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.                   

THE SUPREMES: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, PRESENT AND FUTURE

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019-20 term has ended and the presidential election lies only about three months away. A link exists

between the Court’s work and presidential elections because nothing so symbolizes our divisive politics as control of the Court and the opportunity to shape its future.

Progressives viewed the term just completed with trepidation while conservatives had high hopes. The lineup of cases presented numerous opportunities for the conservative, Republican-appointed, majority to assert itself

on fractious issues. At the end, progressives breathed a sigh of relief and conservatives whined. One man – Chief Justice John Roberts – caused both reactions.

Chief Justice John Roberts

This is the Roberts Court

The spring of 2020 was an extraordinary time for Roberts. Besides presiding over the Trump impeachment trial, Roberts voted in

the majority in an astounding 97% of the cases the Court decided this term. Since the chief justice assigns writing the opinion in cases in which he votes in the majority, Roberts had total control of the Court’s voice. He wrote himself the decisions on the immigration case involving people brought to the United States as children that the administration might deport and the subpoena cases involving President Trump’s financial records. He strategically assigned other cases, like giving Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch the opinion in the case holding the sex discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applicable to sexual orientation.

             

Roberts made clear he cares most about preserving the Court’s institutional reputation even if that overrides ideological and political interests. He sided with the Court’s liberals in a Louisiana abortion-rights case, even though he’d voted on the other side in a nearly-identical Texas case four years before. His position acknowledged the Court shouldn’t reverse a precedent so soon just because the lineup of justices changed. In the Trump subpoena cases, Roberts wrote for a 7-2 majority that no one, not even a president, is above the law.

When one justice exerts such overwhelming influence and does so in such a narrow way

on a court balanced on a knife’s edge on so many hot button issues, neither side can get comfortable. Conservatives railed about Roberts this term, claiming he abandoned the cause. One senator said he should resign. Liberals cheered his votes on immigration and abortion, but those votes rested on technical and procedural grounds, not philosophy. In subsequent cases on the same subjects with different facts or procedural circumstances, he could go the other way. 

The Future

With the election straight ahead, it’s fair to ask

where the Court goes from here. Two members of the liberal wing, Ruth Ginsburg and Steven Breyer, are over 80. The winner of the 2020 election will likely replace them. If Joe Biden

wins, his nominees wouldn’t “flip” the ideological balance. That would require the resignation or death of one of the five conservatives during Biden’s term. We can’t imagine any of them resigning and handing their seats to a Democratic president, barring a debilitating illness that made continuing in the job impossible. Of course, anyone can (1) die of a sudden, unexpected medical condition or (2) get run over by a bus. Nobody should expect either of those.

So, what would flip the Court? To make that a certainty, Democrats probably have to win the next four presidential elections. The ages of the current justices and the propensity most have for staying as long as possible while hoping a president of the same party as the president who appointed them can fill their seat, means most of the current membership of the court will remain in place 15-to-20 years or longer.

The two Trump appointees – Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—are 52 and 55 respectively.

Neither will leave anytime soon. If they serve until the ages Ginsberg and Breyer are now, expect that the winner of the 2052 election would replace them.

The three other conservatives – Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas – are

older, but not that old. Roberts, 65, could stay another 20 years, meaning the winner of the 2040 election might get to replace him. Thomas, the Court’s most rigid conservative, is 72 and has been the subject of retirement rumors he has denied. If Trump wins the 2020 election he might step down, but he won’t give Biden his seat if he can help it. Thomas could remain on the Court a long time, perhaps until after the 2036 election. Alito, 70, also could serve another 15 years if he wants to.

The two other liberals, Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor, are 60 and 66,

respectively.  Changing the Court’s ideological makeup probably means a Democrat must win not only in 2020 but also in 2024, 2028, and 2032. That would probably assure that a Democrat replaces Kagan and Sotomayor and is positioned to replace a conservative who leaves during those years.

This analysis presumes neither party makes a “mistake” with a nominee – that no Democratic appointee lines up with the conservatives and no justice appointed by a Republican ends up voting mostly with liberals. We assume no Republican president will appoint a David Souter who so disappointed George H.W. Bush and his supporters. He, of course, also nominated Thomas, so conservatives really don’t have much reason for complaining about Bush 41.

Democrats have never made judicial appointments as important a part of their electoral calculus as Republicans. The reality of the situation with the Supremes now and in the future counsels a different approach.