Red Mosquito

So Democrats are not only negotiating spending, but also revenue, with absolutely no one.

McParadigm wrote:So Democrats are not only negotiating spending, but also revenue, with absolutely no one.

Serious question. What do you suggest? I don't remember your position on ending the filibuster or going the reconciliation route. And if you support either of those things, then what you do about Manchin?

I’m in favor of filibuster reform....I’m not sure about elimination. There was a proposal in....the 90’s, maybe? Early 2000’s? Regardless, the idea was that the longer a filibuster goes on, the fewer votes it should take to overcome it. So when a filibuster begins, it takes 60 votes. But as it goes on for longer and longer, the threshold drops to 57. Then 54. Eventually, if it goes on long enough, it can be defeated by a simple majority. I also think filibustering should require effort, and not be a simple announce-and-go-home.

But wishes ain’t fishes. So for right now, in the world that is and for the bill in question, here is a path I wish Democrats were trying instead:

Step 1. Just try and pass your bill.

The issue here isn’t the Democrats don’t have the votes to pass their infrastructure bill, it’s that they don’t have the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster. It just seems obvious that you should REQUIRE the other team to actually use the filibuster, in that case. Maybe public opinion about the filibuster would change if it was being repeatedly, actually used to block legislation. Maybe it wouldn’t. But by letting the threat of an action stop you from making your effort, you are walking into the midterms with a story of “Democrats didn’t deliver on their promises“ instead of “Republicans repeatedly filibustered to prevent popular legislation from being passed.” It just seems like stupidly bad business.

Step 2. Break it up.

Having publicly demonstrated that Republicans aren’t going to let you pass your bill, even after so many concessions in the hopes of bipartisanship, chop it into parts. Submit the different aspects of the bill on their own. Work them individually. One bill for roads. One bill for clean drinking water. One bill for child care. Keep each bill focused. Let whatever can pass, pass. And let whatever facets Republicans block have that level of clear visibility. “Republicans filibuster Democrats’ infrastructure plan” doesn’t have the same messaging impact as “Republicans oppose clean water act.”

Step 3. So you’ve passed a few of your agenda items, but weren’t able to get Republicans on board with the revenue side...

Learn a lesson from Republicans in 2017. Use budget reconciliation to pass your tax law, filibuster free.

McParadigm wrote:I’m in favor of filibuster reform....I’m not sure about elimination. There was a proposal in....the 90’s, maybe? Early 2000’s? Regardless, the idea was that the longer a filibuster goes on, the fewer votes it should take to overcome it. So when a filibuster begins, it takes 60 votes. But as it goes on for longer and longer, the threshold drops to 57. Then 54. Eventually, if it goes on long enough, it can be defeated by a simple majority. I also think filibustering should require effort, and not be a simple announce-and-go-home.

But wishes ain’t fishes. So for right now, in the world that is and for the bill in question, here is a path I wish Democrats were trying instead:

Step 1. Just try and pass your bill.

The issue here isn’t the Democrats don’t have the votes to pass their infrastructure bill, it’s that they don’t have the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster. It just seems obvious that you should REQUIRE the other team to actually use the filibuster, in that case. Maybe public opinion about the filibuster would change if it was being repeatedly, actually used to block legislation. Maybe it wouldn’t. But by letting the threat of an action stop you from making your effort, you are walking into the midterms with a story of “Democrats didn’t deliver on their promises“ instead of “Republicans repeatedly filibustered to prevent popular legislation from being passed.” It just seems like stupidly bad business.

Step 2. Break it up.

Having publicly demonstrated that Republicans aren’t going to let you pass your bill, even after so many concessions in the hopes of bipartisanship, chop it into parts. Submit the different aspects of the bill on their own. Work them individually. One bill for roads. One bill for clean drinking water. One bill for child care. Keep each bill focused. Let whatever can pass, pass. And let whatever facets Republicans block have that level of clear visibility. “Republicans filibuster Democrats’ infrastructure plan” doesn’t have the same messaging impact as “Republicans oppose clean water act.”

