In April 2021 Biden announced his congressional agenda, which involved free 2-year community college education, medicare expansion, extended child tax credit, lower prescription drug prices, entrepreneur programs for previously incarcerated individuals, and more. The bipartisan sections of his agenda was condensed into the $1 trillion Infrastructure bill which has passed the senate (surprisingly, considering: Joe Manchin).
The remaining parts of his agenda were sent into the Build Back Better Act, estimated to cost $3.5 trillion and aims to increase social welfare and curb climate change. The condition for the passage of the infrastructure bill in the senate was the deliberation of the reconciliation act first in the House, however, the representative progressives have decided to set the two bills in a parallel track meaning either both of the bills get passed or neither. Whatever they do pass, the Democrats understand it won't be passed by the senate because they will need 100% Democratic support yet Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin both have said their vote is a no unless the bill meets their conditions. The real fun part: they haven’t expressed what exactly their conditions are, except for the obvious price reduction.
Many democrats in the House have been critical of the decision made by 8 progressive caucus representatives to change the agreed upon terms, however, because of the intense polarization in Congress they’ve decided to think of the democratic party as a team. 96% of the democrats are willing to vote in favor of both bills, despite their personal wishes, in order to bring the Democratic party a win before midterm elections. Politics is inevitably riddled into the policies deliberated in Congress, where both parties are fighting to keep their constituents.
While this is all happening: The government is facing a potential shut down and a funding lapse! Fun! Look out for Ethan’s post about that one.
Is Joe Manshin right in trying to create a more bipartisan level of government through his senate actions? Or has the tide completely turned towards the “team” mentality of Democrats vs Republicans?
Do you personally think that the Build Back Better Act should get passed? Why or why not?
Blurb on the situation: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/29/us/politics/debt-limit-spending-bill.html?smid=pc-thedaily
In depth analysis (podcast): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/podcasts/the-daily/biden-infrastructure-plan.html
Information on the Build Back Better Act: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/budget-reconciliation-bill-build-back-better-act/
Biden’s speech in April information: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/28/biden-speech-congress-live-updates-stream.html
6 comments:
Personally, despite the tax increases, I believe the Build Back Better Acts will have a long-term positive effect. Its main purpose is to curb the effects of climate change, a raging issue that needs to be attended to. The main tax increases will be targeted towards those with higher incomes, therefore because it is most likely that these targeted households can deal with the cost, it is a price worth paying. Right now, the U.S. is doing an insufficient job at dealing with climate change, so even though the Build Back Better Acts don't align exactly with Joe Manchin's views, he should still rethink his vote on behalf of the democratic party.
Sources: https://taxfoundation.org/build-back-better-plan-reconciliation-bill-tax/
https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/2021/09/build-back-better-act-needed-but-small-acts-also-help-address-climate-change-letter.html
The Build Back Better Act should be passed. I know that since a large part of its appeal to progressives is the idea of making the wealthy pay, the act is causing tension regarding the politics of it all; however, when you break down the efforts of the Build Back Better Act it's very beneficial for the general public. Making health care, education, and jobs more accessible is vital, especially because of the pandemic. The US is home to millions of starving Americans, many of whom have health issues attached to their food insecurity, and when seeking medical assistance becomes a threat to their already insufficient finances, a pattern of discouraging certain underprivileged demographics from putting trust into important government and medical systems continues. This food and financial insecurity also connects to child education because kids who are hungry and have more urgent priorities in their life than their education don't have good attendance, and when they do attend they have trouble focusing, inhibiting their development. Looking at educators in the country, I think the efforts that the Build Back Better Act is making to widen the racial demographic of teachers who's race might be underrepresented in educational areas, and addressing the dire circumstance of teacher shortages are not only important, but necessary. Unfortunately, welfare hasn't always been looked at from a compassionate standpoint when it comes to enacting policy, but hopefully the Build Back Better efforts will work to develop a more unified opinion on some issues regarding social health and success.
Helpful breakdown on what Build Back Better is aiming to do: https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/
looking back on how Joe Manchin has voted in the trump administration voting more than half the time with republican and Trump policy I don't really think he really is looking to work towards goals of the democratic party. I think he will continue with that path of being basically a centrist between the two parties. Though I don't think his actions will steer the American people away from perpetually further ends of the spectrum so I feel like his decision to block policy is kind of pointless if he is trying to appear bipartisan. I think Joe Biden has to pass the Build Back Better considering this kind of policy was what he was campaigning on. While he may not have complete support I think his main objective should be to get support , making this probably the best bit of news he can show other than Covid Vaccinations.
To answer your first question, I think that Manchin is somewhat right in trying to create a more bipartisan level of government. Like Pascal said, his actions as a senator are more centrist compared to other politicians, and I think is a step in the right direction to perhaps transition to a less polarized House. When senators/congressmen/congresswomen feel more comfortable voting against their party, I think that this creates an environment where party deviance and, by relation, anti-polarization might become more normal. Like Pascal argued, however, I agree that these kind of actions might not actually create any kind of change towards a more bipartisan government; despite the arguably good intentions, in reality, Manchin's actions might just be blocking good change.
Nathan Lim
It seems like the Build Back Better Act has a lot of good ideas that are aimed at helping our society and our planet. However, in order to get it passed, maybe there does need to be some compromises. If they cut the bill back now, they may be able to add to it in the future rather than not cutting anything back now and it simply not passing at all. This situation might call for a “good, not perfect” compromise, as do most acts it seems. Reducing the act by $1 trillion dollars might be painful, but it could be necessary to get it to pass. If they do reduce the act, perhaps more moderate members of Congress will approve it and then the government can work from there. It seems better to have a starting point than no point at all. It’s a complicated issue and compromising is hard. However, compromise is necessary in politics, especially if one of the main goals is to have a bipartisan government.
Joe Manchin is definitely not trying to create a more bipartisan level of government through his Senate actions. He got the infrastructure bill that he wanted to be enacted as he stands to profit from it personally.
Because many of the supporters for the Build Back Better Act have allowed the infrastructure bill to pass in the House, they no longer have any leverage over Manchin for him to vote for the BBB Act. Neither Manchin nor Kyrsten Sinema believe that their political fate is tied to the success of Biden's agenda/presidency, meaning that there is no desire for bipartisanship, rather for their own self-interests.
In addition, I don't think the Build Back Better Act will pass until 2022. Democratic representatives Josh Gottheimer and Kurt Schrader have already made other promises to corporate interests seeking to undermine the BBB. Other delays such as in negotiations and passing defense spending bills in front of the BBB also spells its demise.Even if Manchin does vote for the BBB, he wants the key parts of the act stripped. For example, he says that he would only vote for the bill if the clean energy program is cut (as he represents West Virginia, a state heavily reliant on coal). He has also pushed to cut the $555 billion investment in clean energy in half.
- https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/01/joe-manchin-stalls-progress-on-biden-build-back-better-bill.html
Post a Comment