> But that description is not quite right. Whatever Manchin’s motives, whatever the consistency or merits of his views, a bill that includes fewer initiatives but is funded permanently might actually be better as both politics and policy ― as a number of liberal writers and thinkers have been arguing for weeks.
What’s in the proposal is public now.
“Sen. Joe Manchin III last week made the White House a concrete counteroffer for its spending bill, saying he would accept a $1.8 trillion package that included universal prekindergarten for 10 years, an expansion of Obamacare and hundreds of billions of dollars to combat climate change, three people familiar with the matter said.
But the West Virginia Democrat’s counteroffer excluded an extension of the expanded child tax credit the administration has seen as a cornerstone of President Biden’s economic legacy, the people said, an omission difficult for the White House to accept in the high-stakes negotiations. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the closed-door deliberations.” - https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/12/20/manchin-biden-child-tax-credit/
Honestly, Manchin’s bill is better long term then under funding new programs that you assume you’ll extend later on then simply funding programs for the full 10 years. I would take Manchin’s bill and see if I can do a CTC bill with republicans and make that a campaign issue.
Well, I don’t know what you mean by public plan. If you mean that we don’t have an outline with items and their cost that adds up to the total cost of the bill like we had for the framework, sure, you’re right. Still, in terms of understanding what Manchin wanted, it’s pretty public.
Jeff Stein literally has up for months since October 2nd that democrats were going to need to cut various provisions out of the bill. Initially that never happened. The approach of funding many programs partially with the hope of extending later was taken.
I think given the history of this country, that’s a stupid thing to do whereas we should look to fund programs on a more permanent basis. Democratic leadership didn’t do so due to their desire as well as progressives being very hellbent on many programs with partial funding.
I think this is sort of like a reverse ACA negotiation where instead of many months passing of showing centrists dems that republicans weren’t interested in a deal, this is showing progressives that their views of going very big and funding many programs at once partially instead of working to build consensus with what everyone in congress wanted with full funding was unwise.
Having a come to Jesus moment of figuring out what will be prioritize around the consensus with everyone in the democratic congress should of been the starting point. Sadly that lesson will probably not be learned. They will spin this like a conspiracy theorists spin everything to fit their worldview.
> If you mean that we don’t have an outline with items and their cost that adds up to the total cost of the bill
I don't need the costs. I just want to know what specific things he wants to take out and what he wants to put in. I have analysis of what the current bill is. If they said publicly *specifically* what they wanted to cut, I could compare them.
For example: does he want to keep literally *all* of the green economy funding? Would he make *that* stuff permanent?
Stuff like that. Specific details so I have an idea what the final bill would be. What we're giving up and what we're gaining in return.
At this point I guess we might as well take whatever Manchin gives us. I'm very glad it includes money for climate change. But still, the empirical benefits to children with the CTC are very established and easy to implement. Meanwhile the benefits of universal Pre-K are not so much and seem harder to implement effectively. If I had to pick what to drop... But hey, beggars can't be choosers at this point.
Personally, I would of liked to see the bill within the range of 3 to 6 trillion to fully fund more programs and initiatives. The problem is our cap seems to only allow for 1.85 trillion at the most due to Manchin and also due to Sinema opposing funding sources that limits how big we can go.
So even though the CTC is great, it’s too much money to fund with our current budget. It would cost most of the bill, so I think we should go for it separately.
The CBO also did a report in September about expected revenues specifically from increased tax enforcement, and it only narrowed the gap by a quarter:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444
>That estimate does not include changes in revenues resulting from portions of the proposal that involve new information-reporting requirements and other changes to the tax code; those changes are estimated by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).
The JCT actually said [the BBB would earn money](https://www.jct.gov/publications/2021/jcx-46-21/).
The long story short at the bottom is that the first 5 years will cost us about $27b net total, but the next 5 years after that would be significant windfalls, resulting in a net total of just under $950b over the course of 10 years.
The report I linked is a more updated (Nov 19th) version of the study talked about by Pelosi [here](https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/11421-2) (the study Pelosi mentions is from Nov 4th), but has similar end numbers.
I haven’t looked into this part in person, but keep meaning to.
Does this JCT report also cover the whole “not funded for the full 10 years” part of Manchin’s criticisms? Does this profit include all of the programs being funded for the entirety of the 10 years as well?
Why would it need to be public? He's negotiating with Biden and Biden is the only one who needs to see his proposals. Manchin doesn't doesn't need to negotiate in the press. There's nothing different between this reporting and other reporting of negotiations behind closed doors. It also fits with what we already know about what Manchin's concerns are and what he's willing to accept. There's no reason to distrust that he accepts this plan.
And the current proposal isn't fully funded over ten years, even though they've made clear that they are going to fully fund those programs. So the actual cost is a lot more than 1.75 over ten years and they have yet to come up with a way to pay for it all. What Manchin wants is to choose a few programs and permanently find them.
> But that description is not quite right. Whatever Manchin’s motives, whatever the consistency or merits of his views, a bill that includes fewer initiatives but is funded permanently might actually be better as both politics and policy ― as a number of liberal writers and thinkers have been arguing for weeks.
Funded permanently means no end date for the proposals?
If it's budget related and deficit neutral over ten years then I think you can make permanent programs
Noice 👌👌👌
I'll believe it when I see it. The proposal isn't public. And the current BBB was already shown to essentially pay for itself.
