Taming The Trojan Horses
At a news conference last week Senator Bernie Sanders took the unprecedented action of publicly venting his frustration with two other Democratic Senators, Joe Manchin, and Kyrsten Sinema. Senator Sanders took them to task for their refusals to engage in candid discussions regarding the contents of President Biden’s $3.5 trillion proposal to arrest climate change and expand the nation’s social safety net. For the past three months, these two senators have expressed their objections to the President’s proposal only in vague terms, making it impossible for Senate Democrats to finalize legislation that would be acceptable to all members of their caucus. Particularly upsetting for Senator Sanders was that Senate Democrats had previously acquiesced to the passage of a blatantly deficient physical infrastructure bill (the “infrastructure Bill”) negotiated by these two senators on the express understanding that it would be passed in tandem with a bill embodying the President’s proposal (aka the “Reconciliation Bill”). See “Restoring Faith In Democracy” for the background of these two bills.
In response to Senator Sander’s comments, Senator Manchin tweeted that while Senator Sanders was looking to create an “entitlement society” he himself was seeking to establish a “compassionate and rewarding society” (a phrase with no readily apparent meaning). His prior comments that “the dollar amount of the legislation was too great” and that “passage of the bill should be delayed” were equally non-informative. Senator Sinema simply chose not to respond to Senator Sanders’ attack, opting to allow her specific objections to the President’s proposal to remain unstated. From all appearances, these two senators seem to be acting as Trojan Horses trying to undermine a major segment of the President’s legislative agenda from within the Democratic caucus. If that is the case, President Biden’s entire legislative agenda is likely to go down in flames as Progressive Democrats in the House of Representatives are threatening to block the passage of the Infrastructure Bill until the Senate passes an acceptable Reconciliation Bill. In a recent article, Jennifer Rubin of the Washing Post argued that these two senators should be supporting the Reconciliation Bill because it offers so much for their constituents.
Even though Senator Manchin has not articulated what he wants to be included in, or omitted from, the Reconciliation Bill, it’s widely known that he’s the most conservative member of the Senate Democratic caucus. More importantly, he represents the State of West Virginia, the economy of which is built around the production of coal which will be adversely impacted by the bill’s climate control provisions. In addition,, he has developed close ties with lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry who regularly deluge him with campaign contributions. Those contributions have enabled him to be continuously re-elected as a Democrat in a state that provided President Trump with a 39% margin of victory in the 2020 election. Thus, it seems readily apparent that what Senator Manchin must find most objectionable about the President’s proposals is his plan to combat climate change by weaning our nation off fossil fuels. Accordingly, unless President Biden can find a way to make his climate change initiative palatable to Senator Manchin, there may be little chance of winning his support for the Reconciliation Bill.
Senate Democrats have to be careful in applying pressure to Senator Manchin as he would seem to fit comfortably into the Republican Party. This means that if the Democrats try to take action against him (like stripping him of his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources), he might react by switching parties that would place control of the Senate back into the hands of Mitch McConnell. Thus, Democrats must think in terms of enticing, rather than coercing, him to support the President’s agenda.
Simply eliminating the climate control provisions to appease Senator Manchin is not a viable option. Of all the matters addressed in the Reconciliation Bill, stemming climate change is by far the most critical because unless strong measures are taken now there may be no way to save our planet from the ravages of global warming. This year alone the warming of our planet has been responsible for unprecedented forest fires in California, droughts and killer heat waves throughout our western states, and storm damage and flooding along our Gulf Coast.
Just as climate change is an existential threat to our planet, the elimination of fossil fuel production is an existential threat to the State of West Virginia. Coal mining is the state’s largest industry and its largest employer; and coal is its largest export product and the source of 91% of the fuel used to generate electric power in the state. A further consideration is that Senator Manchin has a $5 million investment in a coal brokerage business managed by his son which provides him with an annual income of roughly $500,000 (three times his annual salary as a U.S. senator). All of this means that securing his vote to forego the use of fossil fuels is an almost unimaginable heavy lift.
