Sinema, the supposed mystery vote
There was a lot of excitement and publicity about getting Manchin onboard with the Democrats’ new tax and energy bill. But if you do the voting math, unless at least one Republican signs on, too (which certainly could happen, knowing Republicans), the Democrats would need every single Democrat to vote for it. The Senate is 50/50, and Harris can only break the tie if there is a tie in the first place. It can be passed by a simple majority in the Senate because the Democrats are using the now-familiar reconciliation route.
That means Kyrsten Sinema, the other sort-of-moderate-compared-to-the-rest Democrat. At first glance, it would seem odd that she wasn’t consulted when Schumer was ironing it out with Manchin, but apparently she wasn’t, at least according to the WSJ:
Ms. Sinema, who played a central role last year in paring back elements of President Biden’s agenda, wasn’t consulted or briefed on the secret talks between Mr. Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and learned of the agreement when it became public, according to a person familiar with the matter. When news of the deal rippled through the Senate floor Wednesday, she and other senators were blindsided by news. “What’s going on?” she asked.
Ms. Sinema is studying the legislation and may not announce her view of the bill for days. She didn’t attend Mr. Schumer’s party meeting about the deal on Thursday morning.
This wouldn’t seem to be the way to woo her vote.
Then again, most of what’s in it was already cleared with her, it seems:
The question of whether Ms. Sinema will back it could hang over Democrats for days, if not weeks. A spokeswoman said she would need to review the text and the outcome of a review with the Senate’s nonpartisan parliamentarian, a necessary step for Democrats to pass the legislation using the reconciliation process…
Ms. Sinema reshaped Democrats’ policy plans last year—before Mr. Manchin put them on ice for much of 2022—and much of the current deal reflects changes she sought.
Ms. Sinema opposed raising marginal income rates on top earners and the corporate rates, forcing Democrats to search for alternative ways to raise taxes on very high-income Americans and large corporations. Two of the solutions they arrived at, a 15% corporate minimum tax and beefing up the Internal Revenue Service’s enforcement, are now elements of the deal between Messrs. Manchin and Schumer. After nixing much of Democrats’ tax agenda, Ms. Sinema worked last fall with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) on the corporate minimum tax.
That compromise endures despite Mr. Manchin spending much of this year calling for Democrats to adopt tax increases, including raising the corporate rate and raising the top capital-gains rate, that Ms. Sinema opposed.
Ms. Sinema was also a central negotiator in the prescription-drug price proposals, squaring off with progressives over the number of drugs that should be subject to government negotiation. The proposal included in the current deal largely reflects those talks.
And while Ms. Sinema has, like Mr. Manchin, raised concerns about government spending worsening inflation, she has also been supportive of measures to fight climate change, at one point telling lobbyists that she would support a tax on carbon emissions, according to a person familiar with the remark.
So far, so good for the Democrats.
But then there’s this:
…[A] central sticking point in the current talks could be a proposal to raise taxes on a key source of private-equity managers’ income, so-called carried interest.
During a fundraiser last summer, Ms. Sinema told a group of donors and lobbyists that she would oppose raising taxes on carried-interest income, along with raising the corporate rate and top capital-gains rate.
Mr. Manchin said this week that he would insist on including the carried interest proposal, which raises roughly $14 billion in revenue over a decade, in the deal, and it is not known if he would accept a deal that drops the provision.
Aha! That might be the key to why she was excluded. At least, that’s my guess. One of the things that Manchin insists upon (supposedly) is the very thing that (supposedly) is a sticking point for her. So my hunch is that, once Manchin got publicly on board, and she was the sole holdout, the Democrats and the Democrat base would put enormous pressure on her to capitulate. And since they were giving her a great deal else that she wanted, she’d agree.
Manchin isn’t up for re-election until 2024, and at that point he’ll be 77. Will he even want to run again? He says he does, but I wonder. If not, it doesn’t matter what the people of West Virginia think of his vote. Likewise, Sinema is up for re-election that same year, but she’s a whole lot younger and almost certainly wants to run again. What’s more, according to that WSJ article:
But in public statements, she has repeatedly said that she has opposed tax increases that she thinks would harm U.S. economic growth. Business groups in Arizona, a swing state where Ms. Sinema has tried to present herself as a moderate, have also encouraged her to oppose the tax hikes.
Ms. Sinema has received roughly $2.2 million in donations since 2017 from individuals and committees in the securities and investment industries, more than from any other sector, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan campaign finance tracker.
…A political-action committee called “Primary Sinema Project” quickly blasted out a statement calling on her to support the package, saying “All eyes on Kyrsten Sinema.”
…Rep. Ruben Gallego (D., Ariz.) has said he is considering a primary challenge in 2024.
I think the bill will ultimately pass, after a bit of tweaking. The Democrat leaders are desperate to get what they consider a win, and they consider this bill to be a win. But I don’t see why people who weren’t already going to vote for them would like this bill. It’s not helping Americans with the many serious problems that face them right now, and in fact it could make those things considerably worse.
My impression is that Sinema has little to fear from Gallego. She seems to want to be re-elected in a state that may or may not be all that “purple.” Gallego is far left and has been for a long time. This next election is critical for Arizona as well as the rest of the country. The Republicans’ cave on that CHIPS bill is not encouraging.
