Posted on 11/15/2021 11:53:18 AM PST by Kaslin
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is frog-marching her vulnerable members to a political suicide vote on a bill that’s likely dead on arrival in the Senate.
On November 2, five House Democrats—enough to block the passage of the spending spree that the party hopes to enact via the budget reconciliation process—wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, urging her “to only bring a bill to the floor for which we have a strong level of confidence…will be ruled in order by the Senate parliamentarian and earn passage in the U.S. Senate.”
The lawmakers have justifiable reason for concern. Major pieces of the 2,135-page legislation face serious obstacles in the Senate. Both on policy and on process, senators in the upper chamber could rip the House bill to shreds, meaning more centrist House Democrats face the possibility of taking a political suicide vote soon.
To take but one obvious example: Pelosi reinserted into the bill family leave provisions that Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., objects to. With the legislation needing all Democratic senators to vote for its passage, Manchin (and all of his Democratic colleagues, for that matter) effectively holds a veto over the bill and can have portions stricken if he wishes.
Pelosi’s tactic effectively dared Manchin to vote for an amendment stripping the family leave provisions out of the bill in the Senate. But in doing so, she raised the cost of the House bill from $1.75 trillion to $2 trillion or more. Raising the price tag makes the bill more politically difficult for moderates to defend—particularly if Manchin, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), or others end up substantially cutting its price tag in the Senate after it passes the House.
At the insistence of a vocal group of House Democrats from high-tax states like New York and New Jersey, Pelosi inserted into the bill provisions that would increase the amount of state and local taxes (SALT) that residents can deduct on their federal returns from $10,000 to $80,000. Unsurprisingly, the higher SALT cap would benefit wealthy Americans living in states with high property and income taxes.
But people like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, have criticized the House proposals as “giving more tax breaks to the very rich” and “beyond unacceptable.” The fact that a Tax Policy Center analysis released last week found that more millionaires would get a tax cut under the Biden legislation than a tax increase—due in large part to the SALT changes—will likely increase the pressure on senators to make substantial modifications to the House language.
Pelosi also reinserted provisions into the legislation giving foreign citizens who broke U.S. law to enter this country the ability to live in the U.S. for ten years. The language intended to broker a compromise between pro-amnesty House leftists, who claimed they would not vote for any bill that excluded an immigration fix, and moderates objecting to a path to citizenship.
But the provisions face an uphill battle in the Senate. In particular, the upper chamber’s Byrd rule, which governs the reconciliation procedures under which Democrats want to advance their party-line spending spree, prohibits the inclusion of “extraneous” material. And the parliamentarian has already opined that she considers Democrats’ first two immigration proposals “extraneous,” because they are policy changes that have a “merely incidental” budgetary impact.
The parliamentarian’s guidance should come as no surprise to individuals well versed in Senate procedure, as it has appeared obvious for months that immigration provisions had no place in a reconciliation bill. Yet Pelosi would keep banging Democrats’ heads against the proverbial wall, making her moderate Democrats vote for amnesty-type provisions that are dead on arrival in the Senate, just to appease the concerns of the party’s left wing.
The linchpin of Democrats’ drug pricing package—so-called negotiation between the federal government and pharmaceutical companies—also faces obstacles. In response to concerns from moderate lawmakers, the revised package Democrats introduced limits negotiations to drugs on the market for at least a decade, and changes the maximum price the federal government can pay after negotiations.
But the “stick” intended to force companies to negotiate remains the same as in the version of the legislation House Democrats passed in 2019: An excise tax for companies refusing to negotiate that starts at 65 percent, rising to 95 percent after nine months. The tax’s punitive rate, coupled with a prohibition on companies deducting the tax as a business expense, meant that the Congressional Budget Office concluded drug companies would either decide to negotiate or pull their products from the American market entirely. As such, CBO said in December 2019 that it “did not estimate any increase in revenues from the excise tax.”
What Democrats might see as a feature—drug companies being compelled to accept government price controls—Senate procedure will view as a potentially fatal bug. One of the Byrd rule tests considers as extraneous any provision that “does not produce a change in outlays or revenues”—which CBO already said applies to the excise tax.
Striking the excise tax would cause further complications to Democrats’ drug negotiation plan. CBO has held for more than 15 years that, without a leverage point to punish recalcitrant companies—either an excise tax or the ability to exclude drugs whose manufacturers fail to grant discounts—drug negotiation provisions would have a “negligible effect on federal spending.” Eliminating the excise tax could nullify negotiation’s purported savings, causing the entire scheme to collapse like a proverbial house of cards as an impermissible regime to enact via the budget reconciliation process.
More to the point of House moderates’ letter: Senate Republicans have yet to present these arguments to the chamber’s parliamentarian. On drug pricing and many other issues, they will have opportunities to strike provisions of the reconciliation bill, which could result in substantial changes to the legislation.