The best, and possibly the only, way to secure Senator Manchin’s support for the Reconciliation Bill would be to convince him that the “handwriting is on the wall” for West Virginia’s coal industry. This is not just because Democratic administrations are committed to phasing out the use of fossil fuels as a means of slowing climate change, it’s because burning coal has become economically unattractive. When you consider the costs of reducing coal’s polluting effects it’s no longer a low-cost source of energy. This largely explains why the world is rapidly transitioning to other fuels and renewable sources of electrical power. While Trump famously promised West Virginians that he was going to bring back coal jobs, during his presidency alone the number of coal-related jobs in America dropped by approximately 25%. In West Virginia, coal production declined by more than 50% during the past decade and by roughly 28% in the last three years.
While it is hard to predict exactly how long it has, the future life expectancy of coal is not great. Over 50% of the coal mined in West Virginia is now used to generate electricity within the state. West Virginia currently derives over 90% of its electricity needs from 10 coal-burning power plants, most of which were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Such plants have a useful life of 30 to 40 years which can be somewhat extended by retrofitting. While four of the state’s coal-fire facilities were constructed between 1980 and 2011, these plants represent less than 20% of the electrical energy produced by burning coal. This means that facilities filling roughly 70% of the state’s electrical needs are at or near the end of their useful lives. Sales of coal to neighboring states have largely dried up as other states which previously purchased coal mined in West Virginia have already completed their transitions to other forms of energy. While international sales of West Virginia coal have remained relatively constant, they too may start to drop as worldwide concerns over climate change grow. Faced with these facts, the overwhelming odds are that by the end of this decade, coal production in West Virginia will decline by at least another 50% and may even cease altogether.
There is another time factor that should concern Senator Manchin. Unless the Democrats are able to thoroughly defeat current Republican efforts to rig the nation’s electoral system, the chances are that Democrats will cease to control the White House and both houses of Congress following the 2022 election. In fact, there is a strong possibility that it may be another decade before that happens again. This means that Democrats will not be in a position to enact legislation addressing climate change and its consequences. The Republicans are likely to remain aligned with the fossil fuel industry long after coal has ceased to be used as both gasoline and natural gas will continue to remain important commodities. That means that Republicans will continue to deny the existence of climate change and will remain unwilling to assist coal-producing states like West Virginia. Therefore, President Biden’s current willingness to shelter the economies of states adversely affected by his climate change proposals may well be West Virginia’s last chance to redirect and salvage its economy before it falls off a cliff.
While none of this is good news for the people of West Virginia, it does offer Senator Manchin an opportunity to be a hero for his constituents. If he can negotiate an economic transition package for his state he could become a modern-day Moses leading the people of West Virginia from an increasingly dire predicament to a more promising future. So far he doesn’t seem to recognize the upside potential of this situation, which means that it will be up to President Biden and Senator Schumer lay this out for him and help him convince the people of West Virginia that it’s in their interests to move away from their dependence on coal.
Unfortunately, the climate change provisions are not the only aspect of the Reconciliation Bill that seems to trouble Senator Manchin. His response to Senator Sanders denigrating what he called an “entitlement society” is also a strong indication that he has reservations about the social welfare provisions included in that bill. The problem is that the President is equally unlikely to agree to abandon those provisions as that would cause the loss of support of House Progressives. This means that the President must also lure Senator Manchin away from the perception advanced by Republicans that social welfare programs sap the willingness of Americans to work hard. A recent example of this thinking was evident this summer when Republicans argued that the federal supplements to state unemployment benefits were keeping workers from returning to their jobs. Contrary to their claims, those supplements have now expired, and, rather than experiencing a surge in employment, there has been a growing number of workers actually choosing to leave their jobs.
The assertion that social benefits sap the desire to work is a “boogeyman” that Republican politicians have employed for over a century. It is not a product of actual experience, but rather a product of the unhappiness of Republican donors at having their “hard-earned” tax dollars being spent to benefit people they deem undeserving. It may also be a product of racism--trying to keep those trapped at the bottom of the nation’s economy from being able to advance themselves. This is not to imply that Senator Manchin is either a member of the Republican donor base or a racist. Like so many successful individuals, Senator Manchin has worked hard all his life and has been able to create a better life for both himself and the members of his family. He thus harbors the belief that if he could do it, others with a desire for a better life could also do it; and that social welfare programs tend to reduce that desire. The problem is that this is more theory than fact.
