Biden Thread

[a completely inoffensive name]

On the off-chance that you are serious, please don't, its a bubble that is going to burst probably pretty soon.

It's not about the money, it's about sending a message. *joker meme*

Gotta squeeze these wall street gamblers.

[Pannonian]

*sigh*

This is from 2012, beyond what I cautiously allowed for above.



(American) Medicaid and Medicare pay for senior secondary care and assisted living in private residence.

You have an unrealistic and ossified view of Chinese culture. China is, at furthest, where we were a century ago.

Try this more recent article on the matter, from 2020. The culture still overwhelmingly looks to family first of all, and then private supplements funded by family. Care for the elderly is a family thing in China, not a state thing.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Thank You Georgia for giving us this twit... She's at it again:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/marjor...-space-lasers/

Yep...space lasers and the Jews....

[Montmorency]

Heck yeah.

A member of congress thinks there is a Jewish Laser beam to clear space or something for high speed rail and on Sunday TV pundits will ask democrats why they can’t find middle ground on Covid relief. All of these otherwise smart people will pretend not to know the answer.

It's not about the money, it's about sending a message. *joker meme*

Gotta squeeze these wall street gamblers.

Isn't most Gamestop stock held long by institutional investors, like Blackrock? Screwing Wall Street Peter to pay Wall Street Paul...

Try this more recent article on the matter, from 2020. The culture still overwhelmingly looks to family first of all, and then private supplements funded by family. Care for the elderly is a family thing in China, not a state thing.

This stereotyping is getting a little demeaning.

Further insight into the family-oriented culture of the inscrutable Oriental mind.

Back to reality, the Chinese culture has shifted tremendously, and it will very obviously continue to do so as all the supporting structures for this tradition erode or are replaced or pressured as time passes. Note, ACIN, that this is not in the context of what challenges the future demographics of China may pose to the Chinese government, or how it would overcome them; this is simply outlining the uncontestable insight that Chinese culture will adapt to and adopt increasing demands by the Chinese public on both public and private sectors to supplement traditional old-age care fiscally, medically, and through a variety of assisted, residential, institutional, or community care modalities.

As seen in the very article Pan links, because duh.

In 2012, there were fewer than three nursing home beds for every 100 elderly residents in Shanghai. And despite government pledges to provide thousands of extra beds by 2022, the problem remains equally acute today. Many downtown facilities have waiting lists stretching well over a year.

Shortages of in-home caretakers — who do the vast majority of care work in the city — are even more severe. A decade ago, surveys suggested Shanghai needed an extra 550,000 domestic workers to meet its elder care needs.

“My mother has three children and the three of us shared the responsibility of providing for her,” says Huang. “I can’t imagine what things will be like when I get too old to take care of myself. My child’s generation is the country’s first generation of single children. They’re going to deal with huge pressure.”

Care solutions for the elderly have only grown hundreds-fold in China since the market reforms. Clearly, as the elderly population booms and China continues to get richer and more assertive, the only plausible outcome is that they will, by the operation of some mystical and observably-declining cultural factors, cease to grow.

No, it doesn't take an expert to follow the crumbs and predict that the private industry will consolidate and rationalize and the expansion of the public safety net will at a minimum become a subject of ongoing debate. It doesn't take an expert because it happens everywhere that the elderly population booms. The Chinese are not magic space aliens, they're modern human beings. Just ask the Japanese and South Koreans how they're treating the 'family-only' model. Although, to be fair (???) to the South Koreans, they seem to be getting by in adopting the model of simply not giving a shit. Actually, it's not wild to imagine the Chinese government endorsing such a 'solution', even in the case that SK later amends it.


For a proxy worth the comparison, Asian-American attitudes to nursing homes (the most 'extreme' option in long-term care):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6403016/

Approximately 38% of the sample demonstrated willingness to use a nursing home. Higher odds for willingness were observed among those with advanced age, female gender, Korean ethnicity (compared with Chinese), better education, presence of a chronic medical condition, longer years of residence in the U.S., and lower levels of family solidarity.

