ADVERTISEMENT

Biden offers tax concession in infrastructure talks with key Republican

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,133
58,316
113
President Biden signaled at a private meeting on Wednesday that he would support significant revisions to his tax proposal to win Republican backing on a broader infrastructure package, outlining a plan for about $1 trillion in new spending financed through tax changes that do not appear to raise the top corporate rate.

Biden’s new offer amounted to a major concession after Republicans said his earlier proposal to lift the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent — a move that would unwind the tax cuts the GOP adopted in 2017 — amounted to a nonstarter.
Biden still wants to raise the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, but that effort could now be pursued outside of the infrastructure negotiations.

Instead, Biden on Wednesday recommended a new, minimum corporate tax of 15 percent, seeking to take aim at dozens of profitable U.S. corporations that pay little to nothing to the federal government annually, according to a person familiar with the talks who requested anonymity to describe them. The White House also proposed stepping up enforcement on corporations and wealthy earners who rely on loopholes to lessen their tax burdens, the person said.
Dozens of America’s biggest businesses paid no federal income tax — again
The offer marked an attempt by the White House to thread a delicate political needle. It aimed to preserve the president’s 2020 campaign pledge not to raise taxes on Americans making under $400,000 a year, while steering clear of the “red line” set down by Republicans who see the 2017 tax cuts as their crowning economic achievement.


Biden long has decried the fact that some of the country’s most profitable enterprises pay nothing in taxes. He stressed during his first-ever address to Congress last month that it is time to close “tax loopholes," urging lawmakers to “reform corporate taxes so they pay their fair share and help pay for the public investments their businesses will benefit from as well.”

Biden presented his new proposal, a revision of his total $2.2 trillion American Jobs Plan, during a meeting Wednesday with the GOP’s chief negotiator on infrastructure, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). But the source maintained that Biden has not strayed in his overall belief in raising rates on both corporations and wealthy individual earners.
Even with the new concession on taxes, the White House’s roughly $1 trillion plan still amounts to four times as much as Republicans have been willing to spend to improve the country’s roads, bridges, pipes, ports and Internet connections. Entering the meeting, GOP leaders had endorsed roughly $257 billion in new spending, while maintaining an unwavering opposition to any tax hikes to finance infrastructure reform.


Instead, GOP leaders have called on the White House to repurpose unspent coronavirus relief aid now that the pandemic is improving. The White House has expressed only a limited appetite for reprogramming existing stimulus dollars, perhaps around $70 to 75 billion, the source said.
Time could be running out for infrastructure deal
Both sides are set to meet again Friday, though Republican leaders are still deciding whether to put forward another counter-offer or to walk away from the negotiations entirely, according to a second source familiar with the talks.

Capito did not respond to a request for comment. The White House also did not respond. Politico first reported on the $1 trillion offer.
The latest exchange comes as top White House officials have started to signal that time is running out on striking a bipartisan deal. Biden has labored to secure Republican support on infrastructure after advancing his last economic policy priority, a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, without GOP votes — though he has made clear that he is not willing to haggle indefinitely.


“Patience is not unending, and he wants to make progress. His only line in the sand is inaction,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Wednesday. “He wants to sign a bill into law this summer.”
West Virginia’s Capito emerges as central figure as Democrats, Republicans seek infrastructure deal
Much as before, Biden could try to muscle infrastructure reform through Congress using only Democratic votes. But that path could be fraught with its own political challenges, given the wide array of opinions within the president’s own party over what infrastructure reform should entail, and how to pay for it.
Some moderates, including Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), also do not yet appear willing to abandon talks. Without their full support, Democrats would have no ability to advance infrastructure reform on their own in the Senate using a tactic known as reconciliation, which would require all 50 Democrats to vote in lockstep.

 
Disappointing.

At least he hasn't given up.

When (not if) the Rs still obstruct, will this move Manchin and Sinema any closer to killing the filibuster?
If this doesn’t move Sen. Joe Manchin III, then nothing will.
President Biden has sliced hundreds of billions of dollars off his latest infrastructure offer to Republicans, multiple news outlets are reporting. He has offered a $1 trillion package, down from his last offer of $1.7 trillion.