Step 3. So you’ve passed a few of your agenda items, but weren’t able to get Republicans on board with the revenue side...

Learn a lesson from Republicans in 2017. Use budget reconciliation to pass your tax law, filibuster free.

And all along the way Manchin & Sinema are on the record with actual votes, not press appearances.

McParadigm wrote:I’m in favor of filibuster reform....I’m not sure about elimination. There was a proposal in....the 90’s, maybe? Early 2000’s? Regardless, the idea was that the longer a filibuster goes on, the fewer votes it should take to overcome it. So when a filibuster begins, it takes 60 votes. But as it goes on for longer and longer, the threshold drops to 57. Then 54. Eventually, if it goes on long enough, it can be defeated by a simple majority. I also think filibustering should require effort, and not be a simple announce-and-go-home.

But wishes ain’t fishes. So for right now, in the world that is and for the bill in question, here is a path I wish Democrats were trying instead:

Step 1. Just try and pass your bill.

The issue here isn’t the Democrats don’t have the votes to pass their infrastructure bill, it’s that they don’t have the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster. It just seems obvious that you should REQUIRE the other team to actually use the filibuster, in that case. Maybe public opinion about the filibuster would change if it was being repeatedly, actually used to block legislation. Maybe it wouldn’t. But by letting the threat of an action stop you from making your effort, you are walking into the midterms with a story of “Democrats didn’t deliver on their promises“ instead of “Republicans repeatedly filibustered to prevent popular legislation from being passed.” It just seems like stupidly bad business.

Step 2. Break it up.

Having publicly demonstrated that Republicans aren’t going to let you pass your bill, even after so many concessions in the hopes of bipartisanship, chop it into parts. Submit the different aspects of the bill on their own. Work them individually. One bill for roads. One bill for clean drinking water. One bill for child care. Keep each bill focused. Let whatever can pass, pass. And let whatever facets Republicans block have that level of clear visibility. “Republicans filibuster Democrats’ infrastructure plan” doesn’t have the same messaging impact as “Republicans oppose clean water act.”

Step 3. So you’ve passed a few of your agenda items, but weren’t able to get Republicans on board with the revenue side...

Learn a lesson from Republicans in 2017. Use budget reconciliation to pass your tax law, filibuster free.

Good answer. I'm not familiar with that version of filibuster reform; I don't love it, but it's interesting. I'm fully on board with making it tougher to filibuster, there needs to be a cost to filibustering.

I have a feeling we'll see something very similar to what you've suggested play out. Of course, implicit in your post is being able to keep all 50 Democrats together, but they should be able to do that on at least some of the policies if they split them up as you suggest.

An idea straight out of West Wing designed to make Mickey's head explode:

Would you (anybody) be open to a grand bargain offering entitlement reform for infrastructure/climate programs? Or less specifically, what I'm getting at is if we imagine that politics is the result of negotiation and compromise and it's understood that there isn't one party rule, then what would you be willing to give to the other side to get what you want? And similarly, what would you need to get in return to be willing to compromise on other things?

4/5 wrote:An idea straight out of West Wing designed to make Mickey's head explode:

Would you (anybody) be open to a grand bargain offering entitlement reform for infrastructure/climate programs? Or less specifically, what I'm getting at is if we imagine that politics is the result of negotiation and compromise and it's understood that there isn't one party rule, then what would you be willing to give to the other side to get what you want? And similarly, what would you need to get in return to be willing to compromise on other things?

I’d give up assault rifles

4/5 wrote:Would you (anybody) be open to a grand bargain offering entitlement reform for infrastructure/climate programs?

Can you expound on what you're offering here?

4/5 wrote:Or less specifically, what I'm getting at is if we imagine that politics is the result of negotiation and compromise and it's understood that there isn't one party rule, then what would you be willing to give to the other side to get what you want? And similarly, what would you need to get in return to be willing to compromise on other things?