Compared to polling on Americans in general, with the caveat that this refers to "preference" rather than "willingness":
https://www.longtermcarepoll.org/lon...nd-caregiving/

Most Americans age 40 and older (77 percent) would prefer to receive care in their own home, with far fewer preferring to receive care in a senior community (11 percent), a friend or family member’s home (4 percent), or a nursing home (4 percent). Among those who prefer to receive care in a home setting, there are gender differences in preferences for who provides that care: men would prefer to receive care from a spouse (51 percent vs. 33 percent), and women would prefer to receive care from their children (14 percent vs. 35 percent).

In conclusion Western society prioritizes individualism, whereas it is the sacred, immutable way of the esoteric Seres to uphold the collective.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Isn't most Gamestop stock held long by institutional investors, like Blackrock? Screwing Wall Street Peter to pay Wall Street Paul...

Meme's aside, there are a wide range of reasons people are jumping in. Some are definitely treating it as a pump and dump. The guy who started the whole craze, u/DeepFuckingValue posted his prediction of a short squeeze over a year ago and has been posting daily screenshots showing he is still in until the squeeze absolutely kills the shorts, AKA Diamond Hands, TO THE MOON, HOLD UNTIL $1000.

But many people sucked into the memes are riding a sentiment that for the first time retail investors are able to make a real power play in the market and not be treated as two bit players. The rise of commission free apps like Robinhood has democratized financial markets to a degree I don't think people expected to happen. At the very least I don't think these hedge funds ever anticipated such a coordinated effort happening among retail.

So it's not even that some hedge funds win and some lose, the sentiment driving this is that for once regular joes can win over wall street investors at their own game and punish some for being greedy. Bulls get rich, bears get rich, pigs get slaughtered.
Keep in mind these are all middle class young people in 20s and 30s, we all got fucked in 2008 and remember how wall street was never taken to task but instead was given more of our tax dollars. The idea that wealth could actually start to move from wall street to retail is precious and is why the last few days have been a shitshow of brokers halting trades, class action lawsuits and politicians across the spectrum getting involved in the affair.

[Montmorency]

Maybe. but a lot of people find it hard to be sympathetic to bro-y young men (self-styled "degenerates") on Reddit with money to burn.






Sounded better in the original Deutsch.

[Hooahguy]

Definitely good to see that Dems aren't taking the 2009 approach to legislation, and have indicated that they will move forward with reconciliation for the Covid relief bill if the GOP wont get on board:

We cannot do the mistake of 2009 where they whittled down the program so that the amount of relief was so small that the recession lasted 4 or 5 years. And then on the ACA, when they spent a year, a year and a half negotiating and then didn't come to any agreement.

Definitely good to hear because the GOP's $600B plan that they came forward to negotiate with is a joke.

[Hooahguy]

I found this to be a pretty good infographic showing the difference between the Dem and GOP plans:



With zero dollars going to state and local governments as well as zero to the child tax credit this isn't a serious proposal by the GOP and a nonstarter. I suppose they are just putting it forward for the sake of bipartisan appearances but not actually in good faith. I'm glad that Biden has clearly rejected it.

An issue that I havent seen discussed much is the impending redistricting efforts. I cant find the chart at the moment, but basically the GOP stands to really benefit, and will probably gain 6-8 seats from redistricting alone due to GOP-held state legislatures pledging to gerrymander where they can. So Dems only have the trifecta for the next two years and we need to move quickly as I have little faith that the Dems keep the House regardless of what is passed. The only factor that I can think of that could keep Dems the trifecta is how well Covid recovery goes. If it goes well, then there is a potential for holding the House, even if its a small chance.

Edit: Manchin has stated his support of Biden's Covid relief bill, so really all eyes are on Sinema now.

Report

Per sources, Biden is telling Senate Democrats on their virtual lunch how he told Republican senators yesterday that their package was too small.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Campaigning for the 2022 Midterms has already begun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeDo...ature=youtu.be

Main article here:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...non-gop-465157

Making an unusually early move to protect their narrow majority, House Democrats' campaign arm on Tuesday launched its first TV ad campaign, spotlightingsupporters of the fringe conspiracy theory — including those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. It is the first step in a larger plan, orchestrated by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's new chair, Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, to exploit the growing friction between Trump hard-liners and establishment Republicans in the GOP base, which Maloney sees as a major weak point for the party.

