House Moderates Say They Won’t Back Budget Vote Until Infrastructure Bill Passes

[NED funded]

I am consistently impressed by the ability of progressive democrats to fail

WASHINGTON — Nine moderate House Democrats told Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday that they will not vote for a budget resolution meant to pave the way for the passage of a $3.5 trillion social policy package later this year until a Senate-approved infrastructure bill passes the House and is signed into law.

The pledge, in a letter released early Friday, is a major rift that threatens the carefully choreographed, two-track effort by congressional Democrats and the Biden administration to enact both a trillion-dollar, bipartisan infrastructure deal and an even more ambitious — but partisan — social policy measure. The nine House members are more than enough to block consideration of the budget blueprint in a House where Democrats hold a three-seat majority.

The Senate passed the infrastructure bill on Tuesday with 69 votes, including 19 Republicans. It then approved, on a party-line vote early Wednesday, a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that, if passed by the House, would allow Democrats in both chambers to assemble the social policy bill this fall without fear of a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

Ms. Pelosi has called the House back early from its summer recess to consider the budget resolution the week of Aug. 23. To assuage liberal Democrats more interested in the social policy bill, Ms. Pelosi promised that she would not bring the infrastructure bill to a vote in the House until the Senate passed the social policy bill. Liberals fear that once the infrastructure bill is signed, moderate Democrats in the House and Senate will withdraw their support for the far-reaching social policy measure.

But that social policy bill might not pass until well into the fall, if ever, given the 50-to-50 partisan split in the Senate. And moderate House Democrats say delaying a vote on infrastructure runs the risk of unforeseen events derailing it.


“With the livelihoods of hardworking American families at stake, we simply can’t afford months of unnecessary delays and risk squandering this one-in-a-century, bipartisan infrastructure package,” reads the letter, which has Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey, as the first signer. “It’s time to get shovels in the ground and people to work.”

With the promised defections from the Progressive Caucus, it would appear that Ms. Pelosi faces a stalemate, lacking the votes to either deliver the infrastructure bill to President Biden’s desk or advance the budget resolution needed to protect the final legislation from Republican obstruction.

Until now, most congressional Democrats had been optimistic that both measures could find enough support.

“This is President Biden’s agenda, this is the Democrats’ agenda, this is what we ran on and we need to deliver,” Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a leader in the Progressive Caucus, said of the social policy bill. “It is important for us not to miss the mark, and I don’t see a conflict.”

But her moderate colleagues do. “We will not consider voting for a budget resolution until the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes the House and is signed into law,” they wrote.

That sentiment may go beyond the nine. Other more moderate Democrats, who declined to sign, have also said they very much want an immediate vote on the infrastructure bill.

“This is a once-in-a-generation infrastructure bill, and I think we should strike while the iron is hot,” Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, said. “We should bring it to the House and vote on it as soon as possible.”

The draft letter was signed by Mr. Gottheimer and Representatives Filemon Vela of Texas, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Ed Case of Hawaii, Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Carolyn Bourdeaux of Georgia, Jared Golden of Maine, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Jim Costa of California.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/u...e=articleShare

[PC2]

Ya nice, a decade ago I thought Democrats were more monolithic but eventually I realized there is plenty of PINOs that can be reasoned with. Where "P" stands for progressive. I think there will always be people who want what's best for the nation regardless of whether it threatens their partisan status and re-election prospects.

[BigToast]

I am consistently impressed by the ability of progressive democrats to fail

Nobody has failed anything. It's called negotiating. I am though consistently not impressed with the reading comprehension/general lack of knowledge of conservative posters on this board.

[PC2]

Nobody has failed anything.

Maybe that's true, depends on your current expectations and whether you think DINOs or PINOs will change their tune on the social policy bill after the infrastructure issue is resolved.

[Mihalik]

I am consistently impressed by the ability of progressive democrats to fail

I didn't realize that only the Grand Old Fascist Party is allowed to threaten withholding their votes to get what they want (horrible nazi shit and stuff that ruins the economy). God forbid someone might try and do something that might help Americans.

[NED funded]

Maybe that's true, depends on your current expectations and whether you think DINOs or PINOs will change their tune on the social policy bill after the infrastructure issue is resolved.

Progressives obviously think that attitude will change. Otherwise they wouldnt be holding the infrastructure bill hostage

- - - Updated - - -

Will you blink first XD

[beanman12345]

9 centrists, vs dozens and dozens of progressives saying no vote. Good luck.

[BronzeCondor]

I wish they would press forward with the National Defense aspects of the bill as soon as possible to stay competitive with Authoritarian China's industrial gains in military manufacturing. There have been US National Security vulnerabilities highlighted with regards to defense supply chains where China plays a dominant role. These are the kind of things that need to be addressed ASAP.

[Draco-Onis]

I wish they would press forward with the National Defense aspects of the bill as soon as possible to stay competitive with Authoritarian China's industrial gains in military manufacturing. There have been US National Security vulnerabilities highlighted with regards to defense supply chains where China plays a dominant role. These are the kind of things that need to be addressed ASAP.

