Joe Manchin Delivers the Hurt to Chuck Schumer

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by David Bailey from Pixabay

Filibuster or no filibuster, the For the People Act is not going to become law.

In an op-ed published in the Charleston Gazette-Mail late Saturday night, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat in a bright red state, announced that he will vote against the For the People Act.

Since this legislation has no Republican support, Manchin’s decision pretty much kills the bill. Democrats will certainly reintroduce it in a future Congress, but hopefully Republicans will control either the House or the Senate or both chambers by then.

Manchin wrote, “The right to vote is fundamental to our American democracy and protecting that right should not be about party or politics. Least of all, protecting this right, which is a value I share, should never be done in a partisan manner.”

He recognizes that this legislation has become “overtly politicized” and took a swipe at the Republican legislatures in Georgia and Florida for passing laws that will require all voters to show an ID, writing that they “seek to needlessly restrict voting.” But he also criticized the Democrats “who ignore the need to secure our elections.”

If sweeping changes are made to election laws “in a partisan manner,” the Senator said it will guarantee that “partisan divisions continue to deepen.”

He points out the Democrats’ plan to eliminate the filibuster to pass this bill and reminds them of how important the filibuster has been “to protecting the rights of Democrats in the past.”

As a reminder, just four short years ago, in 2017 when Republicans held control of the White House and Congress, President Donald Trump was publicly urging Senate Republicans to eliminate the filibuster. Then, it was Senate Democrats who were proudly defending the filibuster. Thirty-three Senate Democrats penned a letter to Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warning of the perils of eliminating the filibuster.

It has been said by much wiser people than me that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Well, what I’ve seen during my time in Washington is that every party in power will always want to exercise absolute power, absolutely. Our founders were wise to see the temptation of absolute power and built in specific checks and balances to force compromise that serves to preserve our fragile democracy. The Senate, its processes and rules, have evolved over time to make absolute power difficult while still delivering solutions to the issues facing our country and I believe that’s the Senate’s best quality.

Yes, this process can be frustrating and slow. It will force compromises that are not always ideal. But consider the alternative. Do we really want to live in an America where one party can dictate and demand everything and anything it wants, whenever it wants? I have always said, “If I can’t go home and explain it, I can’t vote for it.” And I cannot explain strictly partisan election reform or blowing up the Senate rules to expedite one party’s agenda.

The truth is there is a better way – if we seek to find it together.

And he concludes:

I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act. Furthermore, I will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster. For as long as I have the privilege of being your U.S. senator, I will fight to represent the people of West Virginia, to seek bipartisan compromise no matter how difficult and to develop the political bonds that end divisions and help unite the country we love.

On Thursday, Manchin told NBC News’ Capital Hill correspondent Garrett Haake that he’s not interested in passing an infrastructure bill with only Democratic support. “Basically, we need to be bipartisan,” Manchin said.

This is excellent news for Republicans and we can even forgive him for disagreeing with us on the voter ID requirement.

This is the second blow in less than a week for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. The first came from the Senate Parliamentarian. The majority party is allowed to use reconciliation twice in one year. The Democrats have used it once to pass the $1.9 trillion Covid relief bill and have one opportunity left. Schumer believed he had found a way to get an extra shot, however, the parliamentarian ruled that it can’t be used to avoid a filibuster. Which is precisely how he had intended to use it. I posted about this story here.

Key Senate Aide: Gun Control bill is ‘Just dead on arrival. Period. It doesn’t have the votes’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Brett Hondow from Pixabay

On March 11, the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021,” otherwise known as H.R. 8, a bill which would require a background check for every U.S. firearm sale, passed the House.

Afterward, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters, “Last time, [H.R. 8] went into Mitch McConnell’s legislative graveyard. The legislative graveyard is over. H.R. 8 will be on the floor of the Senate and we will see where everybody stands,” according to a report in Yahoo. He added, “No more thoughts and prayers – a vote is what we need.”