They don’t need Sinema.
They’ve got Romney and a few other RINOs.
It’s the Potomac Two-Step.
They’ve got Romney and a few other RINOs.
Romney and others have been willing to participate in the Democratic Party’s disgusting publicity stunts. They’re much less likely to dissent on policy. (Curiously, Elise Stefanik is a dissenter on policy who has no time for the Democrats’ vicious shenanigans). Per the American Conservative Union, Susan Collins has a voting record about equidistant between the medians of the two caucuses. Aside from her, the senators most likely to be off the reservation are Sleaza Murkowski, Romney, Shelley Moore Capito, John Hoeven, Kevin Cramer, Thom Tillis, Roger Marshall, Mike Rounds, Richard Shelby, Cindy Hyde Smith, Rob Portman, and Lindsey Graham in about that order. Ben Sasse, posturing nuisance, votes to the right of the caucus median. So does Pat Toomey.
Not sure Collins is on board with money pukes to Democratic clients. Had a dear friend who was until last year on her staff. He said it would stupefy you what Democratic legislators were seeking for their pets during the COVID spendapalooza. Murkowski is facing a difficult election campaign this year. They’re having a jungle primary and she’s sure to make the cut, so will be a candidate in the general election along with the other Republican running and a couple of wild cards. What she does will indubitably be a function of her sense of the gain / loss from antagonizing the Republican base. She may blow them off figuring that she’ll clean up with the rest of the Alaska electorate.
I’d be shocked if any Republicans vote for the bill. I’d also be shocked if Sinema votes against it. She’s already going to struggle mightily to win a Democratic primary for another term. Torpedoing the last chance for a spendapoolza in the current administration would seal her fate.
Speaking of the title, there has been some cynical garbage names for bills since we stopped naming them after the sponsors, but I think that calling an extra-budgety porkulus bill the “Inflation Prevention Act” is the worst that I’ve seen, worse even than the “Affordable Care Act.” Our betters in Washington wonder why people don’t take them seriously anymore. Here’s a big reason. It’s not cute, it’s sickening.
“The Republicans’ cave on that CHIPS bill is not encouraging….”
From what I understand (and it may not be much) there was a commitment (promise?) made by Schumer to McConnell that if enough Republicans voted to pass the CHIPS bill, Schumer would NOT pursue any further inflationary/spending avenues.
According to this version of events, McConnell believed Schumer—not sure why, though (nostalgia for good-ole-days bipartisanship??)—and the bill passed…
Should this account be accurate, then it’s just another classic double cross.
(Once again, that I may not have understood or gotten all the facts right on this….)
My initial thought, backed up by similar thoughts expressed by Steve Hayward in the PowerLine podcast I listened to this morning, is that this bill is not a sure thing to get through the House. There’s a number of energy provisions the Climatistas are not going to like and possibly a side deal that conditions DoE approval of wind and solar projects on similar approval of gas and oil leases, as well as approval for pipeline projects out of West Virginia. I’m left wondering how much of this is just theater designed to provide a ‘we’re getting things done’ fig leaf to appeal to more centerish Democrats and with the chip bill double-cross to get the GOP base mad at the RINOs and disheartened. The timing seems likely to be overtaken by events since hardly anything will happen after the August recess and before the election.
“During a fundraiser last summer, Ms. Sinema told a group of donors and lobbyists that she would oppose raising taxes on carried-interest income, along with raising the corporate rate and top capital-gains rate.”
This morning on NPR there was a lengthy exposition of the carried-income provisions of the tax code, introduced as explaining why many corporations pay “no taxes”. Sinema was not mentioned, but it is obvious that this was battlespace-prep on the issue.
NPR has quit even pretending to be objective – every political story is told from a Democrat perspective, positive or negative in implications for their interests, and usually positive. And the fantasy that things are looking better in the fall is being nurtured fiercely! Oh boy, those Republicans are in trouble!
Manchin just might want to take notice….
“Jon Stewart Goes Full ‘Useful Idiot’ After Dems Sneak $400B Of ‘Mandatory’ Spending Into Veterans’ Health Care Bill”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/jon-stewart-goes-full-useful-idiot-after-dems-sneak-400b-pork-veterans-health-care-bill
Sneaky sneaky!
(It’s just what weasels—I mean scorpions—do, Joe. You know that…. Don’t you? Bet your constituents sure do…)
– – – – – – – – – – –
Speaking of scorpions!
DA Bragg really wants this dude to seriously hurt someone…or worse. (It’s the ONLY possible explanation…but at this stage of the game, I don’t think anyone is really surprised…Just think of it as “REPARATIONS”…in this ugly tribal age that the Democrats have foisted upon the nation and nurturing so lovingly… But Democrats and Liberals—and all cooler-than-cool media seem OK with it, so I guess it’s just fine…)
“Teen Who Assaulted Cop In Harlem Subway Station Released Without Bail And Remanded To Family Court”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/teen-who-assaulted-cop-harlem-subway-station-released-without-bail-and-remanded-family
Key—so what?—graf:
“…Bragg is defending his office’s decision to release the youth – who has three felony arrests in less than four months…”