This is plainly intended as a message to the West Virginia Democrat. But the message is larger than it first appears, making the question of whether Manchin will hear it all the more consequential.
The message is that if Republicans reject this, it should be unavoidably clear that Republicans are beyond hope as a governing partner on any terms that Manchin himself would find acceptable. If so, it’s time to move to passage of a bill via the simple majority “reconciliation” process. But that’s not all: If this is so, it’s also time to seriously debate reforming the filibuster.


ADVERTISING


Biden’s latest offer is a more dramatic move toward Republicans than anything they have offered. The last proposal from Republicans was for $928 billion, but much of that was existing baseline spending. Only $257 billion was new spending.
Worse, the new GOP spending is funded by repurposed covid-19 rescue funds. Other Republicans have suggested a gas tax hike or user fees, which are regressive and nonstarters for Democrats.
Biden’s new offer, meanwhile, is for $1 trillion. Importantly, all that is new money on top of baseline spending, a source familiar with the offer tells me.
Biden’s offer also sticks to his insistence on paying for the plan with corporate tax hikes, according to CNN and Politico. This is good: While Biden is being flexible on spending levels, by drawing a hard line on pay-fors, he’s suggesting he’s prepared to see Democrats act without Republicans — by reconciliation.



That’s where the message to Manchin comes in. Manchin, too, supports paying for infrastructure by raising corporate tax rates, though not as high as Biden wants. And Manchin has flatly rejected GOP pay-fors.
And so, if Biden keeps slashing his plan’s spending levels to win Republicans while keeping the pay-for Manchin wants — and Republicans still don’t budge — at what point does Manchin realize Republicans will never support anything close to what Manchin himself wants?
To be clear, Biden would obviously like it if 10 Senate Republicans did support his new proposal. He could then announce bipartisan support for a targeted infrastructure package — one focused on roads, bridges and broadband — then pursue a second package with other priorities (green technology, caregiving infrastructure, etc.) via reconciliation later.



But plainly, Biden does not expect 10 Republicans to support this offer. The key nuance here is that Manchin wants to persuasively argue — to his constituents and to himself — that a real effort to win them over was made. If this doesn’t do it, what will?
The bigger question is this: How many times must Democrats be led down rabbit holes in search of GOP support that never materializes before Manchin accepts that in a fundamental sense, the bipartisan possibilities he dreams of are simply gone?

The filibuster favors Republicans​

Those who find that prospect terrifying often equate it with the horror of partisan majorities passing things, followed by a switch in power and a partisan swing back the other way. As Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) puts it, the filibuster protects democracy “rather than allowing our country to ricochet wildly every two to four years.”



But that’s absurd: We already live in that country. When Republicans had total control in 2017 and 2018, they didn’t hesitate to use reconciliation to try to jam through Obamacare repeal (they failed) and to pass massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich, both on partisan lines.
Manchin and Sinema want us to believe the filibuster preserves a country in which the parties are incentivized to cooperate on an even policy playing field. But the real question is whether they will consign us to a future in which that playing field is dramatically tilted toward Republican priorities.
This is spelled out in a well-argued piece by Ira Shapiro, a staffer to then-Sen. Robert Byrd of Manchin’s home state. As Shapiro notes, one dirty secret of the filibuster is it creates serious imbalances between things that can pass via reconciliation and things that can’t:



There is no convincing rationale for establishing two classes of legislative action. It should be unacceptable that the $2.1 trillion tax cut in 2017 or the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act could be done by majority vote (through reconciliation) but that 60 votes are required before helping the Dreamers, requiring background checks for guns, combating climate change or protecting the right to vote.
This privileges the party that cares less about legislating. Because Republicans are most obsessed with cutting taxes, they can carry out their most urgent priority by simple majority, even as many core priorities Democrats want to address require a supermajority.
Perhaps Manchin is content with this situation. If those things could be done by simple majority, he’d be a deciding vote on them, putting him in a tough position. But if so, that rationale has nothing in common with the fantasy rationale filibuster defenders are offering.
If Manchin eventually accepts that Republicans will not be a willing partner on pretty much anything, he’ll have to deal more forthrightly with those basic truths. Until then, Democrats will have to keep sending that message about Republicans in whatever ways are available.

