WHAT’S BEHIND THE MANCHIN – SINEMA SHOW: DOES IT MATTER?

                  

Many Democrats would enjoy knowing what’s up with West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema.  They’re either principled crusaders for fiscally

responsible government and bipartisanship or they’re bought and paid for captives of corporate lobbyists.  An answer to this question depends on one’s political approach and inclinations about how much credence a politician’s own explanations for his or her behavior should get. Progressives and people who don’t trust politicians will likely look at their political contributions list and decide it’s the latter. People who want less

governmental involvement in American life and/or who take people, including politicians, at their word will likely see it differently. In any event, Manchin and Sinema are the talk of Washington these days, so they merit exploration.

Outsized Influence

Had Democrats done better in last fall’s U.S. Senate elections, we might not now put so much focus on Manchin and Sinema.   But, they didn’t and ended up with only 50 seats.  Thanks to Vice President Harris, Democrats “control” the senate, meaning the two who have voiced the most serious objections to President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda have more influence than most these days. Both have used that influence in forcing a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure package when party leadership and House progressives wanted to wait on that bill until Biden’s “human

infrastructure” legislation – his Build Back Better program – was ready for a vote in both houses. They’ve also been the driving force behind reducing the size of Biden’s plan from $3.5 trillion to about half that.

Sinema also made sure most of the tax increases Biden wanted got stripped from the bill. She said she wouldn’t “support any legislation that increases burdens on Arizonans or American businesses and reduces our ability to compete either domestically or globally.” Vague though that statement may have been, when one vote means everything, if that’s how one senator

sees things, that view probably will rule the day. Sinema also goes to great lengths to extoll the virtues of bipartisanship. She argues bipartisan legislation leads to more enduring policies that won’t get wiped out in the next power shift in Washington.    

Manchin contends Biden’s bill would promote inflation, a claim the Congressional Budget Office disputes. He also claims the legislation

would damage the coal industry. He ignores the damage the coal industry does to the environment and how few coal jobs the legislation would actually put at risk. But that’s his story and he sticks to it zealously.

The Dark Side

Both Manchin and Sinema spout elegant pronouncements that find their footing in either pragmatism or high-brow political philosophy. Progressive activists see something else behind the positions they’ve taken –cold hard

campaign cash. Both have become magnets for contributions from conservative, Republican-leaning donors who want to encourage their resistance to progressive Democratic legislation.

Manchin, who isn’t up for re-election until 2024, took in $3.3 million in the first nine months of 2021, 14 times more than he raised during the same time in 2020. Sinema, who also isn’t up until 2024, raised $2.6 million in that time frame this year, two and a half times more than she collected in that time period in 2020.

Manchin has especially been the beneficiary of contributions from energy industry figures. They blanche at Biden’s climate change agenda, especially his plans for reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Pharmaceutical industry executives, in particular, helped fill Sinema’s coffers. She’s gotten significant sums from tech industry figures.  Both she and Manchin have declined comment on the spate of contributions.

So, Which Is It?

Are Manchin and Sinema noble political leaders who will keep the country safe from

inflation?  Are they the last line of defense against a partisan split that eats at democracy by promoting division, rendering us incapable of working with each other? Or, are they bought and paid for corporate puppets who’ll do anything in exchange for campaign contributions.

We aren’t in their heads, of course, but we wonder how anyone can dismiss the influence of the money. Sinema had a progressive image when she served in the Arizona legislature. She won her senate race in 2018 with considerable support from people of color and young progressives.  She gave few hints of the kind of obstructionist approach to progressive legislation she’s shown with the Biden program.  We wonder if she just saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. Many Republican donors giving her money say they want a “go to” person in the Democratic party. She has certainly given them that.

The question for Sinema, much more than for Manchin, is what impact her approach will have on her political base in Arizona. A lot of people who backed her in 2018 aren’t happy. Her approval ratings among the kind of people who helped her win that election have plummeted.

Manchin probably has no such worries in ultra-conservative West Virginia, a state that was once solidly Democratic but is now as red as they get. Threats to him come from the right, not the left.

In the final analysis, what’s driving Manchin and Sinema may not matter much. For now, both have decided that doing what they’re doing best serves their political ends. We should expect they will keep doing it.       