Party strategists are betting the right's embrace of the far-fetched conspiracy theory will be politically toxic and hamper their efforts to win back the House in 2022. Already, Democrats are seeing encouraging signs: Challengers in Republican-held districts are beginning to jump off the sidelines, citing the attack last month as a motivation for running.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Perhaps Manchin and Tester plan on on using the pipeline to ship vaccine??:

https://www.newsweek.com/senate-back...-biden-1567048

Senators backed the symbolic amendment in a 52-48 vote, with Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), the chairman of the energy committee, and Jon Tester (D-MT) voting with GOP lawmakers to back construction of the pipeline.

Take the GD money that will be wasted on this crap, and put it into Green Energy....Jeeezuz

.......hmmmm, Joe Manchin voting in favor of fossil fuel? what a surprise....

[Montmorency]

Psychoanalysis of moderates and institutionalists in government:

My theory, which is mine, is that the Senators who are resistant to this kind of thing are people who are having trouble pulling themselves away from America's civic religion.

We joke about the fecklessness and the out-of-touchness of politicians... but if you don't come from a rich background, getting into politics is hard. It's backbreaking work, with little money and little reward, and if you win local or even state office, usually the reward is a lot of work and pressure without a ton of compensation. It's only after you scratch and claw your way up that you acquire real power and influence.

Joe Manchin comes from a big family in a small, poor town. Sinema lived in an abandoned gas station for three years as a kid.

What inspires a lot of these people to invest the back-breaking effort to get into politics (among other things) is a real, true belief in the American civic religion, in the narratives and myths and institutions that surround them. These are people who look down the Mall from the Capitol, past the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial, and genuinely feel a thrill of patriotism every time.

They feel that doing radical surgery to the hallowed institutions they serve in is a kind of betrayal of two and a half centuries of tradition; that there must be some better, purer way forward, or even better yet backward, to the (highly idiosyncratic and unusual) postwar Age of Bipartisan Comity, when the filibuster was only brought out by clear villains who were righteously defeated because a supermajority of Congress said "no; this will not stand."

There's a sense that changing the rules because you can't win is cheating, or debases the institution. You see this in sports; how many people absolutely blow their tops anytime the NFL or MLB proposes a rule change? There are still people who feel the designated hitter rule "defiles" the sport!

I don't think this is a conscious belief on the part of any of these folks. I think they have a very, very clear awareness that things are fucked up and bullshit; but their own faith in American institutions and our civic culture is, paradoxically, preventing them from taking steps to SAVE that culture. They look at the burning church and think "how can I make the church go back to before it was burned, the way I remember it" rather than thinking "the church IS burning. It's gonna need new stained glass windows and a new roof and a better fire suppression system and modern HVAC."

Or at least, that's my pathetic attempt at armchair analyses. I hope I'm right because the other plausible options I can think of are worse.

Personally I think it would have been more interesting to feed Trump incorrect information and see who he passes it off to.

Wouldn't most of the information a former president might be forwarded already be known to foreign intelligence services? I hear it's the methods, which a former President would not have access to, that are under particular scrutiny in spycraft.

I'm sure we will come to learn many things about the internals of the Trump administration.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Psychoanalysis of moderates and institutionalists in government:

Doubt all of that. If they were really so concerned with Institutions they would have learned a thing or two about the filibuster, it's ill-liberal origin, its relative scarcity except among racists and segregationists, how the current minoritarian wielding of the filibuster is even out of alignment with the Founding Fathers (hint: the senate was never meant to a '60 seat' chamber to pass legislation).

It's all bullshit because they are simply afraid of two things:
1. Being accountable for legislation that would never pass cloture. They want to ride the middle and the filibuster lets them get away from taking a vote on policies that the majority of their party wants to promote but could hurt their re-election.
2. GOP will use the absence of the rule to destroy democracy as we know it.

The first is a case of being fucking cowards that love the prestige of being a Senator without actually having to make hard choices. Expose them for the cowards they are, make a decision on the floor and stand by your principles or get the fuck out of office.