Schumer’s plan to take up this legislation in the Senate, however, was thwarted last week after three key senators spoke out against it. The three include: Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana and Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

The Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski spoke to several key senate aides who agreed that the restrictions in the bill were “dead on arrival” in the Senate.

Particularly objectionable was the “requirement that licensed gun dealers perform background checks nearly every time someone sells or even lends a gun to another person is a non-starter.”

An aide to Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania told Gutowski, “H.R. 8 is just dead on arrival. Period. It doesn’t have the votes. Not only does it not have the votes quietly, it doesn’t have the votes loudly because Manchin and Toomey are out there opposing it.”

He said that “Senator Toomey is not interested in playing political games or being an example in a background check exercise. He’s interested in achieving an actual outcome.”

According to these sources, there has been speculation that Democrats may “revive a bipartisan 2013 bill that would only apply background checks to private sales.” Toomey had been a co-sponsor of this bill and “played a leading role in selling the policy to voters and fellow senators” including “four Republicans.”

The bill did not receive the 60 votes required for passage. The Toomey aide added that “He’s interested in a consensus product, he’s not interested in political theater. He’s not interested in helping lead a project that’s just ultimately doomed to fail.”

Toomey, considered a swing vote, was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict former President Donald Trump in his February impeachment trial.

Other staffers Gutowski spoke to were not convinced that the Senate could reach an agreement on the 2013 bill. If the filibuster remains in place, any gun control legislation would require 60 votes for passage.

On Thursday, Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, said that he and the Majority Leader will “spend the next several weeks working with both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to try to craft the strongest background checks bill that can pass.”

In a Sunday interview with NBC News’ Chuck Todd, Murphy said, “”I am not interested in getting 50 votes in the Senate. I am interested in getting 60 votes.”

Schumer’s position is far less accommodating than Murphy’s. On Thursday, he told reporters, “We will try to work with our Republican colleagues on a bipartisan basis when and where we can. But if they choose to obstruct, rather than work with us to deliver for American families, we must make progress nonetheless. Failure is not an option.”

One GOP staffer told Gutowski that the passage of any gun control legislation really depends on Schumer’s willingness to compromise. “Does Schumer want to actually come to the table and talk about stricter enforcement on straw purchases? Does he want to talk about some of the gun restraining order proposals that had strong due process checks in them? Or does he just want to keep trying to run up against the filibuster and score political points?”

For the Uber-partisan Schumer, I’m afraid it’s only the latter.

The resistance of Sens. Manchin, Tester and Collins was a big win for Republicans. Although seven House Republicans voted for H.R. 8, it’s difficult to imagine there would be sufficient Republican support in the Senate to get to 60 votes.

The checks and balances have saved us for now. And while this is good news, especially in the short run, this isn’t the end. Democrats will never give up the fight to take away our gun rights.

God help us if the Democrats somehow manage to end the filibuster.

Dem Campaign to Change Manchin’s Mind on Filibuster Starts With Nomination of His Wife to Key Position

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

Democrats have no shame. Not even a little bit.

Two Democratic Senators, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, currently stand in the way of their goal to abolish the legislative filibuster.

Naturally, Democrats are launching a major pressure campaign to get one or both to change their minds.

In a Friday press release, the White House announced that Gayle Manchin, Sen. Manchin’s wife, has been nominated to serve as the federal co-chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission. On its website, the organization describes itself as an economic development partnership agency of the federal government and 13 state governments which works to “strengthen economic growth in Appalachia.”

Manchin is eminently qualified for this position. As per the White House announcement:

An educator from West Virginia, Gayle Manchin worked in Marion County Schools, served on the faculty of Fairmont State University, and was the Director of the university’s first Community Service Learning Program. She directed the AmeriCorps Promise Fellows in WV and implemented a statewide initiative, WV Partnerships to Assure Student Success. Manchin previously served as West Virginia’s First Lady and was appointed to serve as a member of the State Board of Education, serving her last two years as President. She is the Chair of the Board for Reconnecting McDowell, Inc., an AFT initiative serving rural WV, is a past president of the Vandalia Rotary Club of Charleston, and as an Emeritus Member of The Education Alliance. She also served as Cabinet Secretary for the West Virginia Office of Education and the Arts.

