Senator Manchin Objects

 

ManchinSenator Manchin defied his party, dominated by the far left, and showed far more respect for our constitutional republic than has become customary. He issued a statement on camera on November 1, laying out his enduring objections and expectations as a senator from West Virginia. Manchin defied progressives’ demands as Biden nodded and slept his way through the only COP he and his party support. Senator Manchin defended the Senate against the House, and the Congress against the Executive. He reiterated a series of substantive objections about effects on the present and future of America.

The Democratic Party leadership in Congress failed to leverage Biden’s appearance on the international stage as a pretext for rushing through major legislation. In particular, Speaker (of the House) Pelosi failed to crowd Senator Manchin into doing the bidding of the House Progressive Caucus. Manchin’s words reflected what was once centrist political orthodoxy, but now trigger instant outrage and tantrums from the leftist core of today’s Democratic Party.

I am very cautiously encouraged by Manchin’s latest statement, his apparent position after the Build Back Better Act was supposedly slimmed down from $3.5 trillion to $1.75 trillion. He seems to be pushing back on both policy and real costs. On policy, Manchin objects to major growth in the scope of federal government involvement in Americans’ lives, and to energy and economic harms. On costs, he calls pure applesauce on the budgetary gimmicks. My analysis of the Build Back Better Act concludes it is radically leftist, transformational in its effects on America. Senator Manchin just might help save our constitutional republic for a season.

Here is the official video and text of Senator Manchin’s statement [emphasis added]:

“I’ve heard a lot of mischaracterizations of my position since the President met with the House Democrats last Thursday, and I would like to make an attempt to clear up any confusion about where I stand on the legislation working its way through Congress.

In all my years of public service, I’ve never seen anything like this. The President of the United States has addressed the House Democratic caucus twice to urge action on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Last week, the Speaker urged the importance of voting and passing the bill before the President took the world stage overseas. And still no action.

In my view – this is not how the United States Congress should operate. The political games must stop. Twice now, the House has balked at the opportunity to send the bipartisan infrastructure legislation to the President. As you’ve heard, there are some House Democrats who say they can’t support this infrastructure package until they get my commitment on the reconciliation legislation. It is time to vote the bipartisan infrastructure bill up or down, and go home to explain your decision.

I have worked in good faith for three months with President Biden, Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi and my colleagues on the reconciliation bill and I will continue to do so. For the sake of the country, I urge the House to vote and pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Holding this bill hostage won’t work to get my support for the reconciliation bill.

Throughout the last three months, I have been straightforward about my concerns that I will not support a reconciliation package that expands social programs and irresponsibly adds to our nearly $29 trillion in national debt that no one else seems to care about. Nor will I support a package that risks hurting American families suffering from historic inflation.

Simply put, I will not support a bill that is this consequential without thoroughly understanding the impact it will have on our national debt, our economy and the American people. Every elected representative needs to know what they are voting for and the impact it has, not only on their constituents, but the entire country.

That is why we must allow time for complete transparency and analysis on the impact of changes to our tax code and energy and climate policies to ensure our country is well positioned to remain the super power of the world while we inspire the rest of the world towards a cleaner environment. I, for one, also won’t support a multitrillion-dollar bill without greater clarity about why Congress chooses to ignore the serious effects inflation and debt have on our economy and existing government programs.

For example, how can I in good conscience vote for a bill that proposes massive expansion to social programs, when vital programs like Social Security and Medicare face insolvency and benefits could start to be reduced as soon as 2026 for Medicare and 2033 for Social Security? How does this make sense? It doesn’t. Meanwhile, elected leaders continue to ignore exploding inflation, that our national debt continues to grow, and interest payments on the debt will start to rapidly increase when the FED has to start raising interest rates to try to slow down runaway inflation.

With these factors in mind, I have worked in good faith for months with all my colleagues to find a middle ground on a fiscally responsible piece of legislation that fixes the flaws of the 2017 Trump tax bill and delivers on the needs of American families and children. However, as more of the real details outlined in the basic framework are released, what I see are shell games and budget gimmicks that make the real cost of this so-called “$1.75 trillion dollar” bill estimated to be twice as high if the programs are extended or made permanent. That is recipe for economic crisis. None of us should ever misrepresent to the American people what the real cost of legislation is.

While I have worked hard to find a path to compromise, it is obvious compromise is not good enough for some in Congress. It’s all or nothing, and their position doesn’t seem to change unless we agree to everything. Enough is enough. It’s time our elected leaders in Washington stop playing games with the needs of the American people and holding a critical infrastructure bill hostage, while there is opportunity in the reconciliation bill we can all agree on. Again, to be clear, I will not support the reconciliation legislation without knowing how this bill will impact our debt, our economy and our country. For the sake of our country, I again urge the House to vote and pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

As I have said before, holding this bill hostage won’t work to get my support for reconciliation bill. I’m open to supporting a final bill that helps move our country forward, but I am equally open to voting against a bill that hurts our country and the American people.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 13 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Nohaaj Coolidge
    Nohaaj
    @Nohaaj

    Is Manchin setting up for a larger office?

    • #1
  2. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    Is Manchin setting up for a larger office?

    Perhaps, if the left wing of the Democratic Party collapses or the Republicans leave enough room in the middle. However, I suspect his sights are more on Senate leadership. 

    • #2
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Some are saying that he is using this last minute attack to improve his negotiation outcomes, which makes no sense to me. I think/hope he’s done with them.

    • #3
  4. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Some are saying that he is using this last minute attack to improve his negotiation outcomes, which makes no sense to me. I think/hope he’s done with them.

    It seems to me that he has maintained his position, that he is reiterating his September 29 statement on infrastructure and reconciliation. That is mildly encouraging.

