Dem divide over Biden spending bill
WASHINGTON — One side is energized by the prospect of the greatest expansion of government support since the New Deal nearly a century ago. The other is fearful about dramatically expanding Washington’s reach at an enormous cost.
They’re all Democrats. Yet each side is taking vastly different approaches to guiding the massive $3.5 trillion spending bill through Congress.
The party is again confronting the competing political priorities between its progressive and moderate wings. The House version of the bill that was drafted this week ushered in a new phase of the debate that could test whether Democrats can match their bold campaign rhetoric on everything from income inequality to climate change with actual legislation.
Any stumble may have serious consequences for the party’s prospects during next year’s midterms, when it will try to prevent Republicans from retaking Congress. The finished product could alienate centrists who say it goes too far, or frustrate those on the left who argue it’s too timid at a moment of great consequence.
“This is critically important for Democrats and for their message in next year’s election,” said former New York Rep. Joe Crowley. “We’re going to blink and we’re going to be in 2022.”
With Republicans universally opposed to the bill, Democratic leaders have a narrow path as they navigate an evenly divided Senate and thin House majority.
Many Democrats agree on the goals included in the legislation, such as providing universal prekindergarten and tuition-free community college while increasing federal funding for child care, paid family leave and combating climate change. The party also is aiming to expand health care coverage through Medicare and create pathways to citizenship for millions of immigrants in the country illegally.
But there are differences over how much such a measure should cost and how it should be paid for.
Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who met privately with President Joe Biden on Wednesday, have balked at the $3.5 trillion price tag.
While many of the differences are technical, they represent a desire among many House leaders to protect their most vulnerable members in moderate districts from attacks that they support profligate taxes and spending.
“There’s a supposition by our friends on the progressive left that it hardly matters what you do, as long as it’s big,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Washington think tank. Instead, Democrats are ideologically diverse enough that “people who run in competitive races simply can’t embrace the same kind of ideas that people who run in safe, blue Democratic districts,” Marshall said.
Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive activist group Our Revolution, countered that “It would be incredibly problematic for the president to say, ‘Look we won both chambers of Congress. We won the White House. We couldn’t deliver better health care, we couldn’t deliver transformational change on the climate.’
“It is not going to be explainable to the American people,” Geevarghese said, “and I think there’ll be consequences as a result.”