A one-page letter has been released that supposedly provides a base-line for what Sen. Joe Manchin asserts he will support out of the wreckage he and Kyrsten Sinema have wrought from the proposed $3.5 trillion spending bill. We can say at least that it is (or was) a “start,” given that Sinema has made no statement about what she would support, if anything. Sinema claims to be a “maverick” like John McCain, but most people scoff at this comparison. Sinema doesn’t have a fraction of the credibility of McCain, is clearly in the pocket of business interests, and is too egotistical to feel the need to account for herself even to the people who voted for her. The motivation for her “thumbs down” gesture in rejecting a $15 minimum wage was in stark contrast to McCain’s own in rejecting the Republican effort to kill the ACA; McCain was acting on behalf of working people, and Sinema was “acting” on behalf of her corporate benefactors.
But let’s go back to Manchin’s “agreement” with Sen. Chuck Schumer:
Note that it is dated July 28; what we can presume is that there has been little or no advancement beyond those positions. If Manchin has not moved from those positions since then, it is clear why other Democrats have expressed frustration with him and Sinema—the latter, far from being a “maverick,” is just allowing Manchin to “speak” for her, since he is the only one doing any "talking." What Manchin wants is clearly far less than what either Biden or the progressives want; his maximum spending of $1.5 trillion seems designed to insure that no major new programs are instituted, and only supports at best the continuation of programs already on the books.
First we see that Manchin doesn’t want any money from any passed legislation to be spent until the funding for the American Rescue Plan and other COVID-related programs are spent. But one can imagine all the mischief that Republicans can do if the implementation of the provisions of the proposed spending bill is delayed until the last dollar of the aforementioned programs is spent, maybe years down the road. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Manchin then insists that social safety net programs in the spending bill has to be means tested by need; this means, of course, that Manchin wants any “social program” targeted solely to low-income people. But there are limitations even to that; he wants hard “caps” on programs currently in effect, and apparently does not support any of the new programs in regard to Medicare or Medicaid expansion, nor that on universal childcare or preschool, and certainly not free community college, all which he refers to as “handouts” and “transfer payments.”
Somewhat bizarrely, Manchin insists on the inclusion of his own pet project, continued budgeting for opioid addiction programs, probably because it is seen as a “white” problem, and thus does not have the stigma of being “illegal.” White voters in his state are apparently more “sympathetic” to white people who are addicted to a “legal” drug.
In regard to climate change and clean energy proposals, the coal-burning Manchin insists in what he calls “innovation” rather than “elimination.” What does this mean? Obviously it means rather than “eliminating” fossil fuel, merely “innovating” around it. Manchin insists that the Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR) have sole jurisdiction on any clean energy “standard.” Of what that “standard” is depends on who is making the decisions, since the bureau is under the “jurisdiction” of political appointees and fossil fuel interests. The “purpose” of the ENR, after all, is to ensure “energy security,” and not to encourage—what was that?—“innovation.”
As more evidence that Manchin has his state’s “interests” in mind as a coal producer than what the rest of the country needs, he insists that Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) technology for coal and natural gas “reasonably qualify” for tax credits. What this apparently means is that in lieu of failure to meet minimum standards of CO2 reduction, his state’s coal industry should meet a lower standard to qualify for tax credits for at least “trying.” Natural gas theoretically shouldn’t qualify at all since it is a so-called “clean” energy source, but it isn’t when it is extracted from “fracking,” where studies have shown that the relative “benefit” of extracting natural gas by this method is offset by the huge amounts of the greenhouse gas methane released into the atmosphere by this process, and is difficult to “capture.”
Manchin also insists that if tax credits are used to encourage clean energy, then “fair is fair”—dirty energy should also receive their share of tax credits (even oil companies that haven’t paid taxes in years), as well as for “enhanced oil recovery,” again in reference to fracking in the recovery of shale oil, a process that is controversial on its effect on the environment, in drinking water and even causing earthquakes.
I would agree that hydrogen vehicles should be supported through tax credits given that hydrogen is a nearly inexhaustible fuel supply and has zero carbon footprint; but the auto industry needs to actually use that money for the intended purpose, since hydrogen vehicles are a long, long way from being ready for primetime, given not just the lack of infrastructure to support them, but issues concerning high voltage requirements for fuel cells and the potential for the build-up of explosive gases, although not on the order of the Hindenburg.
Then there is what Manchin supports in the way of paying for any of this. He apparently agrees to increase the business tax, but only from 21 to 25 percent; of course this would still leave businesses with a substantial cut from the 35 percent pre-2017 tax rate. Manchin also agrees to raising the top marginal tax rate back to 39.6 percent, and raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent (currently at a top rate of 20 percent). However, this is all moot if any of this additional funding exceeds $1.5 trillion, since Manchin doesn’t want it to fund any program he opposes now because of his cost concerns; he supposedly prefers it lowering the federal deficit.
Manchin then underlines his “seriousness” by threatening to oppose any spending bill that “exceeds” his maximum limits. The problem with his demands, of course, is that all they seem to require is to extend and fund programs already in existence, or reboot prior programs. There is nothing here that will “remake” America that addresses the rapidly increasing gap between the haves and have-nots. Even his supposed support for help for low-income people is “tempered” by spending caps, “guardrails,” and no “new” programs. He opposes any “fixes” to the ACA (insofar as it is not mentioned), or expanding Medicare to include dental and vision coverage (again not mentioned).
People will say that this is at least a “start,” and more than what Sinema has put on the table, although I will still say that she has no ideas herself, and is willing to go where Manchin does. But it is clear that if all the “agreement” they can come up with now is to reiterate what Manchin demanded three months ago, one wonders what is the point if there is nothing “new” to be had.
No comments:
Post a Comment