While Pelosi claimed in August that she would only bring to the House floor a bill “that will pass the Senate,” she has since reverted to her Obamacare mantra of forcing the House to pass the bill so that we can find out what is in it. Then again, after frog-marching her vulnerable members to a political suicide vote on a bill dead on arrival in the Senate, Pelosi might not want to know what’s in the bill even if House Democrats pass it.
I wouldn’t bet the farm.
But I’ll bet she knows the votes are in the Senate too
The GOP would like to keep their fingerprints off this but there will be Assistant Democrats available if necessary.
Or they will be.
“Could Face The Senate Shredder”
Oh heavens to Betsy!
Those poor Demonrats getting into trouble trying to buy votes with other people’s money.
I’m sure everyone felt bad for them for about ½ a nanosecond.
She put family leave back in there and child care in there for a reason. You think Collins and Murkowski are gonna vote that down?? No way...That would cancel Manchin and Sinema...I’m sure that’s the plan.
This is a very good analysis. Thanks for posting it.
Here’s a thought:
What if the Republicans announced that they will allow a vote (ie not filibuster) separate bills on some of these points?
For example, drug price negotiations. The Republicans can say we will all vote against it but we’re not going to filibuster it. Then let the Democrats either fail to pass it as a separate bill (without being able to blame the Republicans) and therefore show their base that they are really just the Uniparty Version D, or actually run the risk of passing it, in which case the pharmaceutical companies will learn why you shouldn’t feed socialists (Democrats) $31 million per election (including $1.3 million to Bernie Sanders and $883,000 to Jon Ossof for example), which is nearly double what they gave to Republicans.
Why do they give double to Democrats and then expect the Republicans to save them from the socialists that they bought and paid for?
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H04&cycle=2020&recipdetail=S&mem=Y
GOP will betray us every time
Just in general, this is what should be done on legislation, to have separate votes on separate distinct items.
For example, there is a case to be made for drug price negotiation. Let’s have that debate, and let’s vote on legislation on that specific point.
This business of passing 2000 page bills which nobody has read, is absurd. And the business of stuffing such bills with provisions such as illegal alien benefits, which wouldn’t pass as stand alone bills, should not be permitted.
What about the tax on animal/meat producers and the entire “green” crap?
Who would understand what they read anyway? The way they word the “amendments” always seems to be backwards to what they are doing.
Well, it’s either the Sinate shredder, or the FED printer.
Here we go again....BS! The RINOS ALWAYS side with the rats! It’s a done deal...period.
I totally agree. And Republicans could come out with that as a policy proposal now.
- It would highlight what a mess it is to entrust the legislature to people don’t believe in the idea of the common good, as shown by the Democrats public policy legislating meltdown
- By withholding the filibuster it would scare the crap out of the industries who have been funding the socialists.
All those giveaways........Bidung thinks he’s another FDR.
Actually, this is why it is RECONSILIATION bill. Those are not to be filibustered. There will not be filibuster on this.
Dems know that this bill could never pass the filibuster threshold. That’s why they separated it in two - the just signed bipartisan bill (1.2 trillion monstrosity) and this craziness.
But reconciliation bills are supposed to include only budgetary stuff. So that’s why parliamentarian is opposing it, because it is against the rules!
And, they probably will not get even the needed 50 votes!
As I understand it, the parliamentarian had ruled against certain items being included. But can the parliamentarian be pressured to allow certain things back in? Supposedly a reconciliation bill is only supposed to allow for items already budgeted, and not to be used for brand new programs or spending.
Yes I know that. Republicans used reconciliation too (for the Trump tax bill, for example).
But the main reason they “need” to stuff these various separate bills into one big reconciliation bill is because they (correctly) expect the Republicans to filibuster anything else. (They probably also want to hide goodies in a giant omnibus bill but they don’t actually say that).
If the Republicans called out these various goodies and said we won’t filibuster them, it would take away their excuse to put them in reconciliation and make them face the music in their own party, at the same time making the pharma industry (among others) think twice about trying to buy off the socialists.
The parliamentarian is a person, which is supposed to watch over the rules of the senate. But he/she is not even a senator, and has no vote. His/hers decisions are kind of guidelines, based on ethics, on the interpretation of rules of conduct. Ruthless congressmen/senators can override them, if the accept the risks of being called on that in the press and setting a precedent the other party can use some next time.
Since the press is in cahoots with Democrats, they can really ignore his/hers rulings.
“But I’ll bet she knows the votes are in the Senate too”
Sure thing! Especially after seeing the ABC survey report why EVEN twenty REPUBLICANS will vote for this - ha ha ha do some research before you push the surrender Monkey line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.