Last Call For The Manchin On The Hill, Con't

Joe Manchin went on the Sunday shows yesterday to tout his commitment to the Inflation Reduction Act, but of all the people in the world, it was Chuck Todd who actually asked the right questions.

CHUCK TODD:

Do you trust -- I know that was the promise you got, and it's one of those where you were promised a bill later. You support reconciliation now, you're going to get permitting reform later. Why did you not insist on permitting reform first before you gave, gave them your vote for reconciliation?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

We would have done permitting reform in this bill but basically because of the Byrd bath and because of reconciliation being around finances, it did not fit. So with that we have an agreement -- from Speaker Pelosi to Majority Leader Schumer to President Biden – we all have made an agreement on this. And you know what, if someone doesn't fulfill, if I don't fulfill my commitment, promise that I will vote and support this bill with all my heart, there's consequences, and there's consequences on both sides. So I have all the trust and faith that this will be accomplished. We'll get this done. And if not, we both are going to face some consequences.

CHUCK TODD:

Speaker Pelosi and Chuck Schumer can keep their word, and the bill still wouldn’t -- and it's possible the bill still doesn't pass. So what are the consequences if you don't get your permitting reform because they don't have the votes?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

Well, as I've said before, there’s other avenues and vehicles that we can use. And I've been committed. I've been promised. And I do believe, and I trust. And if any of us don't keep our promises, then there are consequences to pay for this. I don't think that's going to happen at all, Chuck. There's too much at stake here. This is the greatest investment we've ever had in energy security. Energy security, and also investment in the innovation in technology that we need for the fuels of the future. This is an all-American bill – red, white, and blue all the way through.

Todd actually figures out what the "consequences" are if he doesn't get his future bill, his *real* price for the Inflation Reduction Act, passed by Pelosi and Schumer. It's a bill that Manchin expects will survive a Senate filibuster.

Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Manchin has secured a commitment from President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow the Mountain Valley Pipeline to be completed, his office told a CBS affiliate on Monday.

The commitment to the West Virginia senator from Democrats Biden, Schumer and Pelosi will be used to pass legislation for the state's pipeline to be completed and "streamline the permitting process for all energy infrastructure," the news outlet reported, citing Manchin's office.

The legislation will be voted on by the end of the fiscal year, which is Sept. 30, 2022, according to the statement quoted in the news outlet.

Manchin's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday. The senator re-tweeted the report.

The pipeline project has faced legal setbacks and is years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget.

 

So that's Manchin's price, an oil pipeline that he's long wanted for West Virginia If he doesn't get it, then there will be "consequences".

The consequences are of course Manchin making good on his threats to switch parties, and Todd tries to pin him down on this on later in the interview.

CHUCK TODD:

What’s your case for Democrats to keep control of the House and Senate this election year?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

I don’t know, I just -- if you look back through history, it makes it very difficult, especially in the most toxic times we've ever seen. So it's up in the air right now. With the House, it looks like the House is --

CHUCK TODD:

No, do you – right, but would you like -- do you hope Democrats keep control of the House and Senate?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

I think people are sick and tired of politics, Chuck. I really do. I think they're sick and tired of Democrats and Republicans fighting and feuding and holding pieces of legislation hostage because they didn't get what they wanted, or something or someone might get credit for something. Why don't we start doing something for our country? Why don't we just say, "This is good for America"? I've always said the best politics is good government. Do something good, Chuck. But I'm not going to predict what's going to happen.

CHUCK TODD:

I'm not asking you to predict--

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

I just want to make sure we do something good, and this --

CHUCK TODD:

What result do you want? Do you want the Democrats to keep control of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN:

Oh I’d love -- you know, I'm not making those choices or decisions on that. I'm going to work with whatever I have. I've always said that. I think the Democrats have great candidates that are running. They're good people I've worked with. And I have a tremendous amount of respect and friendship with my Republican colleagues. So I can work on either side very easily.

 

Now, maybe I'm giving Todd too much credit for finding the apple in the manure pile, but these also aren't answers from a guy 100% committed to staying with the Democrats in 2023, either.

 

Ironically, if Manchin actually is playing his party switch card, the one person he absolutely needs to have on his side is Kyrsten Sinema.

 

Ahh, but Manchin gets other things too, you see, and Schumer gets his budget reconciliation deal, or it all goes to hell and we get Senate Majority Leader McConnell well before November.

A side agreement reached between Democratic leadership and Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) as part of their broader deal on an economic package would overhaul the nation’s process for approving new energy projects, including by expediting a gas pipeline proposed for West Virginia, according to a one-page summary obtained by The Washington Post.

To win Manchin’s support for the climate, energy and health-care package that was etched last week, Democratic leaders agreed to attempt to advance separate legislation on expediting energy projects. These changes would fall outside the bounds of the Senate budget procedure the party is using to pass its budget bill, making it impossible for Democrats to approve that with just 51 votes. The new agreement would require 60 votes to be approved and would need GOP support to be signed into law. Republicans have supported similar measures in the past, but the agreement could face defections from liberal Democrats, who have warned against making it easier to open new oil and gas projects.

The 100-seat Senate is now evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, but Vice President Harris can cast a tiebreaking vote.

Like I said, still plenty of chances for this to detonate and take out the Democrats before November.

