We just watched political theater.
Joe Manchin proved he was independent. He proved U.S. senators mattered.
 |
| Enter Joe Manchin |
Joe Manchin has a problem. He is a Democrat in a state that votes for Republicans. Worse, he holds a federal office as a Democrat where the national Democratic Party openly supports things his constituents don't like, including controls on guns. Worst of all, he is a Democratic U.S. senator in a state that loves Donald Trump.
West Virginia is archetypal Trump country--mostly-White, mostly-poor, mostly-rural, mostly-Church-going. In the 2020 election Trump won 69% to 30%. This is a tiny improvement over 2016 when Trump defeated Hillary Clinton 69% to 26%.
Manchi gets scorn from some Democrats because he disappoints sometimes. He opposes the end to the filibuster. He opposes a $15 minimum wage. He just negotiated some last-minute changes to the COVID relief bill. The action was dramatic and disruptive because it took place at the very end, after the negotiation on the amounts were delicately worked out between moderate centrists and progressives. Manchin threw a monkey wrench into to the deal. The senate had to hold the vote open for some 10 hours while the last-minute cuts insisted on by Manchin were put into place.
We watched Manchin do exactly what he needed to do to keep his place in the senate. He made a scene.
A scriptwriter for a movie understands what happened. In an action movie, after the big chase scene, five or six minutes before the movie's end, the protagonist appears to have defeated all opposition. The loose ends are wrapped up. The audience relaxes. And then from some unexpected place, a surprise impediment enters. Someone enters from off site and pulls a gun, or there is a glitch in the mechanism for escape. The last-minute surprise reverses everything. But then, yet another surprise. Perhaps that gun that was pulled is out of ammunition, or the hero has a trick that was introduced early in the movie, a plot element that was dropped, but then is revealed again to save the day.
Does any reader have a clear memory of exactly what concessions Joe Manchin extracted? (Hint: The $1,400 per person checks remain, but the eligibility dropped to people with incomes below $75,000 from $100,000–double this for married filing jointly—and the expanded unemployment benefit dropped from $400/week to $300/week.)
All that anyone remembers is Joe Manchin was the gate-keeper. Joe Manchin stopped everything, he made the bill less expensive, then said yes.
That is exactly the message Manchin wanted West Virginians to get. He may send a similar message a few more times, just to keep it top-of-mind for West Virginia voters. He is inoculating himself from the charge that he is a toady for those hated Democrats.
Within discussions at the Capitol, there are other more subtle messages. One is that highly progressive big-government programs can pass, as long as the optics assure that Manchin and perhaps other centrist Democrats from red and purple states are recognized as getting concessions. Progressives like Sanders and Warren can publicly fuss and complain; it is harmless and maybe helpful. Their team may demand it, and the idea that progressives are disappointed makes Manchin's achievement all the more credible. The result is that progressive, big spending legislation can pass so long as Manchin looks like he succeeded in making it moderate. Progressives should be able to live with that.
Everyone has a role to play.
5 comments:
Manchin's power is a direct result of Democrat's thin majority.
Democrats in red or purple states are an interesting study in survival. Who knows what they actually believe? Whatever, Manchin's history in WV gives him an advantage and he's somewhat like Kasich in that he projects that "common sense" demeanor that some consider wise and prudent, but the facts point to adherence to the status quo. For instance, he claims belief in climate change, but has consistently defended coal, his state's biggest resource and his main contributor. Now, he's not up for reelection until 2024 so my guess is that at 77 he'll retire rather than run for another term, but you never know with these guys.
So yeah, West Virginia...ranked 44th in public education, just above Alabama, and has the distinction of being the poorest state in the US unless you own a coal company.
Let's let them drive the agenda...
Meanwhile in Nevada, the State Democratic Party apparatus changed hands as a coalition of Bernie Sanders progressives led by Democratic Socialists won the elections to the leadership positions of that State party. The paid professional executive director and staff all resigned and on their way out transferred the $450,000 in that party’s coffers to the DSCC (Democratic Senate Campaign Committee), so the funds could be used in the 2022 cycle to defend the incumbent Democratic US Senator Catherine Cortez Masto.
Ron Wyden could no doubt survive such a change in Oregon’s Democratic Party (which by the way has its own reorganization election coming up later this month, and which has an active cohort of Our Revolution activists). Republican attempts to tie Wyden to AOC et al would probably fail in Oregon, considering how popular he is, how wide his winning margins have been, and how wacky the Oregon Republican Party has become. But could DeFazio in a very tight congressional district survive it? Could whomever runs as the Democratic candidate for Governor succeeding Kate Brown who is term limited?
But Nevada is not a solid blue State as is Oregon. Biden’s win in Nevada, and the wins of both Democratic Senators from Nevada were very narrower.
If the Bernie bros (and sisters) don’t like Joe Manchin, they sure as hell won’t like a Republican Senator from Nevada.
Re: K-12 education rank
WV is doing slightly better than Oregon. In recent years, Oregon has been at or near the bottom, so not exactly something to crow about.
https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-schools/5335
As for Machine, good for him. That bil is still a travesty, bailing out the blue states, rewarding their fiscal mismanagement.
M2inFLA; Does that "fiscal mismanagement allow for the Billions if dollars shoveled from Blue States to Red States, every year ? Asking for a friend.
Evidently some of our commenter friends aren't aware of reality. Even The Hill recognizes that Blue States don't bail out Red States:
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/502321-no-blue-states-do-not-bailout-red-states: "This sophomoric switcheroo gets more than its fair play in the media but rests on several false equivalencies and bad logic."
My previous comment was whether the current stimulus bill should bail-out states for their problems that were recognizable long before the pandemic set in. Sure, the pandemic made the situation even more dire for states' finances.
Don't forget that over the past few years in Oregon, state revenues have been exceeding forecasts, resulting in a kicker to taxpayers. Unfortunately there is still a growing PERS obligation, because the taxpayers have to make up any deficits that investment performance miss. Recall that pension benefits are guaranteed, and are based on pay during the final few years of earned income for many PERS retirees. Those benefits are not based on lifetime of pay, or the contributions made. Yes, there are even a few public employees or legislators whose final few years working for the state determined their final annual benefit; not solely based on their work lifetime contributions or market performance.
I don't believe that the federal government and US taxpayers should be responsible for state promises that were inadequately funded or managed.
Post a Comment