What Senator Manchin may not fully appreciate is that he and many others seduced by this boogeyman came into this world with benefits that those at the bottom of the income scale never had. He grew up in a middle-class family with two loving parents who instilled in him a solid work ethic. His family owned a business and provided him with educational opportunities not available to so many of his fellow Americans. He also seems to be forgetting that so many of those who seek entry into this country come in search of a better life with only the clothes on their backs and endured hardships and life-threatening situations to get here. They are not susceptible to being lured into complacency by the siren song of social welfare programs. Social welfare programs only serve to place them into a position to move upward in the same manner that he and his parents and grandparents did.
This is not simply conjecture on my part; it’s evidenced by the results achieved by many European countries that have adopted robust social welfare programs. Their citizens achieve higher per-capita productivity and higher median household incomes than those of Americans. (See, “Fear of Socialism”). Granted that people who win a large lottery prize may quit their jobs and go on to live unproductive lives, but the level at which social welfare programs rob an individual of his/her initiative is much closer to the point of winning the lottery than to that of assuring them of health care, adequate nutrition, affordable housing, basic education and other services that help them become more productive.
I’m not suggesting that it will be easy to convince Senator Manchin that his notions of an ”entitlement society” are exaggerated. That’s because it would require him to admit that his own success to a significant degree is the product of his own family heritage. It would also require him to admit that some of his long-held views are fallacious. Still, it should not be so hard to convince him that workers who have received a good educational foundation are likely to be far more productive than those who haven’t and that workers who don’t have to worry about being able to pay their rent, to feed their families and to have access to health care are likely to be far more productive than those who are consumed by such thoughts. Thus, including a wide variety of social programs in the Reconciliation Bill should not be a deal-breaker for Senator Manchin. It’s only a question of which social welfare programs should be included, how generously they need to be funded and how precisely they should be targeted.
Like Senator Manchin, Senator Sinema has openly engaged with the press while providing a host of vague and often meaningless answers to their inquiries. More importantly, she has not shared with her Democratic colleagues in the White House or the Senate what changes to the Reconciliation Bill would be required to gain her support for that bill.
One clue as to what might be on her mind is the fact that she has recently recruited at least one former corporate lobbyist to serve as a senior aide. She has also been spending most of her time away from the Senate seeking campaign contributions from corporate officials and lobbyists as well as from organizations like The Business Round Table and the Chamber of Commerce. In fact, throughout her political career, she has been a highly successful fund-raiser, particularly through courting business interests. Another sign that she may now be casting her lot with the corporate world is that while serving as the principal Democratic negotiator of the Infrastructure Bill she repeatedly acquiesced to Republican insistence that the bill not be paid for with tax increases on corporations or wealthy individuals. She even went along with Republican objections to increase IRS so it could pursue tax cheats.
All of this is consistent with the fact that throughout her political career she has often sided with Wall Street on economic issues. Indeed, she supported Trump on 25% of the votes she cast while he was president. These attributes would seem to indicate that her principal objection to the Reconciliation Bill might be that it’s to be financed with significant increases in corporate and individual taxes. As more fully explained below, however, this may not actually be what is motivating her actions.
While there are several inconsistencies in her background (some of which are described below), a few things stand out: she is very bright, highly focused, and a very fast learner. She also tends to be a loner and has strong survival instincts. Her parents divorced while she was relatively young and for three years she, her mother, her step-father, and her two siblings lived in an abandoned gas station that had no toilet or electricity. She graduated high school at age 16 as her class’ valedictorian and went on to earn a B.A. in two years. She then spent the next seven years as a social worker while at the same time earning a master’s degree in social work. After that, she went to law school and earned a J.D. in only two years while holding down a teaching job. After law school, she practiced law representing criminal defendants.
At the age of 24, Sinema turned her attention to politics and joined the Green Party, the focus of which is preserving the nation’s environment. In 2,000 she worked on Ralph Nader’s presidential campaign and the following year she made an unsuccessful run for a seat on the Phoenix City Council. A year later she was also unsuccessful in an attempt to become a member of the Arizona State Assembly. These defeats prompted her to change her affiliation to the Democratic Party. After that she went on to win three two-year terms as a member of the Arizona State Assembly and one three-year term as a member of the Arizona State Senate. After that, she served three terms as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2018.