Ridin' With Biden, Con't

In a world where Republicans and the media serving them aren't complete dickbags, President Biden and the Democrats about to get Medicare prescription drug reform passed, along with the infrastructure bill, gun safety legislation, and unemployment under 4% would make Dems shoo-ins for maintaining 2022 control of Congress in the midterms.

Sadly, this is not the case.

 

Democrats have been campaigning for 30 years on promises they'd let Medicare directly negotiate the cost of prescription drugs — and after all that time, they might finally be about to achieve it.

Why it matters: The Senate's reconciliation bill would only open up negotiations for a small number of drugs, but even that is a threshold Democrats have never before been able to cross. And it opens the door to more aggressive policies in the future.

Flashback: Then-president Bill Clinton proposed direct negotiations between drug companies and the federal government in 1993.Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden — and even Donald Trump — each embraced the idea while in office or as candidates, only to be thwarted by arguments it would squelch new drug development or limit seniors’ choices. 

Federal law has prohibited Medicare from directly negotiating how much it will pay for drugs since 2003.

“Finally eliminating the prohibition and empowering the secretary to negotiate is a historic precedent, and is something to protect and strengthen over time,” said Chris Jennings, a health policy advisor to Presidents Clinton and Obama.

Yes, but: The version of price negotiations contained in the Senate's bill is much narrower than most of those ambitious campaign proposals.“A baby step is the way I would describe this,” said Zeke Emanuel, a health policy advisor to former President Obama and chair of the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania. 

“We’re talking about 10 drugs and moving up at the end of the decade to a whopping 20 drugs. And unless they can get insulin included, how many people are going to be affected is, I think, a big question," he said.

If negotiations make it into law now, however, future administrations and Congress could expand them and make more drugs subject to negotiations.

 

It's a start.  It's better than the nothing before. But this country is still going to hand the reins over to the fascists because gas is $5 $4.50 $4 a gallon.

The Endgame Of The GOP Long Game

We know exactly what the final days of America as we know it looks like, because I've been warning you about it for nearly 15 years. When conservatives in California tried to rewrite that state's constitution with Prop. 8 in 2008, I warned you what was coming:

 

The really disturbing precedent here is that civil rights can be taken from a minority under the guise of "the will of the people." Under that logic, why not institute a new era of Jim Crow laws aimed at African-Americans or Latinos under a proposition vote? Why not put the practice of Islam in the US to a vote, and close down all mosques should the measure pass?

If you believe that you can take basic human rights like marriage away from a group based solely on sexual preference, you should be able to take rights based on religion, race, age, gender, or any other discriminatory criteria.

The danger that this effort represents is tantamount. The supporters of this effort will not stop there. Once you codify into law the ability of the many to take away the rights of the few, it will be used against any and every group. Once you've established a threshhold that one group cannot cross because of their minority status, all that remains is to steadily lower the bar until that group has no civil rights at all. Why not revoke the rights of gays and lesbians period? Why not apply the same standard to Muslims or Jews? Doesn't the Islamic or Jewish idea of marriage differ with the Christian one? Isn't that the argument used to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry?

 

And as I said back then, the endgame was always the ultimate example of working the refs by remaking the rulebook to make white supremacist Christian nationalism not only legal, but required. National Republicans like Marco Rubio have been openly talking about rewriting the Constitution through a convention of states for years now.

America was built on the revolutionary idea that our rights come from God, not from government. To protect those rights, our founders created a government of the people, by the people and for the people. But today, that government has been hijacked by politicians and bureaucrats who disregard the will of the people, rack up trillions in debt and expand the federal bureaucracy into more and more aspects of our lives. As president, I will promote a convention of states to amend the Constitution and restore limited government. 

The framers of our Constitution allowed for a constitutional convention because they knew our citizens were the ultimate defense against an overbearing federal government. They gave the American people, through their state representatives, the power to call a convention made up of at least 34 states, where delegates could then propose amendments that would require the support of 38 states to become law. 

This method of amending our Constitution has become necessary today because of Washington’s refusal to place restrictions on itself. The amendment process must be approached with caution, which is why I believe the agenda should be limited to ideas that reduce the size and scope of the federal government, such as imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court and forcing fiscal responsibility through a balanced budget requirement. Limiting the agenda will prevent the convention from being overtaken by special interests.

The whole point of locking in state legislatures with extreme gerrymandering is to get to 38 Republican state legislatures in order to amend the Constitution completely, and get a Supreme Court that goes along with it.  It won't matter what blue states have to say when the tyranny of the majority becomes real and permanent.

This isn't an exercise, either. State lawmakers are invited to huddle in Denver starting on Sunday to learn more about the inner workings of a possible constitutional convention at Academy of States 3.0, the third installment of a boot camp preparing state lawmakers "in anticipation of an imminent Article V Convention."

Rob Natelson, a constitutional scholar and senior fellow at the Independence Institute who closely studies Article V of the Constitution, predicted to Insider there's a 50% chance that the United States will witness a constitutional convention in the next five years. Whether it happens, he said, is highly dependent on Republicans' success winning state legislatures during the 2022 midterm elections.

But not everyone in the conservative constitutional convention movement believes such a gathering is so imminent. It will likely take years more work to reach their goal, if they ever do. At minimum, Republicans will need to flip several Democratic-controlled state legislatures and convince remaining GOP holdouts of the necessity for a convention.

Republican white nationalists can and have done tremendous damage to the country without a constitutional convention.  But if they get to this point, the game ends.

For all of us.