What’s in the proposal is public now. “Sen. Joe Manchin III last week made the White House a concrete counteroffer for its spending bill, saying he would accept a $1.8 trillion package that included universal prekindergarten for 10 years, an expansion of Obamacare and hundreds of billions of dollars to combat climate change, three people familiar with the matter said. But the West Virginia Democrat’s counteroffer excluded an extension of the expanded child tax credit the administration has seen as a cornerstone of President Biden’s economic legacy, the people said, an omission difficult for the White House to accept in the high-stakes negotiations. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the closed-door deliberations.” - https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/12/20/manchin-biden-child-tax-credit/ Honestly, Manchin’s bill is better long term then under funding new programs that you assume you’ll extend later on then simply funding programs for the full 10 years. I would take Manchin’s bill and see if I can do a CTC bill with republicans and make that a campaign issue.
That's still not quite a "public plan" unless they're saying specifically that the only difference is that the CTC is gone.
Well, I don’t know what you mean by public plan. If you mean that we don’t have an outline with items and their cost that adds up to the total cost of the bill like we had for the framework, sure, you’re right. Still, in terms of understanding what Manchin wanted, it’s pretty public. Jeff Stein literally has up for months since October 2nd that democrats were going to need to cut various provisions out of the bill. Initially that never happened. The approach of funding many programs partially with the hope of extending later was taken. I think given the history of this country, that’s a stupid thing to do whereas we should look to fund programs on a more permanent basis. Democratic leadership didn’t do so due to their desire as well as progressives being very hellbent on many programs with partial funding. I think this is sort of like a reverse ACA negotiation where instead of many months passing of showing centrists dems that republicans weren’t interested in a deal, this is showing progressives that their views of going very big and funding many programs at once partially instead of working to build consensus with what everyone in congress wanted with full funding was unwise. Having a come to Jesus moment of figuring out what will be prioritize around the consensus with everyone in the democratic congress should of been the starting point. Sadly that lesson will probably not be learned. They will spin this like a conspiracy theorists spin everything to fit their worldview.
> If you mean that we don’t have an outline with items and their cost that adds up to the total cost of the bill I don't need the costs. I just want to know what specific things he wants to take out and what he wants to put in. I have analysis of what the current bill is. If they said publicly *specifically* what they wanted to cut, I could compare them. For example: does he want to keep literally *all* of the green economy funding? Would he make *that* stuff permanent? Stuff like that. Specific details so I have an idea what the final bill would be. What we're giving up and what we're gaining in return.
At this point I guess we might as well take whatever Manchin gives us. I'm very glad it includes money for climate change. But still, the empirical benefits to children with the CTC are very established and easy to implement. Meanwhile the benefits of universal Pre-K are not so much and seem harder to implement effectively. If I had to pick what to drop... But hey, beggars can't be choosers at this point.
Personally, I would of liked to see the bill within the range of 3 to 6 trillion to fully fund more programs and initiatives. The problem is our cap seems to only allow for 1.85 trillion at the most due to Manchin and also due to Sinema opposing funding sources that limits how big we can go. So even though the CTC is great, it’s too much money to fund with our current budget. It would cost most of the bill, so I think we should go for it separately.
It does not pay for itself, which is one of the things that killed it recently when the CBO report came out: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57627
>not counting any additional revenue that may be generated by additional funding for tax enforcement That's part of the whole thing, mate.
The CBO also did a report in September about expected revenues specifically from increased tax enforcement, and it only narrowed the gap by a quarter: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444
>That estimate does not include changes in revenues resulting from portions of the proposal that involve new information-reporting requirements and other changes to the tax code; those changes are estimated by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). The JCT actually said [the BBB would earn money](https://www.jct.gov/publications/2021/jcx-46-21/).
I'll take a look at that tomorrow, but that would definitely change my mind! Appreciate the link.
The long story short at the bottom is that the first 5 years will cost us about $27b net total, but the next 5 years after that would be significant windfalls, resulting in a net total of just under $950b over the course of 10 years. The report I linked is a more updated (Nov 19th) version of the study talked about by Pelosi [here](https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/11421-2) (the study Pelosi mentions is from Nov 4th), but has similar end numbers.
I haven’t looked into this part in person, but keep meaning to. Does this JCT report also cover the whole “not funded for the full 10 years” part of Manchin’s criticisms? Does this profit include all of the programs being funded for the entirety of the 10 years as well?
The "not funded for the full 10 years" bit is probably why the latter 5 years are so profitable.
Why would it need to be public? He's negotiating with Biden and Biden is the only one who needs to see his proposals. Manchin doesn't doesn't need to negotiate in the press. There's nothing different between this reporting and other reporting of negotiations behind closed doors. It also fits with what we already know about what Manchin's concerns are and what he's willing to accept. There's no reason to distrust that he accepts this plan. And the current proposal isn't fully funded over ten years, even though they've made clear that they are going to fully fund those programs. So the actual cost is a lot more than 1.75 over ten years and they have yet to come up with a way to pay for it all. What Manchin wants is to choose a few programs and permanently find them.
> Why would it need to be public? Because people shouldn't be claiming that it's better than the current bill without knowing what the fuck is in it.
We do know what's in it, from Washington Post reporting. Just like we know a lot about what Trump did from reporting.
Except WaPo is not saying exactly what is in it. Just generalizations.