Gayle Conelly Manchin attended West Virginia University, attaining her Bachelor of Arts in Language Arts and Education and a Master of Arts in Reading, and a second master’s specialization in Educational Technology Leadership from Salem International University.

Still, most would agree the optics of her nomination coming at this time aren’t good.

Democratic leaders aren’t the only ones trying to influence Sens. Manchin and Sinema.

Politico reported this week that black civil rights leaders plan to lobby hard to persuade them to reconsider. Rev. Al Sharpton plans to hold town halls and rallies in Sinema’s and Manchin’s home states. He said, “The pressure that we are going to put on Sinema and Manchin is calling [the filibuster] racist and saying that they are, in effect, supporting racism. Why would they be wedded to something that has those results? Their voters need to know that.” I posted about this story here.

As I wrote, Sinema and/or Manchin may yet flip, but I would be willing to bet it wouldn’t be because Al Sharpton and his merry band of civil rights leaders came to their states and called them racists. The application of such overt pressure could backfire spectacularly on them, particularly in a bright red state like West Virginia.

Nor do I think offering his wife the co-chair position at ARC would cause Manchin to flip. He is well aware of how that would appear.

Expect the pressure on Sens. Manchin and Sinema from party leaders, colleagues, civil rights leaders and a portion of their voters to accelerate in the coming weeks. It will be interesting to watch the Democrats beclown themselves.

Black Leaders Take Aim at Sens. Sinema, Manchin Over Refusal to Nix Filibuster; ‘They Are, in Effect, Supporting Racism’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by mjimages from Pixabay

The Senate website defines the filibuster as an “informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.” This device is meant to prevent the party in the Senate minority from being completely overpowered by the majority party.

Prior to the election, the Indivisible Project, a movement dedicated to advancing the election of progressive candidates, explained why the filibuster is bad news for Democrats:

“It’s simple: none of the progressive issues that Democratic candidates and congressional leaders are discussing today will become law unless we do something about the filibuster.”

“If [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell expects to be the Grim Reaper of progressive policies, the scythe he’ll use is the Senate filibuster. Unless we change the rules.”

With a 50-50 balance of power in the Senate, Democrats control the upper chamber by the slimmest margin possible.

Current Senate rules require a minimum of 60 votes to pass legislation. Some Democrats have hoped to abolish the filibuster so that only a simple majority of 51 votes (50 Democratic senators plus Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote) would be necessary to advance their progressive agenda.

Their latest challenge is that two Democratic Senators, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have both quite strongly announced their opposition to abolishing the filibuster.

Just two months ago, a representative for Sinema told The Washington Post’s White House reporter, Seung Min Kim, that “Kyrsten is against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating the filibuster.”

Up until then, conservatives had been counting on Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to save us from being overrun by leftist lesiglation. Manchin won re-election in 2018 in a state that went overwhelmingly for former President Donald Trump by nearly 40 points in 2020 and over 41 in 2016.

Shortly after the announcement from Team Sinema, Politico reported that Manchin was “emphatic” that he “will not vote to kill the filibuster.” Asked if there were any scenario in which he would change his mind, the senator replied: “None whatsoever that I will vote to get rid of the filibuster.”

Protecting the filibuster is essential to protecting us from the tyranny of the majority.

Even with the filibuster in place, Democrats can do and have already done a lot of damage. But their major radical initiatives, such as the Election Reform bill which passed the House earlier this month, granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, and stacking the Supreme Court, can be blocked by the Republicans.

Naturally, Democrats are trying to exert maximum pressure on Sinema and Manchin to change their minds.

Politico has interviewed several black civil rights leaders to find out what they plan to do about this. According to Politico, “top [civil rights] officials framed the choice as existential for a party that depends on Black and brown voters — and they are planning pressure campaigns privately and publicly to make that clear.”