NANCY PELOSI’S INFRASTUCTURE TASK: TOASTERS, CAR WASHES, AND TIGHTROPES

 In the motion picture Apollo 13, as the crippled spacecraft hurtled home after the aborted moon landing, the astronauts tackled the delicate job of powering up their frozen command module after days of what amounted to cold storage in space. Astronaut Jack Swigert, portrayed by actor Kevin Bacon, noticed condensation forming on many of the craft’s instruments as the crew turned them on. “What’s the deal on this stuff shorting out?” Swigert asked mission control. “Just have to take it one step at a time, Jack,” came the reply. Swigert then said, to no one in particular, “This is like trying to drive a toaster through a car wash.”    

Almost every American wants improved infrastructure. People know that we suffer

from crumbling roads and bridges and that many countries in the industrialized world with which the United States competes are far outspending us in that arena. Democrats and Republicans, who often can’t concur on whether the sky is blue, agree about infrastructure. 

That being the case, why has getting infrastructure legislation through Congress been so difficult? As work on the issue resumes, it’s clear the path has gotten harder, not easier.  The reasons lie in the culture of the two political parties. If the United States is

going to get an infrastructure package this fall – and this year may represent the last, best chance for a while – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have to pull off something like driving that toaster through a car wash.

Pelosi’s Divided Caucus

There’s an old saying in politics that “My enemies I can handle, but God save me from my friends.” That’s the source of Pelosi’s infrastructure dilemma. She doesn’t need Republicans for much of anything. Democrats have the majority in the House, though it’s slimmer than before the 2020 election. If all Democrats vote for any infrastructure bill it passes, pure and simple. But it’s not that simple. Pelosi must keep the Democrats pulling in the same direction. In this instance, they’re the house divided.

Two factions make up the Democratic caucus

in the House. First, there are moderates like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and representatives from competitive, swing districts like Lizzie Fletcher of Houston and Tim Ryan of Ohio. Then, there are progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna Pressley from Massachusetts.  The two factions get along sometimes and sometimes they don’t. They stuck together and passed the Biden COVID relief plan, but the love fest may end over infrastructure.   

The Senate has passed what’s usually called the “bipartisan” infrastructure bill, a $1 trillion plan that emphasizes traditional projects like roads and bridges. A bipartisan group of senators hashed it out and 19 Republicans supported it when it came up for a vote.

Moderates in the  House Democratic caucus want to pass that bill immediately and send it to President Biden for signature. Not so fast, say the progressives.

 

“Human” Infrastructure

Biden originally proposed an infrastructure package that not only included what’s in the bipartisan bill, but also significant new

spending on health care, education, immigration, child poverty, and climate change. Republicans, including those in the senate who voted for the bipartisan bill, oppose these programs. In trying to make sure an infrastructure bill passes, Biden agreed on

splitting the measure in two –

the bipartisan bill containing

traditional infrastructure spending

that could pass with enough

Republican support to break a senate filibuster and a bigger nontraditional bill Democrats might have a chance at passing with only   Democratic votes through what’s called budget reconciliation.

The plan had been for the House to act on the bipartisan bill, leaving the president and

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer the job of wooing moderate Democrats like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema. They might vote for the

“human” infrastructure bill and they might not.  Both say they don’t like the cost, about $3.5 trillion, though they have voted with the other Democratic senators on the procedural measures that allow consideration.

 

Progressives and Pelosi’s Tightrope Act

Democratic moderates, desperately seeking something they can run on in the perilous 2022 midterms, don’t want to chance that no infrastructure bill gets to the president’s desk this year. They’re afraid if the bipartisan bill doesn’t pass quickly, chances increase that no bill passes this year, the issue will become embroiled in next year’s campaigning, and all the work will have been for naught.

Progressives, however, want a guarantee the “human” bill will pass before they commit on

the bipartisan bill. They’ve concluded the best way of assuring that outcome is not voting for the bipartisan bill unless the senate first passes the “human” bill.  Pelosi must walk this tightrope – in essence drive Swigert’s toaster though the congressional car wash – so that an infrastructure package gets enacted in this Congress.  She knows that if Republicans take the House next year, no major legislation will get passed. It’s now or never.

       

Both progressives and moderates want things in the two bills. While some moderates have reservations about the price tag – and the taxes – associated with the “human” bill, most are generally sympathetic to its objectives. But the battle is about what the Democratic Party truly stands for. What hill will it die on? Both sides are heavily invested in their objectives and that’s what makes Pelosi’s job so difficult. She’s got to find a way through that car wash.                   

CRUNCH TIME ON BI-PARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE: CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR JOE BIDEN

The American people need an infrastructure program because the roads and bridges they use every day are crumbling around them and

because the country needs it to remain competitive with the world’s other industrialized nations. President Biden needs an infrastructure bill that keeps his

administration’s positive momentum and shows ordinary citizens government can work for them. Congressional Democrats need infrastructure

legislation as a signature accomplishment they can run on in 2022. Moderate Republicans need infrastructure legislation so they can show their voters the virtue of being something other than the party of “no.”