The second is genuine fear, but as noted in the article it is precisely the constant lack of governing that makes fascism appealing to a public that sees Democratic government unable to accomplish anything.
"They would have been able to repeal Obamacare." Why didn't we fucking let them! If the GOP had actually snatched back the ACA in its entirety without any comprehensive plan to replace it would have been the biggest shit show in the world. Millions of people losing their healthcare is not good politics and would have been good anger for Dems to tap into. Hell, much of 2018 midterms was because of the attempt to repeal the ACA that had people watching CNN at 3am in the morning for the final vote and Sen. McCain's *thumbs down* 'no' gesture. How much longer will good people suffer from the brain worm that the GOP promotes that Obamacare is still bad and we have a much bigger and better plan we could have implemented..if it wasn't for Dems...and some RINOs....

[Montmorency]

Doubt all of that. If they were really so concerned with Institutions they would have learned a thing or two about the filibuster, it's ill-liberal origin, its relative scarcity except among racists and segregationists, how the current minoritarian wielding of the filibuster is even out of alignment with the Founding Fathers (hint: the senate was never meant to a '60 seat' chamber to pass legislation).

It's all bullshit because they are simply afraid of two things:
1. Being accountable for legislation that would never pass cloture. They want to ride the middle and the filibuster lets them get away from taking a vote on policies that the majority of their party wants to promote but could hurt their re-election.
2. GOP will use the absence of the rule to destroy democracy as we know it.

The first is a case of being fucking cowards that love the prestige of being a Senator without actually having to make hard choices. Expose them for the cowards they are, make a decision on the floor and stand by your principles or get the fuck out of office.

The second is genuine fear, but as noted in the article it is precisely the constant lack of governing that makes fascism appealing to a public that sees Democratic government unable to accomplish anything.
"They would have been able to repeal Obamacare." Why didn't we fucking let them! If the GOP had actually snatched back the ACA in its entirety without any comprehensive plan to replace it would have been the biggest shit show in the world. Millions of people losing their healthcare is not good politics and would have been good anger for Dems to tap into. Hell, much of 2018 midterms was because of the attempt to repeal the ACA that had people watching CNN at 3am in the morning for the final vote and Sen. McCain's *thumbs down* 'no' gesture. How much longer will good people suffer from the brain worm that the GOP promotes that Obamacare is still bad and we have a much bigger and better plan we could have implemented..if it wasn't for Dems...and some RINOs....

I don't disagree with you, but the theory I reposted wasn't about institutions qua valuable institutions, it was about the personalities/backgrounds of the centrist Dems leading them to worship the Senate as they entered it as a key component of American Exceptionalism or the American Dream ("because you have to be asleep to believe it"). It's insufficient as a sole explanation, but I think it has some truth.

"They would have been able to repeal Obamacare." Why didn't we fucking let them!

HAHAHAHAHA

Dude McConnell is so incompetent he couldn't even repeal Obamacare with reconciliation.

That's just the thing, Republicans don't know how to govern, to build, only to destroy. There is no affirmative agenda they have waiting in the wings; they're totally unprepared to lead, given the opportunity.

If we think they could take advantage of a Dem first move on the filibuster by openly attempting to abolish SS (they couldn't do it in 2005), Medicare, abortion rights, whatever, then let the battle lines be drawn. Let the punks bring it on and make our day.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't disagree with you, but the theory I reposted wasn't about institutions qua valuable institutions, it was about the personalities/backgrounds of the centrist Dems leading them to worship the Senate as they entered it as a key component of American Exceptionalism or the American Dream ("because you have to be asleep to believe it"). It's insufficient as a sole explanation, but I think it has some truth.

But how can you worship the institution of the Senate and not understand the filibuster is not even an inherent part of it, more like a legislative cancer that has been growing on it slowly since the beginning. There is nothing about the filibuster that makes it inherently tied with the Senate as an institution since it was not around for the first 40 years after the Senate's conception and played no real part in legislative history until 15 years ago.

HAHAHAHAHA

Dude McConnell is so incompetent he couldn't even repeal Obamacare with reconciliation.

That's just the thing, Republicans don't know how to govern, to build, only to destroy. There is no affirmative agenda they have waiting in the wings; they're totally unprepared to lead, given the opportunity.

If we think they could take advantage of a Dem first move on the filibuster by openly attempting to abolish SS (they couldn't do it in 2005), Medicare, abortion rights, whatever, then let the battle lines be drawn. Let the punks bring it on and make our day.

What have we even been afraid of this whole time?