    • #4
  5. Nohaaj Coolidge
    Nohaaj
    @Nohaaj

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Some are saying that he is using this last minute attack to improve his negotiation outcomes, which makes no sense to me. I think/hope he’s done with them.

    It seems to me that he has maintained his position, that he is reiterating his September 29 statement on infrastructure and reconciliation. That is mildly encouraging.

    If only Republicans could be so level  headed and resolute. 

    • #5
  6. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    Is Manchin setting up for a larger office?

    Perhaps, if the left wing of the Democratic Party collapses or the Republicans leave enough room in the middle. However, I suspect his sights are more on Senate leadership.

    He couldn’t be much worse than Schumer.

    • #6
  7. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    Is Manchin setting up for a larger office?

    Perhaps, if the left wing of the Democratic Party collapses or the Republicans leave enough room in the middle. However, I suspect his sights are more on Senate leadership.

    He couldn’t be much worse than Schumer.

    Manchin’s elevation, by his fellow senators, to Senate Majority Leader or Minority Leader would signal a major ideological course correction.

    • #7
  8. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    Is Manchin setting up for a larger office?

    Perhaps, if the left wing of the Democratic Party collapses or the Republicans leave enough room in the middle. However, I suspect his sights are more on Senate leadership.

    He couldn’t be much worse than Schumer.

    Manchin’s elevation, by his fellow senators, to Senate Majority Leader or Minority Leader would signal a major ideological course correction.

    Which to be fair is greatly needed.   The Democratic Party has gone completely off the rails.  I think that it only managed to win the presidency the last time by a incredible confluence of events.  I suspect it will be severely rebuked in the coming cycles, which may allow Manchin and some of the other moderates in the democratic party the opportunity to move the party back toward the center.  While that would probably be bad for the Republican Party in the long term it is probably much better for the country.

    • #8
  9. Tyrion Lannister Member
    Tyrion Lannister
    @TyrionLannister

    I feel like he’s trying to have it both ways- trying to appease his party but also his voters.  He’s said he wants more information about the affects of the 3.5 trillion package, and he’s said he wants a strategic pause for 6 months to review.  If he was serious about the debt he would just say he’s not for it and isn’t going to support it because we can’t afford making dramatic changes to appease leftist special interests.  

    If he just said it’s DOA then we wouldn’t have this drama.  Instead he’s left open the door for negotiation, and I would be surprised if there isn’t a bill passed in some form (in addition to the “infrastructure “ bill).  

    Im not impressed.  It’s a sad day when a “moderate” is negotiating a 1-3 trillion dollar bill on top of 1.5 trillion infrastructure and prior trillion dollar stimulus bills.  A real moderate would say no, and the conservatives should be saying we are going to cut spending (not just slow the rate of growth, but actually end it).  

    • #9
  10. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    If they (all members of Congress and Senate) looked behind the Build Back Better plan and peeled back the layers, they would realize its not Biden’s plan, but Klaus Schwab’s. The many layers (and shell game tactics as Manchin mentions) are laying the groundwork for a world with no freedom, but plenty of control. It is out of Marxist Rules for Dummies, and the people in charge do not have America or the US Constitution as a guidepost, but we do.  So that’s why its not compatible. It’s also sinister in many respects.

    • #10
  11. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Tyrion Lannister (View Comment):

    I feel like he’s trying to have it both ways- trying to appease his party but also his voters. He’s said he wants more information about the affects of the 3.5 trillion package, and he’s said he wants a strategic pause for 6 months to review. If he was serious about the debt he would just say he’s not for it and isn’t going to support it because we can’t afford making dramatic changes to appease leftist special interests.

    If he just said it’s DOA then we wouldn’t have this drama. Instead he’s left open the door for negotiation, and I would be surprised if there isn’t a bill passed in some form (in addition to the “infrastructure “ bill).

    Im not impressed. It’s a sad day when a “moderate” is negotiating a 1-3 trillion dollar bill on top of 1.5 trillion infrastructure and prior trillion dollar stimulus bills. A real moderate would say no, and the conservatives should be saying we are going to cut spending (not just slow the rate of growth, but actually end it).

    If it results in some investigation and debate on the components the big greedster bill, it will be a plus even if he’s not “serious” or a “real moderate.”  Such public discussion can help others hold their positions against it. 

     

    • #11
  12. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    Klaus Schwab

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/klaus-schwab-nature-jobs-great-reset-podcast/

    World Economic Forum founder. 

    I encourage Ricochet members to add their own posts or comments to my brief analysis of the Build Back Better Act.

    • #12
  13. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    This evening, Paul Mirengoff comments on the WSJ editors’ assessment of Manchin’s Monday, November 1 statement. He, and they, come to largely the same conclusions I did yesterday, and Mirengoff points to how hard left the House Democratic majority is.

    “Senator Manchin Digs In

    […] However, at last word, the president in need of a victory seemed still to be on board with the strategy of insisting that the two spending bills be coupled. And it’s not certain that even if Biden gave up on this strategy, he could bring enough Democratic representatives along to pass the infrastructure bill standing alone.

    Today’s election in Virginia might bear on where the spending packages go from here. For example, if Terry McAuliffe loses in “blue” Virginia, Democrats may become desperate enough to pass at least one of their spending bills — infrastructure — though it might take Republican votes in the House to accomplish this, even in that scenario.

    Understand, Ilhan Omar is the Congressional Progressive Caucus whip. There are 95 members in this Congress. That is almost half of the 222 member Democrat majority. So, it is within Republicans’ power to make the Democrats live up or down to their “progressive” promises. It is the job of Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise, to enforce maximum party discipline on every House member with an (R) after their name. No one can be allowed to provide cover, to betray our republic, and remain in the Republican caucus.

    • #13
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.