Tuesday, October 26, 2021

What Means "Framework?

On a day when the media was still preoccupied with Alec Baldwin, I seized on one of the few grains of potential information I could find. After Sen Manchin's breakfast with Sen Schumer and President Biden Sunday with no statement, Manchin did tell reporters something inscrutable yesterday:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Monday that he believed Democrats "should" be able to get a deal on a framework agreement for President Biden's social spending bill this week.

"Having it finished with all the t's and the i's and everything you know crossed and dotted that will be difficult from the Senate side because we have an awful lot of text to go through, but as far as conceptually we should, I really believe," Manchin told reporters on Monday.

Manchin added that Democrats "should be" able to reach a deal on a framework this week, adding that "it really should be" finished.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "should" is. From my tech days, a common expression was "should work", meaning that if you've got a problem, you talk to your colleagues, read the manual, and check with the support desk, they'll give you a solution that should work, except that tech being tech, there's always a gotcha, and it might well not work, in which case you're on your own.

Then there's the sense that if someone finds someone's's wallet with cash and ID, he should return it with the cash to its owner. If you're driving on a road with a 50 mph speed limit and you see a sign saying reduce speed to 25, you should slow down. If the weather report says rain tomorrow, you should take an umbrella.

But on top of that, what's a "framework"? In context, it looks like Manchin is referring to a revised outline of the BBB bill that, while not in final legislative language, is acceptable to Manchin and would receive his critical vote. Should be done by Friday. Yeah.

As far as anyone knows, Manchin's conditions inclulde a top line something like $1.5 or $1.75 trillion, elimination of financial incentives for utilities to convert away from fossil fuels, and inclusion of the Hyde Amendment, which would contnue to prohibit federal funding of abortion. It appears to have been clear to all parties for some weeks at least that these are Manchin's terms for his vote. But according to Politico, as of last weekend,

Democrats believe a top line agreement is unlikely to come from Sunday's meeting given how much work is left, but things are moving fast enough that House leaders now may hold a vote on the Senate's bipartisan infrastructure deal as soon as Wednesday, according to multiple sources. That legislation has been caught up in the House, held by progressives who want a commitment from Manchin and Sinema on the rest of Biden's agenda.

While Democrats are hopeful that the president and the two senators can hash things out and strike a framework for the legislation aimed at climate action, child care, health care and education, they are somewhat far apart. Manchin is insisting on his $1.5 trillion number, and the White House and Democratic leaders are aiming to go as high as $2 trillion after initially pursuing a total of $3.5 trillion. Both sides may need to show some flexibility down the stretch, and if Manchin comes up to a higher number, it could save a program or two from being cut entirely from the package.

The slimming of the legislation is threatening to derail two long-held Democratic priorities: paid leave and Medicare expansion for dental, vision and hearing. Neither Biden nor progressives in the Senate have signed off on eliminating those, though that could become necessary to win Manchin's support and strike a quick deal.

It sounds as though Manchin's remarks to reporters yesterday were basically a nice way of saying he's still waiting to hear what he wants to hear. It also sounds as though he understands a "framework" is not the legislative language, which can't possibly be ready by the presumptive House vote tomorrow, Wednesday. This piece at the RedState blog is the only update on the stalemate I've found, and it cites a Twitter thread from CNN reporter Manu Raju:

On that topic, Steny Hoyer, the number 2 person in the Democrat House poured cold water on claims of leverage from the Bernie Sanders wing.

The RedState piece concludes,

In the end, these comments on negotiations show a party in chaos. Their coalition has crumbled, and those that have no leverage refuse to admit that reality. That’s a recipe for stalemate, and that’s exactly what we are currently seeing. The idea that a deal gets done before the end of the month, which is the White House’s goal, is probably a fantasy at this point.