[Montmorency]

But how can you worship the institution of the Senate and not understand the filibuster is not even an inherent part of it, more like a legislative cancer that has been growing on it slowly since the beginning. There is nothing about the filibuster that makes it inherently tied with the Senate as an institution since it was not around for the first 40 years after the Senate's conception and played no real part in legislative history until 15 years ago.

ACIN, did you know that there are people who believe America is the greatest nation in the world and the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body?

Like Senator Leahy from Vermont, who agitated to maintain Senate rules that would let Republicans block Dem judges, and promised to reinstate them if given the opportunity.

It's those people. It's a mindset.

What have we even been afraid of this whole time?

I guess all we had to fear was fear itself? At any rate, just like in those times appeasement has run its course and the moment is (over)ripe for open mobilization.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I guess all we had to fear was fear itself? At any rate, just like in those times appeasement has run its course and the moment is (over)ripe for open mobilization.

Following up on the article I posted from Ezra Klein, I am 80% through his book 'Why we are Polarized' and it's making a big impact on me. I highly suggest buying it on kindle and blasting through it, most of it you have already pointed out but later on there's juicy bits about how US government has only been effective at times of de facto single party rule where opposition parties had to come to the table for influence or get nothing.

Two statements that have shook my idea of good government, "campaigning is inherently detrimental to governing" and "American government works best when political competition is slim to none".

[ReluctantSamurai]

A little bit of preliminary fact-checking on Joe Biden's Wisconsin Town Hall, hosted last night on CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/polit...kee/index.html

I realize the man has a lot on his plate, but if you're going to go in front of the American people, you should have the facts at your disposal.

[Montmorency]

A little bit of preliminary fact-checking on Joe Biden's Wisconsin Town Hall, hosted last night on CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/polit...kee/index.html

I realize the man has a lot on his plate, but if you're going to go in front of the American people, you should have the facts at your disposal.

Biden said the $7.25 per hour federal minimum wage is too low, then said soon after: "For example, if it went -- if we gradually increased it -- when we indexed it at $7.20, if we kept it indexed by -- to inflation, people would be making 20 bucks an hour right now. That's what it would be."
Facts First: This is false; the White House told CNN after the event that Biden got mixed up with another statistic about the minimum wage. Today's federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, which took effect in 2009, would not be even close to $20 per hour if Congress had decided to link it to inflation. Adjusted for inflation, $7.25 in January 2009 was equal to $8.98 in January 2021.

Biden seems to have been referencing a typical pro-indexation argument that, had the minimum wage not dissociated from productivity growth, it would have been around $20 now. Based on those old trends.

Biden said of the US population of undocumented immigrants: "The vast majority of the people, those 11 million undocumented, they're not Hispanics; they're people who came on a visa -- who was able to buy a ticket to get in a plane and didn't go home. They didn't come across the Rio Grande swimming..."

Did he get confused about the controversy over "illegal" vs. "undocumented" ("there’s a whole range of things that relate to immigration")? Unauthorized border crossing is a criminal/civil offense, whereas overstaying a visa is not, and we have multiple programs and offices dealing with categories of asylum seekers (e.g. Temporary Protected Status).

Facts First: Biden got at least one of these statistics wrong -- in a way that made Trump look better, not worse, so Biden's inaccuracy appeared accidental, but we're noting it anyway. A White House official said that Biden's claim about "10 million doses a day" being available when he took office was meant to be a reference to the 10 million doses a week that were being sent to states as of the second week of Biden's term, up from 8.6 million a week when they took over.
The official said Biden's claim about "50 million doses" being available when he took office was a reference to the number of doses that had been distributed to states as of the end of January. That was less than two weeks into his term, but he could have been clearer on the time frame.
Biden's more dramatic claim here, that there was "nothing in the refrigerator" when he took office, has a solid factual basis, though Biden could again have been clearer about what he meant.

It fits in the same pattern, a longstanding one in the bigger picture: the unfortunate truth is that Biden has a tendency toward muddling together multiple ideas and facts in an impressionistic way when speaking generatively (remember the Democratic debates?). I can't say if it's a loss of sharpness over time.

Anderson Cooper: (55:49)
You just talked to China’s president-

Joe Biden: (55:51)
Yes, for two hours.

Anderson Cooper: (55:52)
What about the Uyghurs? What about the [crosstalk 00:55:55]

Joe Biden: (55:55)
We must speak up for human rights. It’s who we are. My comment to him was, and I know him well, and he knows me well. We are two our conversation.