Politics is only the result of negotiation and compromise when you don't have the votes to govern under majority rule. In parliamentary systems, it occurs in forming coalitions (a very extreme example coming in the recent agreement of 8(!) parties uniting in Israel with no commonality other than to get rid of Netanyahu). In presidential systems, it occurs when different parties hold different branches (or sub-branches) of government. Or, in the case of DC currently, when there's one or two members of a razor thin majority that aren't willing to play ball.

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:Or less specifically, what I'm getting at is if we imagine that politics is the result of negotiation and compromise and it's understood that there isn't one party rule, then what would you be willing to give to the other side to get what you want? And similarly, what would you need to get in return to be willing to compromise on other things?

Politics is only the result of negotiation and compromise when you don't have the votes to govern under majority rule. In parliamentary systems, it occurs in forming coalitions (a very extreme example coming in the recent agreement of 8(!) parties uniting in Israel with no commonality other than to get rid of Netanyahu). In presidential systems, it occurs when different parties hold different branches (or sub-branches) of government. Or, in the case of DC currently, when there's one or two members of a razor thin majority that aren't willing to play ball.

Well, that's why I said to imagine lol. I'd add to your list, though, any legislation that needs 60 votes to get through when the same party doesn't have a House majority, the White House, and a 60 member Senate majority.

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:Would you (anybody) be open to a grand bargain offering entitlement reform for infrastructure/climate programs?

Can you expound on what you're offering here?

Well, I wanted to leave it to people rather than have them respond only to my version. The basic premise is that the promise of entitlement reform should be something that would incentivize Republicans to come to the table and I picked infrastructure since that seems to be the main Democratic goal at this moment, with much of the more progressive versions of infrastructure bills framed as a way to mitigate climate change or at least reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Personally, my version of entitlement reform that Dems could put on the table would involve some combination of: means-testing some level of benefits, slowly increasing the age requirement, and removing the cap on the Social Security portion of the payroll tax. So my question is would the Democrats on the board be interested in a deal that put those sorts of things on the table in exchange for their preferred version of an infrastructure bill (or something else--child care, college, whatever) or is that simply a non-starter? And if entitlement reform is too big of a prize to offer up to the other side, then what would you be willing to offer to get some stuff done?

Would you make the Trump tax cuts on personal income permanent in exchange for a higher corporate rate and a smaller infrastructure bill? Agree to increased defense spending in exchange for the voting rights bill? Etc.

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:Or less specifically, what I'm getting at is if we imagine that politics is the result of negotiation and compromise and it's understood that there isn't one party rule, then what would you be willing to give to the other side to get what you want? And similarly, what would you need to get in return to be willing to compromise on other things?

Politics is only the result of negotiation and compromise when you don't have the votes to govern under majority rule. In parliamentary systems, it occurs in forming coalitions (a very extreme example coming in the recent agreement of 8(!) parties uniting in Israel with no commonality other than to get rid of Netanyahu). In presidential systems, it occurs when different parties hold different branches (or sub-branches) of government. Or, in the case of DC currently, when there's one or two members of a razor thin majority that aren't willing to play ball.

Well, that's why I said to imagine lol. I'd add to your list, though, any legislation that needs 60 votes to get through when the same party doesn't have a House majority, the White House, and a 60 member Senate majority.

Sure, although I'm coming to the opinion that the filibuster is just being used an excuse by the likes of Manchin and Sinema to prevent putting their names on the record as voting against major legislation on their party's agenda.

I'll get to the main part in a bit after I read it over.

Green Habit wrote:Sure, although I'm coming to the opinion that the filibuster is just being used an excuse by the likes of Manchin and Sinema to prevent putting their names on the record as voting against major legislation on their party's agenda.

I typed a version of that earlier but deleted it. You can definitely make an argument that the 2017-18 Republicans liked having the filibuster around to blame as a way to obscure the fact that they simply weren't able to come together as a party and pass stuff even though they controlled everything.

4/5 wrote:Would you (anybody) be open to a grand bargain offering entitlement reform for infrastructure/climate programs?

