Democrats' $3.5 trillion turned $2 trillion social spending package, Build Back Better, appears to be dead after Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia said that he wouldn't vote for it on Fox News. His exact remarks were rather definitive: "I just can not possibly vote for this piece of legislation. I just can't. I've tried everything humanly possible. I just can't get there," and caused backlash from the White House and the Progressive wing of his party.
Because there are currently 50 Democratic senators, and 50 senators are needed to vote for the bill in order for it to pass, Joe Manchin's "no" would mean that the bill can not pass in its current form. No Republicans support the bill. Manchin's objections include concerns that the bill would contribute to inflation and add to national debt; despite his statements on Fox, it is likely that he and other Democrats will continue working to reach a compromise. According to CNN, he would prefer the bill to go through the committee process before trying to move through the Senate via the filibuster-proof reconciliation process.
Based on face value alone, Manchin's resistance to BBB seems to highlight the issue of polarization within the Democratic party. However, after looking into the factors surrounding Manchin's decision, I'm a bit confused as to why he would give Fox News such frustrated remarks. After all, Manchin supports key provisions of the bill, such as provisions expanding ObamaCare, the $500B allocated to alleviating climate change, and the $200B for universal pre-K (Vox). He has also been working with the White House and Progressive caucuses for months, reaching compromises and altering the bill a significant amount from its original form. In addition, the plan can already be characterized as centrist (which is interesting for a multi-trillion social spending bill; polarization is that bad), as it does not include the liberal agenda items of Medicare-for-All, or decriminalized border crossings. You'd think Manchin and Biden would have a better relationship. One of the main reasons I found for Manchin's opposition to the bill was the general funding approach; Manchin has expressed his support for longer-lasting programs that would cost less, but rather than focusing on a few top priorities, Biden has decreased the length of time each program would be funded (NYT). I agree with what Manchin is advocating for, as getting a few stable and popular programs in place allows Democrats to accomplish something, and also lays the groundwork for future progress. As caucuses such has the New Democratic Coalition of the House express their support (NYT) for this approach, I have hope for the bill's future.
But why did Manchin say what he said on Fox? Maybe it was just an outburst. However, it's not incomprehensible that his actions were a political move. Progressives are now very angry at him; Rep. Ilhan Omar called his "excuses" "bullshit," and other key Progressives such as Bernie Sanders and Rep. Jayapal (chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus) have expressed their frustrations. Left-wing criticism benefits Manchin politically, as it bolsters his image as a moderate. In addition, in his home state of West Virginia where Trump won 69% of the vote, it benefits Manchin to appear as the one man standing up to Biden (NYT).
Questions:
Why do you think Manchin currently does not support the bill? Did he vent on Fox for the same reasons?
How has the Biden Administration been doing so far? What other policies have they passed, and how has their "productivity" been compared to the first years of previous administrations?
Through what lenses have media outlets covered Manchin's statement? Notice any patterns?
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/briefing/joe-manchin-opposition-build-back-better.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/21/politics/biden-build-back-better-manchin/index.html
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22848508/covid-pandemic-testing-vaccines-manchin-build-back-better
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/19/statement-from-press-secretary-jen-psaki-4/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/opinion/biden-moderate-democrats.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/opinion/manchin-build-back-better-democrats.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/20/joe-manchin-isnt-only-obstacle-build-back-better/
8 comments:
I feel that part of the reason why Manchin is refusing to support the bill is due to the reasons said above but likely more. Manchin seems to have stocks in multiple outside interests like the coal industry where he is able to get around $491,000 from his Enersystems holdings. This kind of outside push can cause lawmakers to see who their allies are and vote to keep the support as in this example of the coal industry. This outside influence I feel is very wrong when our elected officials should be representing companies and donors rather than the people who elected them. Nancy Pelosi recently talked about how Congress members should still be able to own individual stocks because "We are a free free market economy." While the current system of having representatives be able to hold outside interests may be simple to ignore, it compromises on decisions that elected officials make supposedly for the good of their people. Right before the start of the Covid-19 Pandemic, multiple Congress members sold stocks after being warned of the threat before people ever knew of the severity of the incoming problem. According to a Hill article, “Sens. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) each sold hundreds of thousands of dollars in stocks within days of the Senate holding a classified briefing on Jan. 24 with Trump administration officials on the threat of the coronavirus outbreak.” This is an obvious problem where officials are able to use their inside knowledge in government to take advantage by exploiting the economy for their own self gain. Currently there is a law in place called the STOCK Act which prohibits lawmakers in Congress from making financial trades based on non-public information. Senator Loeffler seems pretty suspect of breaking this act but it highlights the need to better look into if members of our government are taking advantage of their government position to support themselves or their donors. Coming back to Manchin, while he may say there are other factors to his decision, it shows how 1 single person can hold down the entire government. This makes the process feel wrong but in reality there are another 50 other senators that are holding back due to political polarization and fear of losing their position rather than one practically corrupt senator.
Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/27/politics/joe-manchin-coal-interests/index.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/586464-manchin-opposition-to-build-back-better-sends-shock-waves-through-political
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-opposes-banning-stock-buys-by-congress-members.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488593-four-senators-sold-stocks-before-coronavirus-threat-crashed-market
"Perception is more important than reality in politics."