Anderson Cooper: (56:07)
You talked about this to him?

Joe Biden: (56:08)
I talked about this too, and that’s not so much refugee, but I talked about it. I said, “Look… Chinese leaders, if you know anything about Chinese history, it has always been the time when China has been victimized by the outer world is when they haven’t been unified at home. So the central… Vastly overstated. The central principle of Xi Jinping is that there must be a united tightly-controlled China. And he uses his rationale for the things he does based on that. I pointed out to him, no American president can be sustained as a president if he doesn’t reflect the values of the United States. And so the idea, I’m not going to speak out against what he’s doing in Hong Kong, what he’s doing with the Uyghurs in Western mountains of China and Taiwan, the One-China policy by making it forceful.

Joe Biden: (57:04)
I said, and… He said… He gets it. Culturally, there are different norms at each country and their leaders are expected to follow. But my point was that when I came back from meeting with him and traveling 17,000 miles with him, when I was vice-president and he was the vice-president, and that’s how I got to know him so well, at the request of President Hu. Not a joke, not a joke. His predecessor, President Hu and President Obama wanted us to get to know one another because he was going to be the president. And I came back and said, “They’re going to end their one child policy, because they’re so xenophobic, they won’t let anybody else in, and more people are retired than working. How can they sustain economic growth when more people are retired?

[Montmorency]

Hooah, any word on the member-directed spending?


Expanding on what I noted in November, 2020 continued the trend of being an all-time low for split-ticket voting.

[Hooahguy]

Hooah, any word on the member-directed spending?

Not that I've heard, but to be honest I haven't been following it that closely- kinda taking a break from following politics in my free time.

[Montmorency]

Not that I've heard, but to be honest I haven't been following it that closely- kinda taking a break from following politics in my free time.

For reference.

Congressional earmarks practically built the modern lobbying business. And though the influence sector has endured a decade without them, the likely return of member-directed federal spending has sent cautious jubilation down K Street.

With earmarks poised for a likely comeback this Congress, lobbyists are eyeing new business opportunities. But they’re not expecting it to be a return to K Street’s high-flying days of yore, when lobbyists built empires out of the business of securing earmarks for clients.

Lawmakers, if they do bring back the practice of earmarking appropriations bills with the pots of member-directed spending, are likely only to allow the federal dollars to go to nonprofit organizations and local governments. And they’d likely be publicly disclosed as a way of preventing the scandal and corruption that led to earmarks’ official demise in 2011.

Still, lobbyists say even limited earmarks for nonprofits could spur new public-private partnerships, with businesses queuing up to collaborate on future projects.

“For advocacy in general, it’s going to be a positive, another avenue of advocacy for our clients and another potential way for helping clients meet their needs and working with lawmakers and working on projects in their districts and states, on bills that are must-pass bills,” said Ed Pagano, a lobbying partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and a former congressional and administration aide. “It’s another option for them to achieve their goals.”

Akin Gump is the top-grossing lobbying practice based on publicly available revenue reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Over the past decade, Akin Gump and other law firm lobbying practices, such as Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, edged out the formerly top-grossing firms such as Cassidy & Associates, which pioneered the business of earmark lobbying and had to restructure in their absence.

A Cassidy spokesperson did not provide comment. Another firm built largely around earmarking was Van Scoyoc Associates; a spokesperson for the firm declined to discuss the matter until after Congress has made a final decision and announced the parameters of the proposal.

Bottom line
Overall lobbying revenue dipped in 2011, after hitting a peak in 2010, according to an analysis of LDA reports by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That drop, which has since rebounded, was likely due to a combination of factors, including the demise of formal earmarks, the trend of lobbyists to deregister and the ripples of the Great Recession catching up to K Street.

“Our clients are excited about the prospect of a return to earmarks, and we think we can be helpful to them with our advocacy there,” said Cristina Antelo, founder of the lobbying firm Ferox Strategies.

She noted that while her firm does work with some nonprofits, many of her clients have federal contracts. “For these, our lobbying on the Hill will be focused on helping the agencies fund the interests, technology and needs they have already determined they require for their own missions and that our clients can help accomplish,” she said.