Shortly after she became involved in politics the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in Citizens United v. FEC in which it struck down most of the limitations on the financing of political campaigns. Like so many Democrats, Senator Sinema decried this decision and expressed her views in an article she wrote at the time. Along the way, she campaigned against high drug prices and recently has voiced support for federal voting rights legislation.
It should be understood that 34% of Arizona’s voters are registered as Republicans, 32% are registered as Independents and 31% are registered as Democrats. Although both of her state’s U.S. Senators are Democrats, its legislature and statehouse are controlled by Republicans. This largely explains why she has cast aside many of her earlier liberal leanings and has chosen to join the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. When she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives she joined the “Blue Dog” caucus and also became a member of the House’s “Problem Solvers” group.
Her motivations regarding the Reconciliation Bill are anything but clear, but one possibility is that her focus is financial. She clearly recognizes the necessity for politicians to raise campaign contributions and understands that she represents a state with a below-average median household income. This means that if she is to have any chance of defeating a senate candidate being amply financed by the Republican National Committee, she has to position herself to appeal to independent voters and to major campaign contributors. This explains her efforts to develop close ties with Wall Street firms and her recent efforts to schedule fundraising events. You might call it the “Willie Sutton” effect—i.e., she tends to be attracted to where the money is.
She is also smart enough to recognize that she has nothing to gain by going on record in support of the Reconciliation Bill as that legislation is going nowhere until Senator Manchin’s support has been secured as the bill needs the support of both senators to be enacted. More importantly, her refusal to come out in support of that legislation is a big help to her fundraising efforts. In fact, it has made her the darling of the pharmaceutical and banking industries as well of business groups that have been showering her with donations. Thus, her tight-lipped posture, while conveying the impression that she is not cooperating with Senate Democrats, may principally be designed to obscure from her donor base how she ultimately intends to vote on the Reconciliation Bill.
An argument can also be made that she has decided that she really doesn’t like playing politics and is ready to take her Senate pension and her recent campaign contributions and settle down as a highly paid corporate lobbyist. Certainly, she has angered a lot of Arizona Democrats who are already preparing to wage a primary contest against her which may be particularly well-funded if she doesn’t ultimately support the Reconciliation Bill. While this is a possibility, it doesn’t seem consistent with her past activities as a social worker and an environmentalist. Nor does it seem consistent with her having opted to pursue a political career at the age of 24.
This leaves no promising way of pressuring her to immediately support the Reconciliation Bill. The best strategy for dealing with her would seemingly be to ignore her and concentrate on gaining the support of Senator Manchin which the Democrats must ultimately obtain in any event. Once Senator Manchin’s support has been secured, it would force her to decide whether she wants to continue play the role of a spoiler which would likely bring to an end her political career as a Democrat. Having already fashioned herself as a “maverick” would not make her particularly attractive to the Republican Party beyond the next election as Republicans expect 100% allegiance from all of their elected officials. She could also try to become an independent member of the Senate, but that requires a highly effective fundraising capability and is particularly difficult to sustain in a state as large as Arizona. Thus, if Senator Semina wants to remain in politics, making peace with her Democratic colleagues would seem to be her only viable alternative. This leads me to believe that if and when Senator Manchin’s support of the Reconciliation Bill has been attained, she will engage in a well-publicized negotiation with Democratic leaders. That negotiation will be concluded with a hasty resolution of her concerns and a statement to her corporate donors that she held out as long and achieved as much as she could.
Complicating the problems faced by the Democrats is a looming deadline. Current funding for highway improvements is scheduled to run out at the end of this month and, without the enactment of the Infrastructure Bill, highway construction will come to a halt. To date, the House Democrats have held fast on not passing the Infrastructure Bill out of fear of further enhancing the bargaining power of Senators Manchin and Sinema, both of whom have expressed reservations about funding for social welfare programs contained in the Reconciliation Bill. Indeed, Progressive House Democrats have good reason to fear that if they approved the Infrastructure Bill, the Reconciliation Bill might never be enacted. Hopefully, the pending lapse of highway funding will provide pressure on all Democrats to accelerate their efforts to come to an agreement over the terms of the Reconciliation Bill.