The Biden Administration

[Parasaurolophus]

And today, President Manchin went on Fox to declare he won't support BBB.

I wish I could evince surpprise, but he did get his infrastructure wants for free last month, so.

There was an oped in WaPo yesterday arguing that this could force Democrats to focus on doing a few things very well and fully fund them. If this is the ultimately outcome, then that would be, imo, better than BBB as it has been conceived up to this point. Of course, there is a good chance that the oped is wrong and that Manchin is a "no" on any version of BBB.

Fully funding something is absolutely better than a handful of piecemeal policies which will be means-tested to death and expire before they can do real good. I don't really understand why there isn't more appetite for it.

I don't see any indications that Manchin is operating in good faith, however. That he took to Fox to announce his opposition is, I think, a pretty clear signal. The pretext he used was this totally unremarkable statement by Biden, which also doesn't inspire much confidence that he's going to get up to much good.

[marshwiggle]

And today, President Manchin went on Fox to declare he won't support BBB.

I wish I could evince surpprise, but he did get his infrastructure wants for free last month, so.

There was an oped in WaPo yesterday arguing that this could force Democrats to focus on doing a few things very well and fully fund them. If this is the ultimately outcome, then that would be, imo, better than BBB as it has been conceived up to this point. Of course, there is a good chance that the oped is wrong and that Manchin is a "no" on any version of BBB.

Fully funding something is absolutely better than a handful of piecemeal policies which will be means-tested to death and expire before they can do real good. I don't really understand why there isn't more appetite for it.

In all kinds of areas, Americans seem to be extremely sensitive to "who pays" and "who benefits", which comes up in all of these discussions. (But all of the ensuing bureaucracy doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a problem. Go figure.)

[mamselle]

My guess is that he'd only approve a couple of long term programs, funded for at least a decade, that aren't climate related. Otherwise BBB is DOA. If they really just want to do anything, then they need to ask him and others what is acceptable instead of focusing on top line. Of course the top line would likely be under one trillion anyway at this point, and certainly not more than what has been stated to this point. The only other option is to go with what moderate Republican we're willing to pass, but it's unlikely that would survive the House.

But...they did "ask," or presumably, at least, discussed, what was in the package-as-was, and he could read/could have objected/stipulated/whatever before the sham "agreement."

No-one should ever trust him again; AOC-and-co. were right to point out the need for backup plans.

He's in the same class with McConnell during Obama's years in office.

Why be a functioning gate when you can garner so much power by being a stuck-closed, constipative, dysfunctional dam wall?

M.

[dismalist]

...

In all kinds of areas, Americans seem to be extremely sensitive to "who pays" and "who benefits", which comes up in all of these discussions. (But all of the ensuing bureaucracy doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a problem. Go figure.)

Actually, that's been settled for a long time. Current generation benefits, future generations pay. :-)

The two  major parties are playing chicken with each other.

[mahagonny]

Fivethirtyeight puts him at 41.9% approval, 53.5% disapprove. Worst ratio of all presidents except Trump.
Surprising he hasn't fired anyone. Who should be first? Are there any shake-up moves that could help his presidency?

[Hibush]

Fivethirtyeight puts him at 41.9% approval, 53.5% disapprove. Worst ratio of all presidents except Trump.
Surprising he hasn't fired anyone. Who should be first? Are there any shake-up moves that could help his presidency?

Firing McConnell would help his situation.

[mahagonny]

Supreme Court Judges are not officially part of the president's administration, but...

In 2005 Senator Obama tried unsuccessfully to keep Janice Rodgers Brown off the California high court. Sometime later I think it was, Senator Biden promised the democrats would use the filibuster to keep her away from the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court might have had the first woman of color way back then, but the democrats nixed it.

http://obamaspeeches.com/021-Nomination-of-Justice-Janice-Rogers-Brown-Obama-Speech.htm

Adam Serwer in the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/biden-supreme-court-nominee-smear-campaign/621408/

His last sentence is ironic given the odyssey of Janice Rodgers Brown almost 20 years ago:

"And I could point out the absurdity of arguing that racism is when you first nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court after more than 200 years, not when you exclude Black women from the nation's highest court for more than 200 years."

In 1960 many felt that it was time for a Catholic president. I get that people feel it's time for a Black Woman to serve on the Supreme Court. As long as it's not someone unqualified, my inclination is to say 'you go girl!' At the same time, when I ask myself who excluded a woman from being our first female Vice President in 1984 and 2008? I have to answer, the voters who decided the other team ran the better campaign, like the way it's supposed to work. The fact that we didn't get a female Vice President either time is not proof that it couldn't have happened.

[mahagonny]

Then again, there's this:

https://nypost.com/2022/02/03/a-liberal-network-is-pushing-bidens-hand-for-scotus-pick/

From those wonderful folks who've given us live-and-let-live district attorneys. And the not so surprising result of sharply increased urban crime.

Robert Reich seems like such a nice guy. Could he just find it in his heart to shut up and keep his silly pie-in-the-sky ideas to himself?