Rev. Al Sharpton plans to hold town halls and rallies in Sinema’s and Manchin’s home states. He said, “The pressure that we are going to put on Sinema and Manchin is calling [the filibuster] racist and saying that they are, in effect, supporting racism. Why would they be wedded to something that has those results? Their voters need to know that.”

Sharpton cautioned Democrats that if they fail to end the filibuster, then “civil rights leaders might have less reason to help generate enthusiasm and turnout in the 2022 midterm elections without being able to point to actual laws Democrats passed.”

Sounds like a threat.

He added, “Many of us, and certainly all of us in the civil rights leadership, are committed to policies and laws and causes, not to people’s political careers. We’re not into that. We want to change the country. And if there is not feasible evidence that we’re doing that, it is not in our concern to be aggressively involved.”

Sinema and/or Manchin may yet flip, but I would be willing to bet it wouldn’t be because Al Sharpton and his merry band of civil rights leaders come to their states and call them racists.

Although politicians are famous for flip-flopping, after putting out such a strong statement of opposition as her representative did in conversation with the Washington Post reporter, I would be surprised if Sinema caved. Sharpton’s actions might just make her dig in her heels a little deeper.

Manchin, on the other hand, strikes me as less resolute than Sinema. However, he did say he was “emphatic” he wouldn’t vote to end the filibuster.

There is another option. The Senate could potentially create a carve-out specifically for voting rights legislation, a measure they’ve taken before. The Senate has created exceptions to the filibuster in the past for confirmations of Supreme Court nominees and for budget reconciliation (which is how the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill was passed).

Manchin is currently the only Senate Democrat who is not a co-sponsor of the voting reform bill known as S. 1.

On Wednesday, Manchin told reporters, “I think all of us should be able to be united around voting rights, but it should be limited to voting rights.”

But if the bill were to be limited to votings rights, according to CBS News, “it would strip provisions related to campaign finance and ethics reform, which are key priorities for progressives.”

In a Tuesday statement, “Manchin expressed concerns about S. 1, and said that he would support bipartisan legislation on voting rights.” The statement said:

As the Senate prepares to take up the For the People Act, we must work toward a bipartisan solution that protects everyone’s right to vote, secures our elections from foreign interference, and increases transparency in our campaign finance laws. Pushing through legislation of this magnitude on a partisan basis may garner short-term benefits, but will inevitably only exacerbate the distrust that millions of Americans harbor against the U.S. government.

He issued another statement on Thursday in which he reiterated his opposition to creating a carve-out to the filibuster rule specifically for voting rights. He noted that would be “like being a little bit pregnant.” You either kill the filibuster or you keep it.

Let’s hope that both he and Sinema stand by their pledges not to abolish the filibuster. All Republican senators, even those whose votes can’t always be counted on, such as Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, are unanimously opposed to ending the filibuster. They are also opposed to the voting reform bill.

Sinema and Manchin are the only thing standing between us and the enactment of the Democrats’ entire radical agenda.  Let’s hope they stand strong.

Report: Biden Administration Preparing First Major Tax Hike Since 1993

Advertisements

Hard on the heels of the recently passed $1.9 Trillion Covid-19 relief bill, sources have told Bloomberg News that President Joe Biden is preparing the first major federal tax increase since 1993. The revenue would be used to fund an economic program that would include, among other items, infrastructure and a jobs package.

Bloomberg reports:

The tax hikes included in any broader infrastructure and jobs package are likely to include repealing portions of President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax law that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals, as well as making other changes to make the tax code more progressive, said the people familiar with the plan.

The following are among proposals currently planned or under consideration, according to the people, who asked not to be named as the discussions are private:

  • Raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%
  • Paring back tax preferences for so-called pass-through businesses, such as limited-liability companies or partnerships
  • Raising the income tax rate on individuals earning more than $400,000
  • Expanding the estate tax’s reach
  • A higher capital-gains tax rate for individuals earning at least $1 million annually. (Biden on the campaign trail proposed applying income-tax rates, which would be higher)

It seems to me that Biden himself took advantage of these “so-called pass-through businesses” after leaving office in 2016. During his campaign, CNBC reported that the Bidens had set up a pair of “S” corporations to reduce taxes on over $10 million of income in 2017 and over $3.2 million in 2018. These earnings were generated by book deals and speaking fees.

