CAN'T THE DEMOCRATS WIN OVER A TAME REPUBLICAN OR TWO?

Arizona senator Krysten Sinema and West Virginia senator Joe Manchin are taking a lot of stick from their caucus, from the Democrats' willing accomplices in the media, and from court intellectuals in and out of higher education for not going along with tripling down on the failures of the "Great Society."  The guilt tripping and obnoxious behaviour is unlikely to change either of their minds, and my post title notes the presence of Senators who caucus with the Republicans but don't necessarily vote the party line.  Once upon a time that included John McCain, but we could consider all the usual suspects who turn up on the Sunday shows, e.g. Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, or Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

It might be that the holdout senators recognize the massive change in public policy in all of the wish lists isn't exactly prudent with such closely divided houses of Congress.  Charles Lipson expands on the tripling down on failure argument for Real Clear Politics.

If successful, Biden’s effort to add big, new social programs would make him a transformational president, even if he served only one term and accomplished nothing more.

Voters never elected Biden to do that. Nor did they give him and his party anything like the overwhelming majorities FDR and LBJ won when they launched this trajectory. Quite the contrary. Biden won narrowly, and Democrats barely carried Congress. They have a four-vote majority in the House and a 50-50 Senate. Biden himself promised to govern from the center-left, reach across the aisle, and restore normalcy after the tumult of the Trump years.

He has done none of that, ignoring his own promises and his party’s failure to win a mandate for tectonic changes. His plummeting poll numbers show voters realize they have been fooled twice over. First, they thought, wrongly, that Joe Biden was competent. He had decades of Washington experience in the Senate, after all, and served eight years as vice president. That mirage of competence vanished with the humiliating debacle in Afghanistan and the uncontrolled, illegal immigration on the southern border. Second, they believed his promise of moderation. Voters’ reaction to these unhappy realizations can be summarized in two words: buyer’s remorse.

If Biden had been the moderate he advertised himself to be, he would have twisted arms to pass the bill on roads and bridges, separated it from the bill for more social programs, and taken the limited victory. He could have honestly said he delivered on his promise to “build back better.” That’s not what he’s done. What he has done is pursue an ambitious, social-democrat agenda, one his own party rejected when primary voters chose Biden over Bernie Sanders.

Surely Biden knows he will never get his entire program through the Senate. But he’ll pass as much of it as he can. Doing so combines three central elements of the Democratic long-term agenda, pursued steadily since the mid-1930s: (1) overturn federalism and replace it with a centralized state; (2) use this administrative state to impose detailed regulations on the economy and society; and (3) redistribute federal funds to favored groups (and tax disfavored ones) to retain political control.

Implementing those goals has slowly transformed America, at least since the mid-1960s. Biden wants to take the next, large leap before his party loses power.

It's going to take something to beat what the advocates of larger unicorns federal government have been pursuing.  First, one-size-fits-all governance from a remote capital doesn't work.  Second, any such detailed administration will break down in process worship and slower decision making.  Look no further back than the botched coronavirus testing of spring 2020 for that.  Third, there are ways to compete for voters rather than forever wrangling over "importing moochers" or "suppressing voters."

That's the political science.  Here is the political economy.  An advocate of the latest boondoggle has been circulating a chart suggesting that people, such as the holdout Democrat senators, or perhaps the least libertarian Republican senators, ought get with the program.

Let's run down the list.

"Long-term care investments?"  There is no reason, other than third-party payment clutter and cartelization, for such investments not to be trade-tested betterments.

"Modernizing K-12 school buildings?"  Otherwise known as reducing property taxes whilst increasing sales or income taxes, whether at the state or national level, with the educrats getting to wet their beaks. 

"Electricity grid modernization?"  Don't we have investor-owned power companies?  Why aren't those companies spending that money?

"Medicare drug price negotiation?"  Monopsony sounds good in the abstract.  Then the marginal sellers who have been negotiated out don't show up.

"Lowering Medicare age?"  The so-called trust fund is on life support already, although having working adults in Medicare might bring in some of that Income Related Adjustment tax money.  On the other hand, if more people see that tax, they might be more receptive to rolling back the centralized state.

"Universal pre-K?" Federal Head Start isn't going to be Harvard Prep Day Care.

"Tuition-free community college?"  City College used to be good.

"Creating a CCC?"  Echoes of the New Deal, but to what end?

"Pathway to citizenship?"  Yes, and libertarian-minded politicians ought compete for those voters.  What do I keep telling you about new arrivals buying into a country that buys into them?

"Extending Child Tax Benefits?"  You mean taxes are too high?  Quelle surprise!