Readers of a certain age may recall fondly the late William Safire whose essays, titled “On Language,” appeared for thirty years in the New York Times Sunday Magazine. His essays included comments on language usage and the etymology of popular phrases. While his explorations of language were wide-ranging, Safire frequently turned to politics, a subject on which he was a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist. Were Safire still with us, he might provide an entertaining discussion of the currently most popular form of exercise among Washington politicians: “Walking back” previous comments: attempting to unsay what one wishes he or she had not said.
The latest example was provided by President Biden on Saturday when he issued a statement that he had not meant to threaten a veto of the bipartisan compromise if it was not accompanied by a reconciliation bill. He added that Republicans were “understandably upset.” This was widely and fairly described in the media as a walk-back of his Thursday statement in which he said of the compromise bill, “if this is the only thing that comes to me, I’m not signing it. It’s in tandem.”
Not surprisingly, the reaction among Republicans to Biden’s Thursday statement was swift and negative, and prospects of retaining substantial Republican backing quickly appeared highly doubtful. Republicans would have known from the outset that a reconciliation bill with other forms of social spending, poetically described as “infrastructure,” was possible, or even inevitable. Nevertheless, the tactic of holding the bipartisan package hostage to a reconciliation bill was a bridge too far for many.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was among the first to respond. As reported in the Hill:
“It almost makes your head spin,” McConnell complained on the Senate floor. “An expression of bipartisanship and then an ultimatum on behalf of your left-wing base.”
“Really, caving completely in less than two hours, that’s not the way to show you’re serious about getting a bipartisan outcome,” he added.
McConnell later told Fox News’s “Special Report” about his shift in expectations after Biden’s insistence on a separate reconciliation bill.
“I think we have gone from optimism to pessimism as a result of the president’s second press conference,” he said.
McConnell was far from alone in in his misgivings. While most other Republican Senators were less outspoken publicly, a number had been reported to be quite uncomfortable with the turn of events.
On Sunday, however, several key Republican Senators indicated on televised talk shows that they were satisfied by Biden’s reversal the day before. In a story titled “Infrastructure Deal Is Back on Track After Biden’s Assurances,” the New York Times reported:
A fragile bipartisan infrastructure deal appeared to be moving forward once again on Sunday, as moderate Republicans said they had been reassured that President Biden would not hold it hostage while Democrats simultaneously work on a larger, partisan economic package.
If the compromise bill is truly back on track, that is a very positive development. It is the very track urged in this space a month ago. Blog No. 295. Infrastructure: The Possible Path to a Deal was posted on May 16, and offered the following suggestion:
Republicans may be willing to enlarge their previous proposal to some degree, but they will clearly not come near the Democrats’ expansive menu. Nevertheless, the best response for Democrats might be to take the most they can get from Republicans and move on. Moving on would not mean giving up on the other program elements they believe are important; rather it would simply mean addressing those elements in one or more separate bills which could then be passed, if necessary, through the reconciliation procedure. Whatever the merits of those other elements, providing for roads and bridges and other urgent needs, should not be held hostage as leverage to secure their passage.
In passing, it may be noted that the amount of the compromise will be a bit confusing to some. As reported by the Washington Post, it calls for spending $973 billion over five years (or $1.2 trillion over eight years). Of that, $579 billion is new spending that was not already allocated through other projects. (A helpful summary of the new spending components of the bill, and a comparison with Biden’s previous proposal, was prepared by the Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget. Despite that confusion, the important thing may be to consummate the deal that had been reached. Before things began to unravel, a story in the Washington Post was headlined ‘We can find common ground’: Biden’s faith in bipartisanship is rewarded — at least for now.” Perhaps that assessment will also be vindicated.
One conspicuously loose end remaining is the position of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Even before Biden’s unfortunate statement on Thursday, Pelosi had gruffly asserted that a bipartisan infrastructure plan would not be voted on in the House until the Senate approved a Democrat-only package, “There ain’t gonna be no bipartisan bill unless we’re going to have a reconciliation bill.” It is not known whether Biden and Pelosi had coordinated before their respective statements on Thursday or Biden’s on Saturday. Will Pelosi now join Biden’s backward perambulation? Or will she feel that she has been “thrown under the bus” (another phrase worthy of a Safire examination)? If the latter, it is not the kind of experience she is known to accept graciously.
It also remains unclear what Biden and Pelosi had hoped to gain by the tandem tactic. Pressuring or negotiating with Republicans was clearly no part of their thinking: the reconciliation procedure is there and if used, needs no Republican participation. One theory may be that It was necessary in order to reassure progressives who were unhappy about the limitations of the compromise bill. But why should such reassurance have been necessary? As just noted, reconciliation is there and there was no reason to think that passage of a limited bill would have threatened their expansive and expensive liberal aspirations. Another theory may be that the tactic would put pressure on conservative or moderate Democratic Senators, Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema and perhaps others, to go along with a reconciliation bill that includes elements they disagree with. But that, too, is questionable theory as it assumes, among other things, that the traditional infrastructure covered by the compromise bill is more important to conservative and moderate Democrats than it is to progressives.
In any case, it is still difficult to impossible to predict how this drama will end. Still it is again possible to hope that the country will benefit from a bipartisan agreement on a very important matter.
I – for one – have been very dissatisfied with Biden’s work on this stuff. First of all, the messaging has been terrible and, to my mind, pretty much left the ball comfortably in the Republican’s court. That 1.9 trillion over 10 years is seemingly unbearable to them. Let’s not forget – which the administration seems to be happy to do – that the AVERAGE yearly allocation for Defense has been 701.86 billion. That’s yearly! Totaled over the years 2011 through 2021 equals 7,018.6 billion, or 7+ trillion. But don’t expect our tax- and cost-conscious republicans to lament such expenditures. Yet, 1.9 trillion over 10 years – that’s 190 billion per year – is far too much to countenance. What fatuous hypocrisy and mis-alignment of fiscal – if not to say patriotic – values!
Secondly, don’t expect the Republicans to yield an inch for the sake of bipartisanship. Remember Mitch McConnell – the master of legislative obstructionship (a neo-logism I’m happy to pen).
Comments are closed.