According to Bloomberg, the (Urban-Brookings) Tax Policy Center conducted an independent analysis of this tax plan during Biden’s campaign and reported “it would raise taxes by $2.41 trillion” over the next ten years, an amount that represents “about 0.98 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).”

Former Biden economic aide Sarah Bianchi told Bloomberg, “His whole outlook has always been that Americans believe tax policy needs to be fair, and he has viewed all of his policy options through that lens. That is why the focus is on addressing the unequal treatment between work and wealth.”

It’s amazing how supportive people can be for a tax increase when it doesn’t affect them.

I can’t imagine any Republican lawmakers will endorse this legislation, although Bloomberg notes there might be bipartisan support for specific taxes “such shifting from a gasoline tax to a vehicle-miles-traveled fee.”

Nor do I foresee too many Democrats opposing it. One possibility is Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from the bright red state of West Virginia. Manchin has been known to vote with the Republicans as he did in the confirmation vote for now-Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The Hill reports that when previously asked about repealing the Trump tax cuts, Manchin said that would be “ridiculous.” However, he walked back that comment later on and said, “Everything’s open for discussion.”

Finally, Bloomberg ‘s sources told them that “any tax increases that are passed would likely take effect beginning in 2022 due to the current high level of unemployment.”

Still, raising taxes on those most likely to hire workers just as the country is pulling out of a downturn is not a smart strategy and will lead to a slower, longer recovery.

Biden Forced to Intervene as Sen. Manchin Stalled Passage of COVID-19 Relief Bill for 10 Hours

Advertisements

Every once in a while, Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from bright red West Virginia surprises his Republican colleagues by taking their side. For instance, in October 2018, he voted for the confirmation of then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

On Friday, Manchin led a group of eight Senate Democrats to vote against raising the minimum wage to $15.

As if $1.9 trillion was not already an astonishing ask from American taxpayers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to sneak a $15 minimum wage increase into the bill. A hike in the minimum wage has long been on the Democrats’ wish list. If it were included in this reconciliation bill, it would have only required a simple majority (51 votes) to pass in the Senate. Due to the legislative filibuster, as a stand-alone bill, 60 votes would be needed for its passage.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, such a move would cost Americans approximately 1.4 million jobs. In 2020, the U.S. lost nearly 10 million jobs because of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a CNBC report.

Small businesses which have so far weathered the COVID-induced lockdowns would immediately be forced to close their doors.

But there was another equally valid reason to remove the minimum wage hike from the bill.

In addition to its effect on the economy, Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough “ruled that the inclusion of the $15 minimum wage hike in a reconciliation bill violated Senate rules.”

Immediately, there were calls for McDonough to resign.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley explained:

By using reconciliation, the Democrats triggered the ‘Byrd rule’ –  which limits the type of provisions in the reconciliation process to taxing and spending. The purpose is to limit an add-on through reconciliation to measures designed to have a direct impact on the federal budget—barring the use of reconciliation to introduce “extraneous” measures. Otherwise, reconciliations could circumvent the normal legislative process and the filibuster option for the minority. The rule allows a senator to object when a reconciliation bill is brought to the floor through a Point of Order on the bill. After the Byrd Rule is raised, the Senate Parliamentarian informs the Presiding Officer on how to rule and the Presiding office conveys that to the Senate. Senators can then vote to overrule the Presiding Officer but the process protects the minority and the parliamentarian by requiring that a vote to overrule secure a three-fifths majority.

The Parliamentarian’s role is key to a system of orderly legislative process. To simply disregard such rules (and fire those who seek to maintain them) is yet another example of the rage that has replaced reason in our current politics. Byrd was famous for putting the interests of the Senate and the Constitution before his own party. This effort shows increasingly rare such institutional defenders have become in this age of rage.