Bringing back earmarks, even in a limited fashion, may also have other ripples on K Street. They may present more buy-in from rank-and-file lawmakers to back legislation they would otherwise oppose and may, therefore, increase bipartisan deals. It’s important to note, though, some Republicans already have voiced opposition to bringing earmarks back.

The politics of earmarks cuts both ways. Lawmakers who secure funding for projects in their districts or states can tout such measures as accomplishments. On the other hand, earmarks can make for fodder in opposition ads, given past scandals involving earmarks and campaign contributions. Before he left office, President Donald Trump pardoned former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., who went to jail over a scandal involving earmarks.

Dead earmarks society
Still, lobbyists see potential arguments in favor of lawmakers steering public funds.

“Congress needs to reassert its power of the purse and its oversight responsibility over the executive branch,” said lobbyist Michael Herson, who runs American Defense International. As for whether a likely return of earmarks might serve as a boost to his business, he said that “for now, there are more questions than answers.”

Paul Brathwaite of the lobbying firm Federal Street Strategies said it all comes down to the kind of earmarks lawmakers seek.

He represents a council of historically Black colleges and universities and said such entities may seek funding, in the form of earmarks, especially when it comes to improving medical treatment. He noted that there are only medical schools at four HBCUs and said expanding such operations could improve patient outcomes, including when it comes to maternal health. Black women, for example, suffer higher rates of maternal mortality than white women.

“People can ridicule earmarks, but if we identify these as national priorities, I think it’s defensible to say, ‘In 2021, women shouldn’t die because they’re having children, and we are going to try to figure out how to bring better health care access,’” Brathwaite said. “These are the kinds of investments that folks should be able to rally around and say that’s a good use of money.”

Some lobbyists remain skeptical about the process of earmarks’ possible return this Congress. Rich Gold of the lobbying firm Holland & Knight has been advocating a resurrection in congressional earmarks for years, as part of an odd-bedfellows collaboration, à la a dead earmarks society.

He said his club had put in a lot of time and effort into fixing some of the problems with earmarks and added that lawmakers “haven’t reached out to anybody I can tell who has a lot of expertise in this area.”

Another member of that dead earmarks club, Craig Holman of the liberal organization Public Citizen, said he believes earmarks are likely to return, though he doesn’t expect lawmakers to adopt his recommendations, such as banning earmarks for campaign contributors.

Prohibiting earmarks for for-profit companies, and requiring disclosure, Holman said, “does address some of the most egregious conflicts of interest.” He expects Public Citizen, depending on the details, to endorse the plan, even if it wasn’t the one he lobbied for.

“If you can remove the corruption element and conflicts of interest, you can set up a system where members of Congress will negotiate over legislation,” Holman said. “It’s been known to cross party lines. It would help reduce the polarization that has just made Congress absolutely dysfunctional.”

I just wonder what's been worked out with Manchin and cohort behind the scenes.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I will be interested to see what excuse the Democrats use in 2022 & 2024 to explain to voters why they didn't do whatever it took, including a VP override of the parliamentarian's exclusion of the $15/hr minimum wage, to fulfill their campaign promise. Biden is already showing himself to be rather weak-kneed when it comes to imposing his will on Congress....

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...g-but-respects

White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain said the administration would not try to overrule the Senate parliamentarian if she decides an increase in the minimum wage must be stripped from a coronavirus relief package. “Certainly that’s not something we would do. We’re going to honor the rules of the Senate and work within that system to get this bill passed,” Klain said on MSBNC Wednesday.

The White House said Thursday that President Biden is “disappointed” that the Senate parliamentarian ruled a minimum wage increase could not be included in a coronavirus relief bill but said the president would respect the decision.

Hey Mr. President...you know who's disappointed? The 900,000 people who would immediately jump above poverty level earnings, and another 17 million workers who would then make at least some semblance of a real wage. And if this trend of spineless waffling by Democrats continues, and who seem to have quickly forgotten their campaign promises, your control in Washington is going to be very short-lived....

Democrats are living in fantasy land if they think they can get a minimum wage bill passed by a floor vote which would require 60 votes in the Senate.

[Hooahguy]

Except that Manchin sided with the parliamentarian even if the parliamentarian was overruled so it would be dead on arrival anyways. Sigh.

