From Infidel753:
I should start this post by putting in a word or two for Joe Manchin, who has been getting a lot of flack lately. On a couple of issues, he’s raised legitimate points.
The money being spent on sending covid-19 relief checks to the entire population would be better spent if it were targeted to those with the greatest need (I made a similar point here last year). A person like myself still doing a regular job from home, whose income is unaffected by the pandemic, doesn’t need to get $2,000 in free money from the government, and a person out of work struggling to pay several months of rent and health insurance needs a lot more than $2,000 to actually get out of that hole. It would make more sense to take the same money and funnel it entirely to people in the latter category so we could give, say, $12,000 to each unemployed person, while not wasting money on people like me who still have a normal income.
Similarly, while I fervently support raising the minimum wage to $15 to bring the US more into line with developed-country norms, Manchin has a point that in less-developed parts of the US, $15 might be too high for the local economy to absorb in the same time frame that the more-developed regions need to have it. Perhaps the federal minimum wage could be indexed to the cost of living in each state in some way, or incentives created for each state to raise its own minimum wage to an appropriate level. It’s a legitimate issue.
This being said, the position he and Sinema have taken against eliminating the filibuster is a potentially crippling problem.
The filibuster isn’t an issue for the Biden covid-19 relief plan because that’s being passed via reconciliation. However, at the moment, it appears that not one Republican senator will vote for it. This is legislation which is supported by 83% of the US public (obviously including a lot of Republican voters) and which Standard and Poor says would hugely benefit the economy. If not one Republican senator will vote for that, what are our odds of getting ten of them to support voting-rights protections or a healthcare public option or reining in the Supreme Court? Obviously pretty much zero.
And the Democrats need to get at least some of these things done — in twenty months. That’s the time from now until the 2022 midterm election.
“a person out of work struggling to pay several months of rent and health insurance needs a lot more than $2,000 to actually get out of that hole.”
The real shame of this sentiment is that I’d also be of this mindset if I believed many of the people making this argument were doing it in good faith. Many of the people making this argument, I imagine, are also the same sort of people who would or do demonize people in need for receiving or needing other Government assistance. If the stimulus payments were to be “targetted” to those “most in need” (the common phrasing I’ve come across), I imagine the argument they would be making instead would be ‘There are already programs out there for these people, SNAP, Unemployment, yadda, yadda’
Perhaps I am cynical. I see this argument and I just see a bunch of people yanking up on the goalpost in anticipation of moving it in a different direction if they had their way.
The truth of the matter is that, even if money is going to people like Infidel that “don’t need it” due to a fortunate turn of events during this pandemic, the money’s not going to be wasted. Giving people who aren’t fabulously wealthy a couple of thousands of dollars gives them extra spending money which goes back into the economy. Which we’re trying to also stimulate, right?
The out of work struggling folks will use the money to catch up on debt payments, medical bills and rent/mortgage. Those in better positions can take that money and, I don’t know, pay off a credit card, buy a new fridge, hire a contractor to do some work or improvement on their property, order take-out a few extra times a month, donate the money to charities struggling during the pandemic themselves dealing with the same struggling individuals being left behind by our government.
I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me. It’s a goalposts thing and comes off as a reasonable argument on the surface, but when I think about targetting these stimulus payments, I just can’t rationize the ‘Why’ of it beyond thinking if they had their way, than they’d come up with different rationale on why Joe Sixpack shouldn’t get help.
Finally:
“And then, if Manchin and Sinema are Democrats at all, they’ll come around on scrapping the filibuster.”
I feel it’s pretty obvious why they are against nixing the filibuster. Honestly, I don’t think it’s a bad thing. By not getting rid of the filibuster, they’ve created a situation that benefits them (and the Democrats) in the long run. Manchin/Sinema are Dems in seats that Republicans could conceivably win. They have to Represent their R-leaning constituants at the same time as their D-leaning. If Mitch McConnell threatens a veto of some bill that Manchin or Sinema feels they would have to vote against if it came to the floor, keeping the Filibuster allows them to not have to make that vote. R’s get what they want, D’s can be placated by the fact that Manchin and Sinema didn’t actually vote No.
If the Filibuster is nixed and Manchin is forced into a situation where he needs to vote with the Dems, that puts into jeopardy his position among West Virginian Republicans who voted for him and who will cry foul, label him a Commie/Liberal/Leftist Nazi and vote him out for a real R next cycle. If he votes with the R’s, he gets labeled as a turncoat, a fake Democrat, could lose financial and political support amongst the DNC machine.
Don’t get me wrong: Personally, I’d love for the filibuster- as the rule is now- to be gone so that we can actually have a legislative body that does things (Like pass an actual budget and stop having these freaking Gov’t Shutdowns), but I think there’s just broader issues at play. We SHOULDN’T want our political parties to be uniform voting blocs. Decades of declaring Republicans RINOs for daring to not be in lockstep has created the horrible, toxic party we see today.
Honestly, the solution to the filibuster thing is change the rules so that they actually have to freaking Filibuster. Mr. Smith Goes To Washington-style filibustering. Call the bluff. Simply announcing your intention to filibuster shouldn’t be where legislation dies.