Broadly stated, I don't think this trade-off would be well received by either party. But I think that it would be possible to drill down and identify facets of entitlement reform that could be utilized in a functional compromise deal.

In 2011, with a Democratic president and House and a Republican Senate, there was an attempt to negotiate entitlement reform. They actually came pretty close to moving on it, with Republicans agreeing to $800 billion worth of new taxes and Democrats accepting $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and $250 billion in Medicare-spending cuts. It fell apart at the last minute, but it is probably the closest to an actual entitlement spending compromise that we've ever seen.

I think negotiations within the confines of an issue, like the entitlement deal above, are more plausible than negotiations which trade across issues (ie climate programs in exchange for entitlement reform). I can't imagine a scenario where the Republican Party accepts a deal that produces stringent national gun control laws in exchange for robust border control+wall, for example.

what I'm getting at is if we imagine that politics is the result of negotiation and compromise and it's understood that there isn't one party rule, then what would you be willing to give to the other side to get what you want?

Negotiation, compromise, and messaging. To a certain degree public opinion is the political negotiation table, which is why so much time, money, and worry is spent on polling and communication strategies. The scope of your voice at the table is determined by the scope of your draw in the election. It's also why gerrymandering is so popular with both parties when they're struggling to pull votes in a state...it's a way of securing an outsized seat at the negotiations table relative to your vote draw.

Would you make the Trump tax cuts on personal income permanent in exchange for a higher corporate rate

yes

Would you make the Trump tax cuts on personal income permanent in exchange for a higher corporate rate and a smaller infrastructure bill?

no (depending on scope of reduction)

Agree to increased defense spending in exchange for the voting rights bill?

absolutely (there's no way in hell Republicans would take this deal, though)

McParadigm wrote:Broadly stated, I don't think this trade-off would be well received by either party. But I think that it would be possible to drill down and identify facets of entitlement reform that could be utilized in a functional compromise deal.

In 2011, with a Democratic president and House and a Republican Senate, there was an attempt to negotiate entitlement reform. They actually came pretty close to moving on it, with Republicans agreeing to $800 billion worth of new taxes and Democrats accepting $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and $250 billion in Medicare-spending cuts. It fell apart at the last minute, but it is probably the closest to an actual entitlement spending compromise that we've ever seen.

I think negotiations within the confines of an issue, like the entitlement deal above, are more plausible than negotiations which trade across issues (ie climate programs in exchange for entitlement reform). I can't imagine a scenario where the Republican Party accepts a deal that produces stringent national gun control laws in exchange for robust border control+wall, for example.

Yeah, that Obama-Boehner near-deal was kinda the basis for this thought experiment, even why I called it a "grand bargain."

You're probably right that it'd be easier to just focus on a single issue and try to do something like they tried to do then. Another reason I picked infrastructure initially was because unlike universal health care, a public option, "free" college, a major gun bill, etc., I think infrastructure is something they actually could compromise on. If Dems were able to avoid it being overly branded as a response to climate change I don't think it'd spark the visceral reaction that other things would. I think the ideological opposition would be more pronounced from the left not wanting to rein in entitlement spending.

And yeah no way Republicans would take that voting rights deal, although they probably could count on the Supreme Court striking it down so that'd be some next level 3-D chess playing.

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:Would you (anybody) be open to a grand bargain offering entitlement reform for infrastructure/climate programs?

Can you expound on what you're offering here?

Well, I wanted to leave it to people rather than have them respond only to my version. The basic premise is that the promise of entitlement reform should be something that would incentivize Republicans to come to the table and I picked infrastructure since that seems to be the main Democratic goal at this moment, with much of the more progressive versions of infrastructure bills framed as a way to mitigate climate change or at least reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Personally, my version of entitlement reform that Dems could put on the table would involve some combination of: means-testing some level of benefits, slowly increasing the age requirement, and removing the cap on the Social Security portion of the payroll tax. So my question is would the Democrats on the board be interested in a deal that put those sorts of things on the table in exchange for their preferred version of an infrastructure bill (or something else--child care, college, whatever) or is that simply a non-starter? And if entitlement reform is too big of a prize to offer up to the other side, then what would you be willing to offer to get some stuff done?