So, with so many divergent groups needing something done on infrastructure, why has it become one of the heaviest legislative lifts in recent times? The answer lies in the complex web of political alliances that have put the president in a precarious position. The dilemma illustrates the difficulty America faces in getting things done in an era of extreme partisanship.

A Deal – Maybe

After weeks of talking, the president and a group of senators from both parties announced agreement on a $1 trillion infrastructure package that supposedly has the backing of 11 Republican senators (Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Rounds, Graham, Young, Tillis, and Moran) and two key Democratic moderates, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. The unspoken reality was that Democrats would still try to pass the rest of Biden’s original $2.3 trillion package through budget reconciliation, meaning no need for Republican votes in the

Senate.  Biden first said he would veto the smaller bill if he didn’t get both. The 11 Republicans who were on record as supporting the bill balked and the president walked back that statement. The dust up showed the political peril that infests the whole infrastructure issue.

                                

           

With Manchin and Sinema (and maybe some other Democratic senators) apparently caring more about the appearance of bipartisanship

than the substance of an infrastructure package,  Biden now finds himself trying to thread a needle that can sew together waring elements in his own party with Republicans who might agree to pass something.

Progressive Democrats, particularly in the House, have begun expressing exasperation

with the whole idea of a bipartisan deal. A few, like Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive  Caucus, think the whole bipartisan

effort has been “wasted.” A few in the group have hinted they won’t vote for the kind of narrow bill worked out with Senate Republicans. Given the slim Democratic majority in the House, Biden can’t lose many Democratic votes in the lower chamber, since it’s not clear any Republicans will vote “yes.”

 

Shortcomings

Make no mistake, the deal with Republicans

has major weaknesses.  First,  it’s paid for with gimmicks – smoke and mirrors ideas that placate Republican refusal to raise taxes on the  wealthy. Second,

it doesn’t address a number of real needs Biden’s original big bill took head on.

Paying for the smaller bill will come from a combination of things like unused unemployment benefits money and  increased tax collections generated by a bigger IRS

budget. We’re not keen on that idea in particular. Experience suggests the yield from such an effort often comes up short. Beyond that, the country must address income inequality and the fact the wealthy currently don’t pay their fair share in taxes.  Even without the country’s massive infrastructure need, those earning over $400,000 a year should pay more.

Most experts who’ve analyzed the infrastructure proposals think the bill Biden and the bipartisan group agreed on doesn’t really tackle climate change. With the recent heatcatastrophe in the Pacific Northwest and an already raging Atlantic hurricane season (more named storms earlier than ever), we can’t imagine anyone thinking we don’t face a real climate crisis. Other shortcomings in the bill agreed on concern not enough emphasis on high speed rail and not enough money for improving the nation’s electric grid. That’s especially needed if more electric vehicles and devices come online in transportation and other industries.

 

Who Do You Trust?

Part of the dilemma Biden now faces rests in the fact he must deal with both outright enemies in the other party and skeptics in his own. Most Republicans in both houses of Congress don’t want to do anything except

obstruct him. Some House Democrats now don’t trust him to follow through and fight for a bill based on reconciliation, so some now appear reluctant to give him the smaller bill as a start.

Biden may have to wait until after the 2022 mid-terms before he can complete this process. Democratic prospects don’t look bad now for picking up a seat or two in the Senate. For one thing Republicans must defend 20 seats, Democrats only 14. For another, Republican incumbents in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina aren’t seeking re-election, potentially giving Democrats opportunities. That might diminish the importance of problem Democrats like Manchin and Sinema and pave the way for a doable reconciliation bill with tax increases and meaningful spending on pressing needs like climate change and electric grid development. But, Democrats are in real danger of losing the House in 2022 because of redistricting, Republican voter suppression, and the historical fact a president’s party usually loses seats in the mid-term elections right after that president takes office.

One irony in all this resides in the fact Biden’s original proposal enjoys 68% support among the people. Republicans in Congress apparently listen only to the 29% opposed.

Infrastructure provides Biden with a major test and a real opportunity. If he gets his two bills, he will have done his own party and the country a major service. Maybe he simply lives to fight another day with a new Congress. In today’s political circumstances, that can rank as a major accomplishment.

