the obstacle course and risk all the dangers, but you still have to run the obstacle course, said Zach Moller, deputy director of the economic program at Third Way, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, and a former aide on the Senate Budget Committee. The process and the painfulness of budget reconciliation is still required to go through here.

Several Democrats have said they hope for bipartisan support for their initiatives, including Mr. Bidens infrastructure proposal. But taking a cue from the president, they have also begun to argue that they have support from Republican voters and local officials, even if Republican lawmakers in Washington have objected to the plan.

Some Republicans balked at Mr. Schumers parsing of budgetary law, saying it suggested that congressional Democrats had no genuine interest in negotiating the details of an infrastructure plan, let alone more politically charged issues like immigration reform.

It should be subjected to extensive hearings in both the House and the Senate, and not rammed through, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said of the infrastructure package in an interview last week. But the attempt to expand the use of reconciliation, she said, seems to signal what direction they want to go in.

Go here to read the rest:

Democrats Win Crucial Tool to Enact Bidens Plans, Including Infrastructure - The New York Times