Would you make the Trump tax cuts on personal income permanent in exchange for a higher corporate rate and a smaller infrastructure bill? Agree to increased defense spending in exchange for the voting rights bill? Etc.

Not sure what's left to means test other than the big two of Social Security and Medicare. And removing the FICA cap (which I really like) would be something Democrats would like more than Republicans, so I don't see why that's a concession for the Dems.

But to broadly answer that part of the question, I don't think Dems today are in any mood to concede on entitlements, and since 2016 I'm not sure if the GOP has it as that high of a priority, either, as Trump has pretty much ignored the point and most Republicans are following him instead of Paul Ryan these days. Thinking about it, I'm not sure if that's the place to negotiate.

The other issue is that the GOP under McConnell has turned into the Party of No. Trump has aggravated this with his boorish manners, but the real challenge that predated Trump is that Republicans are increasingly disinclined to get on board with anything the Democrats even marginally like. So the likely result ends up being...nothing happens. As you know, most of the time I think that's not bad, as I feel both sides have excesses that get checked when there's gridlock. 2020 was one massive exception to that rule, though.

I get that I'm not really answering the main question, but it's difficult for me to do so when I quite frankly don't know what the GOP's legislative desires are these days other than tax cuts. As we know, they pissed away two years of total control when that's all the legislation they got out of that time.

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Sure, although I'm coming to the opinion that the filibuster is just being used an excuse by the likes of Manchin and Sinema to prevent putting their names on the record as voting against major legislation on their party's agenda.

I typed a version of that earlier but deleted it. You can definitely make an argument that the 2017-18 Republicans liked having the filibuster around to blame as a way to obscure the fact that they simply weren't able to come together as a party and pass stuff even though they controlled everything.

As I just posted, they really did piss away a golden opportunity when it comes to legislation. My guess is that, since they did get a lockdown on SCOTUS (which didn't require the House), they're hoping that they'll do their dirty work for them in striking down/reinterpreting existing legislation. The risk though is that they'll be at the whim of only a few people who are no longer beholden to any of them, and it may not work out for them as planned. We've already seen that with Roberts & the ACA, and Gorsuch & expanding protections of the 1964 CRA to the LGBT community.

McParadigm wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Would you make the Trump tax cuts on personal income permanent in exchange for a higher corporate rate

yes

Would you make the Trump tax cuts on personal income permanent in exchange for a higher corporate rate and a smaller infrastructure bill?

no (depending on scope of reduction)

Agree to increased defense spending in exchange for the voting rights bill?

absolutely (there's no way in hell Republicans would take this deal, though)

I suppose I didn't answer how I personally would go with these deals, as I was just thinking about how the Dems and GOP would think about these.

On taxes, my preference as always is to make them as proportional as possible. Not sure if corporate taxes do that, though, I'd rather focus on who ultimately earns the income from activity, be it corporate or not. My longstanding white whale is to get rid of as many upper tier brackets as possible in exchange for taxing capital gains and estate gains the same as any other income.

I also agree with McParadigm that I'd absolutely take higher defense spending (which I hate) for HR 1, including that there's no way in hell the Republicans would take this deal.

It would be interesting to see responses to 4/5’s questions from posters of broader ideological backgrounds.

McParadigm wrote:It would be interesting to see responses to 4/5’s questions from posters of broader ideological backgrounds.

I agree with this on almost all topics here. I miss LittleWing. (Yes, it's a bit odd of me to say that I miss a poster when I've been AWOL for a year.)

tragabigzanda wrote:I am almost always in favor of some bipartisan horse trading.

Sure. But most everyone is in favor of the idea of bipartisan negotiation. I like that this exercise asks you to put skin in the game by trying to produce those trade-offs for yourself...imagining a deal that involves ideological sacrifices on your part.