On Friday, seven Senate Democrats and one Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, joined 50 Republicans to remove the minimum wage hike from the COVID relief bill. The Democratic Senators included Joe Manchin (WV), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Jon Tester (MT), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Maggie Hassan (NH), Chris Coons (DE) Tom Carper (DE) and the Independent, Angus King (ME).

Echoing then-Sen. John McCain’s famous “thumbs down” on a vote to overturn Obamacare in 2017, Sinema made the gesture to signal her vote, USA Today reported.

Politico reported Friday that Manchin delayed passage of the massive $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill for 10 hours last week before a phone call from Biden, as well as a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and several concessions on unemployment benefits persuaded him to side with Democrats.

The Senate eventually passed the bill on Saturday by a vote of 50-49, with no Republicans in favor. Alaska Republican Dan Sullivan was not present after going to Alaska for his father-in-law’s funeral, according to The Hill. That made it unnecessary for Vice President Kamala Harris to case a tie-breaking vote.

Now that Democrats hold such a slim majority in the Senate, Manchin’s vote matters more than ever. After leading the charge on taking the minimum wage hike out of the bill, Democratic leaders perhaps took his objections to other features of the bill a bit more seriously.

Given that so little of this bill will actually help those affected by COVID, we kind of wish he had used his vote to derail this wasteful expenditure altogether. It would have been especially nice if Manchin had addressed some of the more egregious parts of the bill such as the $350 billion in what Republicans are calling “blue-state bailouts.” These are the payments to states such as New York, Illinois, and California whose fiscal mismanagement has left them deeply in debt.

In remarks to their colleagues ahead of the vote, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell said, “The Senate has never spent $2 trillion in a more haphazard way. … Their [Democrats’] top priority wasn’t pandemic relief. It was their Washington wish list.”

Ultimately, Manchin’s hesitance cut “several weeks of unemployment benefits off of Sen. Tom Carper’s (D-DE) compromise amendment from earlier in the day and added a $150,000 cap to the proposal’s tax deduction for up to $10,200 in unemployment benefits,” according to Politico.

Instead of unemployment benefits continuing until September 30, they “will expire on Labor Day in the middle of a scheduled recess.”

Politico wrote that Manchin had “hinted” in a Tuesday interview that he might try to make changes in the bill. He expected the economy to improve by June or July as more and more Americans get vaccinated. And he questioned the logic in “paying people more than $1,000 extra a month to stay home.”

Manchin said, “We want people to get back to work. We’re gonna have a hard time getting people ready to go back in to keep the economy going. It’d be awful for the doors to open up and there’s no one working. … That’s the problem.”

This surprised his Democratic colleagues, Politico reported, who thought they had already reached a compromise with Manchin. They had agreed to lower the weekly benefit to $300, to making those payments nontaxable, and to allowing them to run through September (as per Carper’s amendment).

In the meantime, according to sources familiar with the matter, Manchin had told Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a Republican, that he would support his amendment to the bill which would end unemployment benefits in July.

When Portman’s amendment came up for a vote on Friday, Manchin voted yes. However, noted Politico, Manchin “also supported the Democratic alternative he pushed to change, effectively overwriting his vote with the GOP.”

Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat, told Politico that “for Democrats, their 50th vote siding with Republicans was not a palatable option.” They were “worried about getting to final passage ‘without doing major injury to the bill.'”

Politico wrote that “Manchin’s dramatic play on Friday perplexed even his West Virginia counterpart, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito,” a Republican, noting that the West Virginia governor “had been pushing Congress to go bigger, not smaller.”

“I have no idea what he’s doing, to be quite frank,” Capito told Politico. “Maybe you can tell me.”

 

Elizabeth is the founder and editor of The American Crisis. She is also a contract writer at The Western Journal and a previous contributor to RedState, The Dan Bongino Show, and The Federalist. Her articles have appeared on HotAir, Instapundit, RealClearPolitics, MSN and other sites. Elizabeth is a wife, a mom to three grown children and several beloved golden retrievers, and a grandmother!