[rory_20_uk]

I read about an interesting idea that would be able to go through the 50+1 vote approach that appears to be the only thing your Federal Government can really achieve these days and this was basically tweaking the tax system to incentivise companies to increase the minimum wage or else end up paying more in taxes - definitely a more complex approach but I guess you have to work with what you've got.

If voters are happy with what Republicans do (and the debacle in Texas is a key example of that) then well fair enough I guess - if you would rather have occasional brownouts than an integrated power grid, pay thousands for spot electricity prices and no mechanism to get companies to invest in the infrastructure than risk "socialism" then that is a choice - one that makes no sense to me but the voters have clearly seen what happens and in the next election will be making a decision.

[Hooahguy]

I read about an interesting idea that would be able to go through the 50+1 vote approach that appears to be the only thing your Federal Government can really achieve these days and this was basically tweaking the tax system to incentivise companies to increase the minimum wage or else end up paying more in taxes - definitely a more complex approach but I guess you have to work with what you've got.

This is my thinking as well. Might even be able to get Manchin on board as well. Another path forward may be having the minimum wage adjusted to cost of living, not a flat number like $15. But to be honest, Id rather the minimum wage thing be temporarily dropped if it means passing the damn Covid relief bill. Federal unemployment increases expire in a couple weeks and the process has taken long enough. There are two other opportunities to get reconciliation bills through this year and one of the others can be used to work on a minimum wage increase, such as an infrastructure bill. Who knows.

If voters are happy with what Republicans do (and the debacle in Texas is a key example of that) then well fair enough I guess - if you would rather have occasional brownouts than an integrated power grid, pay thousands for spot electricity prices and no mechanism to get companies to invest in the infrastructure than risk "socialism" then that is a choice - one that makes no sense to me but the voters have clearly seen what happens and in the next election will be making a decision.

Bold of you to assume Texan voters will remember this when 2022 and 2024 come around.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Except that Manchin sided with the parliamentarian even if the parliamentarian was overruled so it would be dead on arrival anyways. Sigh.

Manchin is turning out to be the pain-in-ass I thought he was going to be, but not on issues I figured he'd flex his power on... I get the impression Biden wasn't for the $15/hr increase either...

I'd be curious to know if Biden spoke with either Manchin or Sinema. I find it hard to believe that some arm-twisting couldn't have gotten the job done. Noone heard a peep when the GOP used reconciliation to pass the big tax cut for the rich back in 2017. Democrats had better start growing some cahonees, and soon....

[Montmorency]

Couple things:

The House just passed the stimulus bill, and it includes the $15 minimum wage.

The incentive strategy rory mentioned is Sanders' method (though tbf he's not the only one with ideas in this domain).

Pelosi claims that $15 minimum wage is "inevitable."

“It is inevitable to all of us, the $15 minimum wage will be achieved,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor late Friday, “even if it is inconceivable to some, it is inevitable to us – and we will work diligently to shorten the distance between the inevitable and the inconceivable.”

[Hooahguy]

I'd be curious to know if Biden spoke with either Manchin or Sinema. I find it hard to believe that some arm-twisting couldn't have gotten the job done. Noone heard a peep when the GOP used reconciliation to pass the big tax cut for the rich back in 2017. Democrats had better start growing some cahonees, and soon....

Manchin's schtick is "look how independent I am from mainstream Dems." I highly doubt any arm-twisting could bring him in line, and I'd imagine that Sinema is the same way. But here is where I think there is an opening: infrastructure, which Manchin has spoken about wanting to spend really big on. Perhaps there something can be done with the minimum wage within an infrastructure bill, coupled with re-introducing earmarks. Sadly I think the fight for raising the minimum wage within the Covid relief bill is a lost cause for the moment. Better to fall back a bit and regroup rather than dash against the rocks...

[ReluctantSamurai]

Manchin's schtick is "look how independent I am from mainstream Dems."

So...the Democratic version of Mitch McConnell? Except you block your own party's agenda??

“even if it is inconceivable to some, it is inevitable to us – and we will work diligently to shorten the distance between the inevitable and the inconceivable.”

News Flash Nancy Pelosi....you don't have a lot of time.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So...the Democratic version of Mitch McConnell? Except you block your own party's agenda??

The existing rules are the only thing keeping a Dem in WV.