Joe Manchin Was Right, and Democrats Should Admit It

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,531
57,913
1
Will cultboyz like @PaoliLion and @NJPSU admit it? No phucking way....

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...ould-admit-joe-manchin-was-right?srnd=opinion

Senator Joe Manchin officially said no to the president’s signature Build Back Better legislation late last year, but progressives remain furious at him. While it is too much to ask them to thank the moderate senator from West Virginia, if they want to get anything done this year, they might acknowledge that he was basically right — about the bill itself and inflation.

Manchin’s behavior during President Joe Biden’s tenure hasn’t been perfect. It’s also true, however, that the bill the House passed was bad. Had it become law, inflation would be even worse today, and most of the money involved would have been wasted on temporary initiatives.
 
Last edited:

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,323
8,103
1
Will cultboyz like @PaoliLion and @NJPSU admit it? No phucking way....

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...ould-admit-joe-manchin-was-right?srnd=opinion

Senator Joe Manchin officially said no to the president’s signature Build Back Better legislation late last year, but progressives remain furious at him. While it is too much to ask them to thank the moderate senator from West Virginia, if they want to get anything done this year, they might acknowledge that he was basically right — about the bill itself and inflation.

Manchin’s behavior during President Joe Biden’s tenure hasn’t been perfect. It’s also true, however, that the bill the House passed was bad. Had it become law, inflation would be even worse today, and most of the money involved would have been wasted on temporary initiatives.

The problem I have with the typical bill pushed by Pelosi is that it invariably comes with a nice label (like "infrastructure") that would garner broad support, including some money pertinent to that label. But then the bill gets loaded down with hundreds of billions in irrelevant spending that they could not push through as standalone bills. It's a way of arm twisting. It's corruption that invites disinformation.

At one time there was a push for a presidential line-item veto. That obviously would not work in today's climate. What needs to happen is that Congress should be required to have a line item vote. Every line item should need 60% support in the Senate. Then, across the board cuts should occur when there is a budget gap.

In short, it should not be easy to spend money at the federal level. Similarly, it should not be easy for the Fed to ignore its primary mandate of price stability by making the process fuzzy through this "dual mandate." One does not have to be a PhD mathematician to realize that with only one handle the Fed cannot manage both price stability and unemployment. Making the mandate fuzzy just provided the means for corruption.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,512
26,751
1
An altered state
The problem I have with the typical bill pushed by Pelosi is that it invariably comes with a nice label (like "infrastructure") that would garner broad support, including some money pertinent to that label. But then the bill gets loaded down with hundreds of billions in irrelevant spending that they could not push through as standalone bills. It's a way of arm twisting. It's corruption that invites disinformation.

At one time there was a push for a presidential line-item veto. That obviously would not work in today's climate. What needs to happen is that Congress should be required to have a line item vote. Every line item should need 60% support in the Senate. Then, across the board cuts should occur when there is a budget gap.

In short, it should not be easy to spend money at the federal level. Similarly, it should not be easy for the Fed to ignore its primary mandate of price stability by making the process fuzzy through this "dual mandate." One does not have to be a PhD mathematician to realize that with only one handle the Fed cannot manage both price stability and unemployment. Making the mandate fuzzy just provided the means for corruption.
Actually, the Newt Gingrich-led Congress passed a line item veto bill that was signed into law by Clinton. He then used it with considerable success which helped him balance the budget and steal,credit for doing so. But NYC sues in federal court because much of the pork that Billy Boy vetoed was to go there and the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional. So the only way a line item veto would work is by an amendment.

 
Last edited:

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,531
57,913
1
Actually, the Newt Gingrich-led Vongress passed a line item veto bill that was signed into law by Clinton. He then used it with considerable success which helped him balance the budget and steal,credit for doing so. But NYC sues in federal court because much of the pork that Billy Boy vetoed was to go there and the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional. So the only way a line item veto would work is by an amendment.


Interesting. Practically speaking, since earmarks are now banned, a line item veto would work better today, but I'm not sure how to get around the constitutional issues noted in your link.

All that said, for the life of me I don't understand why there can't be smaller more focused bills. I think I answered my own question - quid pro quo.
 

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,285
10,957
1
SE PA
Will cultboyz like @PaoliLion and @NJPSU admit it? No phucking way....

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...ould-admit-joe-manchin-was-right?srnd=opinion

Senator Joe Manchin officially said no to the president’s signature Build Back Better legislation late last year, but progressives remain furious at him. While it is too much to ask them to thank the moderate senator from West Virginia, if they want to get anything done this year, they might acknowledge that he was basically right — about the bill itself and inflation.

Manchin’s behavior during President Joe Biden’s tenure hasn’t been perfect. It’s also true, however, that the bill the House passed was bad. Had it become law, inflation would be even worse today, and most of the money involved would have been wasted on temporary initiatives.
The fix for this is simple in concept, near impossible in practice. That is Congressional Term Limits.

If our Congressmen were not focused all of the time on re-election, they would not be as motivated to put "pork" in every bill that finds its way to vote. Our representatives would be far more focused on actually solving problems rather than campaigning for re-election.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,512
26,751
1
An altered state
The fix for this is simple in concept, near impossible in practice. That is Congressional Term Limits.

If our Congressmen were not focused all of the time on re-election, they would not be as motivated to put "pork" in every bill that finds its way to vote. Our representatives would be far more focused on actually solving problems rather than campaigning for re-election.
May have the opposite affect. With a term limit looming any member of Congress would be looking for the next job and be more likely to follow the edicts of a lobbyist, publicity firm, or DC law firm. Even if you pass a law forcing them to move back to their home state, the same outfits operate nationwide.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,007
55,724
1
May have the opposite affect. With a term limit looming any member of Congress would be looking for the next job and be more likely to follow the edicts of a lobbyist, publicity firm, or DC law firm. Even if you pass a law forcing them to move back to their home state, the same outfits operate nationwide.
Agreed...term limits really limit the voter's power. We'd probably be on Obama's fourth term if not for term limits. Which means, while we wouldn't have had a Trump, we'd not have the veggie in chief ruining everything.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,007
55,724
1
Interesting. Practically speaking, since earmarks are now banned, a line item veto would work better today, but I'm not sure how to get around the constitutional issues noted in your link.

All that said, for the life of me I don't understand why there can't be smaller more focused bills. I think I answered my own question - quid pro quo.
LIne Item Veto gives the Executive Branch unlimited power and really kills the three branches of govt. Along with the misuse of Executive Orders, a line item veto would make congress powerless. The POTUS could simply pick and choose whatever they wanted out of any bill passed. The only check left would be SCOTUS but someone has to take a suit to SCOTUS....many weird constitutional issues never get to SCOTUS so never get ruled upon. POTUS would be approaching the status of an elected dictator.
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,397
11,010
1
LIne Item Veto gives the Executive Branch unlimited power and really kills the three branches of govt. Along with the misuse of Executive Orders, a line item veto would make congress powerless. The POTUS could simply pick and choose whatever they wanted out of any bill passed. The only check left would be SCOTUS but someone has to take a suit to SCOTUS....many weird constitutional issues never get to SCOTUS so never get ruled upon. POTUS would be approaching the status of an elected dictator.

Agree. A line item veto would greatly restrict the ability of members of Congress to compromise. They would make an agreement where both sides give a little to pass a bill and then the line item veto would blow it up. I prefer a Constitutional Amendment that eliminates deficit spending unless we are in a declared war or if it is passed by a supermajority of Congress (2/3rds or 3/4s).