 

The filibuster favors Republicans​

Those who find that prospect terrifying often equate it with the horror of partisan majorities passing things, followed by a switch in power and a partisan swing back the other way. As Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) puts it, the filibuster protects democracy “rather than allowing our country to ricochet wildly every two to four years.”

But that’s absurd: We already live in that country. When Republicans had total control in 2017 and 2018, they didn’t hesitate to use reconciliation to try to jam through Obamacare repeal (they failed) and to pass massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich, both on partisan lines.

Manchin and Sinema want us to believe the filibuster preserves a country in which the parties are incentivized to cooperate on an even policy playing field. But the real question is whether they will consign us to a future in which that playing field is dramatically tilted toward Republican priorities.
I've found myself agreeing with Greg Sargent an awful lot lately. Or is it that he's been agreeing with me? The quoted bit in particular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
These people will never support any bill you propose Joe. I thought you would have learned that as VP for Obama.

Literally Republicans were on record saying there were 0 changes that could be made and allow them to support the ACA….nothing. It’s unreal.
I really want to think that Biden understands this but the longer we go without passing a voting rights bill I don't know.

Hopefully Schumer knows what he's doing because it is abundantly clear McConnell will not allow his caucus to help Biden in any way. There is no negotiation with these people and I wish Biden would just say it. They want bipartisanship on their terms only. Compromise getting what Biden wants done isn't going to happen. Again, Mitch is on record saying he's going to block everything.
 
I really want to think that Biden understands this but the longer we go without passing a voting rights bill I don't know.

Hopefully Schumer knows what he's doing because it is abundantly clear McConnell will not allow his caucus to help Biden in any way. There is no negotiation with these people and I wish Biden would just say it. They want bipartisanship on their terms only. Compromise getting what Biden wants done isn't going to happen. Again, Mitch is on record saying he's going to block everything.
Exactly. They like the compromise where they get everything they want and you get nothing you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
For any who might care, on Monday PBS's Amy Walter pretty much ruled out Manchin ever agreeing to ditch the filibuster.

Biden seems to be almost rubbing Manchin's nose in how awful the Republicans are, in an effort to get Manchin to see the light.

A few weeks ago I expressed the view that maybe Manchin was just waiting until the Rs showed their colors strongly enough that he could blame the Rs when talking to his WVa constituents. He should have all the ammo he needs by now. And then some.

So . . . what will it be, Manchin?

Sure, sure, "reconcilliation" can be used to pass some needed bills. But not others.

You can't defend democracy through reconciliation.
 
I really want to think that Biden understands this but the longer we go without passing a voting rights bill I don't know.

Hopefully Schumer knows what he's doing because it is abundantly clear McConnell will not allow his caucus to help Biden in any way. There is no negotiation with these people and I wish Biden would just say it. They want bipartisanship on their terms only. Compromise getting what Biden wants done isn't going to happen. Again, Mitch is on record saying he's going to block everything.
What's worse, if the anger against McConnell and obstructionism grows, McConnell can just make a tiny compromise and let one small bill pass. He'll get credit for having compromised. And he won't have to do it again before the midterms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Why doesn’t I80 through Iowa have a toll?

illinois Indiana and Ohio do on I80.

seems like free money, let those that use it pay more for it.
 
Not a single R voted for Biden's pandemic bill. I have a hard time seeing how any will vote for infrastructure even with this major concession. Rs don't want to give Biden any wins. They also don't want to be seen voting for his agenda. This will amount to absolutely nothing.
 
I really want to think that Biden understands this but the longer we go without passing a voting rights bill I don't know.

Hopefully Schumer knows what he's doing because it is abundantly clear McConnell will not allow his caucus to help Biden in any way. There is no negotiation with these people and I wish Biden would just say it. They want bipartisanship on their terms only. Compromise getting what Biden wants done isn't going to happen. Again, Mitch is on record saying he's going to block everything.
The voting rights bill will not pass with the filibuster in place. It's going to take frustrating the hell out of Manchin and Sinema - proving to them that the GQP has ZERO interest in anything "bi-partisan" - to get them to move off their stances on the filibuster. The GQP is now on record with the Jan 6 commission. Demonstrate they're not interested in actually passing a bi-partisan infrastructure bill and that might do it.
 