Are you high? we spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined.

[BronzeCondor]

Are you high? we spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined.

That doesn't mean we aren't vulnerable.

Here's some background on this particular topic:

https://www.defensenews.com/congress...hina-products/

[Draco-Onis]

That doesn't mean we aren't vulnerable.

Here's some background on this particular topic:

https://www.defensenews.com/congress...hina-products/

It won't work and I will tell you why CAPITALISM, the corporations in charge of our supply chains will never go for it. Second Biden's investment is not enough to get these things up and running it would take 10 years to play catch up. The US is not very good at making long term goals like this especially through a changing government.

[tehdang]

The moderates are starting to feel the heat of the 2022 race, and worry that they'll be tarred by the actions of The Squad and the 3.5 trillion dollar spending bill. This is an entirely predictable response from moderates in swing districts, and their allies that want to present a united front for their ideology.

Which, in this case, means passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill with no strings attached (see letter https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttoo...e4abe/full.pdf)


This having been said, I have no idea how long moderates will hold out for with the pressure to unite as Democrats, and all the usual arguments progressives summon up against moderates.

[BronzeCondor]

It won't work and I will tell you why CAPITALISM, the corporations in charge of our supply chains will never go for it. Second Biden's investment is not enough to get these things up and running it would take 10 years to play catch up. The US is not very good at making long term goals like this especially through a changing government.

I agree with this, America faced the same issue when trying to stop Corporate America from helping Nazi Germany after the post WW1 rebuilding efforts. It took powerful anti-trust legislation to dismantle the powerful grip they had. The situation with China is magnitudes of scale worse than that, and those entities heavily fund our political establishment.

Not sure what the breaking point will be for that one.

[Draco-Onis]

The moderates are starting to feel the heat of the 2022 race, and worry that they'll be tarred by the actions of The Squad and the 3.5 trillion dollar spending bill. This is an entirely predictable response from moderates in swing districts, and their allies that want to present a united front for their ideology.

Which, in this case, means passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill with no strings attached (see letter https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttoo...e4abe/full.pdf)


This having been said, I have no idea how long moderates will hold out for with the pressure to unite as Democrats, and all the usual arguments progressives summon up against moderates.

What heat? it is guaranteed democrats will lose the house through gerrymandering republicans will automatically gain 13 seats they only need 5 to win it. The myth of keeping "moderates" in power should have died when Obama gutted Obamacare in order to save them only to lose anyways. This country will be so gerrymandered that it won't matter who runs anymore.

[uuuhname]

What heat? it is guaranteed democrats will lose the house through gerrymandering republicans will automatically gain 13 seats they only need 5 to win it. The myth of keeping "moderates" in power should have died when Obama gutted Obamacare in order to save them only to lose anyways. This country will be so gerrymandered that it won't matter who runs anymore.

really makes the whole "American liberal democracy" thing look like a pathetic joke.

[tehdang]

What heat? it is guaranteed democrats will lose the house through gerrymandering republicans will automatically gain 13 seats they only need 5 to win it. The myth of keeping "moderates" in power should have died when Obama gutted Obamacare in order to save them only to lose anyways. This country will be so gerrymandered that it won't matter who runs anymore.

If you fail to mention the change in seats including seats Democrats pick up through gerrymandering in states they run, you aren't counting well.

Moderates like their seats. The Democrats might lose nationally for a whole host of reasons, but local representatives know their districts. And maybe they have good reason to trust what they know about what got them elected, rather than extrapolate to Obamacare, the progressive agenda, and their own incapability of winning re-election.

It's like you're telling moderates they're doomed to lose anyways, so they better suck it up and pass what they can in the next year and a half. Maybe you need to summon up some common sense to respect their bid to stay in office with doing what their local electorate wants them to do.

[Glorious Leader]

If you fail to mention the change in seats including seats Democrats pick up through gerrymandering in states they run, you aren't counting well

Gerrymandering has overwhelmingly favored Republicans.

[uuuhname]

Gerrymandering has overwhelmingly favored Republicans.

ahhh conservatives already gaslighting and we haven't even begun redistricting yet.

[tehdang]

Gerrymandering has overwhelmingly favored Republicans.

Strangely enough, tallying votes gained or lost in terms of gerrymandering includes the disfavored side. Even if Republicans gain 67% of the seats that gerrymandering semi-guarantees, you're a fool to present the gross gains of Republicans as if they were the net. And you present no count, or respond to the other aspects of my post, so I'll limit myself to that.

[Edge-]

If you fail to mention the change in seats including seats Democrats pick up through gerrymandering in states they run, you aren't counting well.

The biggest one, California, doesn't do partisan districting. A few like Maryland and New Mexico have done so under Democrats, plus you could credibly say that about NY. Though interestingly, while some do it on the state level - playing by the current rules of the game - there's a national push from Democrats to outlaw partisan gerrymandering across the board. There's no similar push from Republicans as they're far more reliant on partisan, and frequently blatantly racist and illegal, gerrymandering.