The reality is that, as Emily explained in this post, this bill is not as far from Mansion's political views as he says. I am not completely convinced about the moderate label, but Mansion still supports some of the key components of the bill, which does not warrant such a large denunciation on Fox and his decision to not vote yes on the bill no matter what.
However the perception among the right is that this is a radical measure by the Biden administration that Republicans must oppose completely. No matter if Mansion supports some of its measures any support of it he shows would go badly among the right. And since 69% of Mansion's state of West Virginia voted Trump he cares a lot about Republican perception. Therefore, he goes to Fox News, a platform popular among the Republicans he wants to appeal to, and criticizes the bill. He also puts a massive national spotlight on himself as a counter to Biden, which will strongly appeal to his Republican constituency. It is also quite ironic how his position as a Democrat is what makes him receive such a spotlight because he is meant to go along with his party, and therefore makes him more popular among Republicans.
Posing as a one man army blocking Biden's agenda is vastly more important to him than the reality that this bill is actually not that bad for his views. Going on Fox News cements his position and increases his popularity, most definitely a political move and an effective one at that.
I completely agree with Emily's point that for Manchin to stand up against Biden makes him look good in the eyes of West Virginians as they were heavy Trump supporters during the election. I think it's a smart political move and helps Democrats country-wide as pleasing the state of West Virginia increases his chances of being re-elected and increases the number of seats that Democrats hold in Congress. I also find that Manchin definitely seemed to portray an extreme perception of his views on Fox, likely to increase his Republican support because many Fox viewers are unlikely to cross-reference the facts they hear on Fox with other news channels. Even though these other channels may give a more accurate portrayal of Manchin's views, the far-right may not find out and will be more supportive of Manchin because of his so-called extreme views.
On the flip side, I think similar to Julien, openly opposing our president could also work against his favor because if Biden's approval ratings begin to rise, then Manchin would be jeopardizing his own public approval. Although with the rise of Omnicron, I doubt Biden's approval will be rising anytime soon. Straying from party lines is both risky and definitely emphasizes the polarization of both the Democratic party and across parties. The fact that not a single Republican is wiling to vote on this bill just goes to show how polarized and extreme both sides are, and I hope Congress can work to compromise on aspects of the bill and actually pass this much needed legislature.
I feel that Manchin's decision made him appear as a good representative to the people of West Virginia. I see that his chances for re-election may have gone up which justifies his stance on the topic, however, I can't seem to find a reason that clarifies why he would say such a thing to the press. The only partially sensible reason that comes to mind would be to further gather the support of the West Virginians. As the majority of that population supported Trump
s it would make sense to vote against a bill that you cant get behind while also rallying the support of the republicans in your state. However considering that Manchin is a democratic representative, it further convolutes the situation from my perspective. As Anusha said I believe that his stance against President Biden could work in his favor to rally the West Virginians behind him. I see that the bill if compromised, could result in benefits for the American economy, however, the compromises that are being undergone are a definite necessity.
I feel that I have to agree with the comments that are already under this post. For all we know, Manchin might totally agree with the Build Back Better plan, however, voting for this bill would most likely put him at a disadvantage with the next election as the people of West Virginia are generally conservative-leaning, and would not appreciate it if Manchin were to put this bill into effect.
I think that overall the Biden Administration has been doing the best they can, as it hasn't even been a full year since the administration was put in power. Yes, they haven't completed most of their promises (so far), there is only so much they can do that they have not done already. The only thing that has been extremely disappointing for me is that they have not canceled student loan debt, nor have they worked to solve it, even after running in the promise that something would be done. Biden has had the power to cancel a majority of debt, however, he hasn't done so up to this point, which probably means that it will not happen.
Manchin has defied and created a better image for himself in the eyes of the people of his own state. He has defied against the bill of a President they most likely did not want to be elected, instead wanting Trump. Now a democratic senator goes on Fox News and speaks out against this proposed bill, creating the perfect attention grabber, the one seemingly outcast of the democratic party holding up democratic legislation. The right will love it coming to praise Manchin and find solid meaning in his actions. However the left will see this as a threat, one man holding everything up. I agree with my peers above that this can be a good and bad thing for Manchin, raising his popularity but also the chance of backfiring if things don't go his way and his efforts being done for nothing.
That identified main reason of Manchin's, that the bill should be focused on fewer, longer-funded programs rather than many short ones, is interesting. I imagine having more, shorter programs would give the appearance of more accomplishment for the current administration and Democrats in general. It could also lay the groundwork for furthering those programs in the future. Although, it could very well also lead to many programs being less successful at their goals, including the true top priority ones (which of course would look bad for the administration and democrats). Determining or estimating which approach is the better choice could probably only be left to experts or someone/something similar. It was noted that the New Democratic Coalition caucus supports the approach of fewer, longer funded programs — on their website (https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/about-us) , it seems they are a large caucus with a focus on the economics of policies (using words like "fiscally responsible"). This fact and their support helps suggest that Manchin may be right about this criticism of Build Back Better.
I think the political strategies explained in the last paragraph of this post make perfect sense, and Manchin's statements to Fox especially appear politically intentional. Honestly though, he's been pushing quite strongly against this bill, which is very important for the Biden administration, and if it truly is a political move, I wonder when he might be satisfied, and how much he might cost the administration and party (at least progressive wing).
L
Post a Comment