Why doesn’t I80 through Iowa have a toll?

illinois Indiana and Ohio do on I80.

seems like free money, let those that use it pay more for it.
The Indiana Turnpike is actually owned now by an Australian company. They get the toll money for the next 66 years after buying out the company that bought it from Indiana.
 
I’m actually intrigued by the idea of trading the 7% corporate income tax increase (back to pre-Trump levels), in favor of a 15% Minimum Corporate Income tax.

Especially if the latter can be advanced via trade agreements and treaties. It could result in keeping more US companies in the US rather than fleeing to tax havens, while simultaneously increasing tax revenue. I’d love to see some numbers behind this idea.
 
I’m actually intrigued by the idea of trading the 7% corporate income tax increase (back to pre-Trump levels), in favor of a 15% Minimum Corporate Income tax.

Especially if the latter can be advanced via trade agreements and treaties. It could result in keeping more US companies in the US rather than fleeing to tax havens, while simultaneously increasing tax revenue. I’d love to see some numbers behind this idea.
Same here. Getting profitable companies who aren't paying taxes because of the code is easier to address politically than raising the rate on companies that are already paying corp income tax. No idea how many companies that is or what kind of revenue a minimum generates or how it works with tax incentives we still want to keep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Same here. Getting profitable companies who aren't paying taxes because of the code is easier to address politically than raising the rate on companies that are already paying corp income tax. No idea how many companies that is or what kind of revenue a minimum generates or how it works with tax incentives we still want to keep.
Hell, Amazon‘s 15% alone could probably buy a dozen bridges.
 
I’m actually intrigued by the idea of trading the 7% corporate income tax increase (back to pre-Trump levels), in favor of a 15% Minimum Corporate Income tax.
I could be wrong, but I don't think that's a trade. I think both were part of the original bill, and now Biden has abandoned one of them.

Either one would be a step in the right direction. Both would be better.

Republicans object to both. The people they represent don't want either.

With the Republicans so blatantly not working for America or the American people as a whole, how come they ever get elected?

Seriously.

How stupid are we?
 
Why doesn’t I80 through Iowa have a toll?

illinois Indiana and Ohio do on I80.

seems like free money, let those that use it pay more for it.
Technically 80 in Illinois has one small toll on the south side of Chicago. It is a toll road through Indiana and Ohio. Plenty of other roads in Illinois in and around Chicago are toll roads, though.
 
I could be wrong, but I don't think that's a trade. I think both were part of the original bill, and now Biden has abandoned one of them.

Either one would be a step in the right direction. Both would be better.

Republicans object to both. The people they represent don't want either.

With the Republicans so blatantly not working for America or the American people as a whole, how come they ever get elected?

Seriously.

How stupid are we?
Not sure, they’re calling it “new”, but perhaps because the original 15% proposal only applied to very large companies and there were tons of exceptions.

But I agree, Lucy is about to pull the football away again. It’s possible, even likely, that Biden’s efforts aren’t for GOP votes, but to show Manchin & Synema that he did everything possible to exhaust bipartisanship. The NYT podcast this week said Manchin mainly wants some political cover at this point. West Virginia has traditionally had no problems accepting federal infrastructure plans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Our problem is not revenue - it’s spending. This proposal makes it worse.
We need to get over some of this companies don’t pay any taxes. If it’s due to foreign shelter/avoidence then yes - let’s clean it up. Much of it is due to the accelerated depreciation rules which stimulated growth, investment and jobs.
 
Our problem is not revenue - it’s spending.
Nonsense.

Pay the bills.

If you want to run up fewer bills in the future, enact laws and budgets to accomplish that. But until then, raise sufficient revenues to pay the bills you owe and the new bills you are running up.

Outside of an emergency, anything less is dishonorable, bordering on blatant dishonesty.
 
ADVERTISEMENT