THE HEARINGS: IN PRAISE OF OUR CONSTITUTION

America got a civics lesson last week as three patriots testified before the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment probe into President Donald J. Trump. There, before the television cameras, the country saw how the Constitution was designed to work.  Whatever flaws the    230

year-old document had at its inception and, for that matter, still has, the nation got a tutorial in what’s right about it. Americans could say at week’s end maybe things haven’t gone to hell in a handbasket after all.  Maybe the system of checks and balances works.

State Department official George Kent, the

Kent, Taylor, and Yovanovitch preparing to testify at  Trump impeachment hearing

current U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor, and former  Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch told much the same story in their riveting testimony. Trump held up U.S. military aid in an attempt to bribe Ukraine's president into announcing an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election. Only the most partisan Trump backers now contend the President didn’t engage in attempted bribery.   

The Scene

When Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Cal) convened the hearings Wednesday, the

impeachment inquiry moved into a new phase. Committee members knew what the witnesses would say because those witnesses had given sworn testimony in closed-door depositions. Now, it was showtime, so the American people could see what the investigators had found.

The hearings aimed at the key audiences in this saga. A vote in the House impeaching Trump now seems a foregone conclusion. Whether he stays or goes, therefore, depends on potentially persuadable Republican senators who might support ousting Trump and swing voters (the 15-25% of the country that doesn’t have its mind made up) whose support for conviction might produce those Republican votes in the Senate.

The Witnesses

Kent and Taylor, men with long histories of unflappable, professional

government service in administrations headed by both Democrats and Republicans demonstrated personal appeal and exhaustive knowledge of the subject at issue and of their Ukraine jobs. Both challenged Trump's credibility in

ways that arguably overcame the inherent power of his office. Both eschewed politics, making Republicans look small in trying to paint them as partisan hacks.

It was Yovanovitch who, thanks in part to an insane blunder by Trump, ended the first round of hearings as a star.  When she left the hearing room Friday after, the crowd erupted in spontaneous applause, sending chills down the spines of Americans across the nation. During her testimony, Trump attacked Yovanovitch

in a mean-spirited Tweet, blaming her for unrest in Somalia, one of the early stops in her 33-year career as a foreign service officer. Schiff read her the Tweet and she acknowledged she found it “very intimidating.”

 

Schiff told her some members of Congress "take witness intimidation very, very seriously," a hint an

article of impeachment might well include that charge. Commentators and legal observers noted that a specific provision of the United States Code forbids witness intimidation. Not long after

Trump’s Tweet, a federal jury convicted long time Trump associate Roger Stone of witness tampering and six other felonies carrying a potential prison sentence totaling fifty years.

If the testimony of Kent, Taylor, and Yovanovitch wasn’t enough, a development late Friday made things even worse for Trump and his allies. When Taylor testified Wednesday, he revealed he’d just learned that a member of his embassy staff overheard Trump on a phone call with U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland talking about seeking an investigation into Biden and the 2016 election allegations.  Taylor hadn’t known of the call when he gave his deposition.

        

The staff member surfaced Friday night, appearing for his own deposition and offering an opening statement describing the call he overheard. David Holmes’s account of the call torpedoed one Republican defense – that witnesses like Taylor, Kent, and Yovanovitch had only provided “hearsay,” since they hadn’t actually heard Trump seeking the investigations. 

The Genius of Our Constitution

We will in the future say more about the meaning of the constitution and its role in this impeachment exercise. Suffice it to say now that what we've seen demonstrates the hope and the cynicism embedded in the document.  Donald Trump is being held to account because the framers set up a system that recognized the difficulty in dealing with a corrupt, lawless leader. The past week demonstrates that as perhaps never before. 

 

The hope in the constitution lies in the fact it contains the tools for dealing with someone like Trump. Congress checks the executive branch through institutional mechanisms like the power of the purse, the oversight function, and, ultimately, impeachment. Though Trump has tried frustrating the process by preventing his lieutenants from testifying, career public servants in the executive branch like Kent,

Taylor and Yovanovitch defied him and testified anyway.  The framers no doubt understood personal courage would come into play a some point. If Trump wins re-election, we wonder if he will push these brave men and women out of public service and replace them with enablers willing to do his bidding.

There is more. Bad actors sometimes require a cynical approach, meaning the courts and criminal prosecution have their roles, as the Roger Stone verdict demonstrates.  Where would the Watergate-based impeachment of Richard Nixon have been without the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in the Nixon v. United States tapes case? 

 

Our constitution wasn’t and isn’t perfect. This isn't the place for expounding on the

evil of the three-fifths compromise and other flaws. We can get to them later.  This is the place, however, for pointing out that what

we saw last week shows why this nation has survived as long as it has and maybe why we’ll survive the calamity of the Trump presidency.