CHRISTMAS COMES EARLY FOR REPUBLICANS: Manchin Kills "Build Back Better." Is This The End of the Biden Presidency?

Senator Joe Manchin stated on Sunday that he will not support the "Build Back Better" Bill. He may have unintentionally ended the Biden presidency from a legislative standpoint.

News and Commentary

This past week on Fox News Sunday, Senator Joe Machin announced that he would not vote for the "Build Back Better" social spending bill. Manchin said, "I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation. I just can't.”¹ Manchin's refusal to vote for the bill effectively kills it in the Senate, delivering a significant blow to the Biden administration's far-left agenda. The "Build Back Better" budget reconciliation bill was the most significant piece of legislation proposed by the Biden administration thus far. The bill had previously passed in the House of Representatives in November 220 to 213. On the Democratic side of the aisle in the Senate, forty-eight Democrats seemed to favor the bill. However, fifty votes plus the tiebreaker from Kamala Harris were required to pass this bill via budget reconciliation. Democrats needed to convince Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) to vote for the bill. All Republicans in the Senate remained opposed to the bill.

First, here is a quick refresher on the "Build Back Better" social spending bill. "Build Back Better" was a progressive wish list. Since the bill was announced, President Biden and his administration have promulgated the lie that it is "paid for." However, this claim is detached from logic and reality. The Democrats were going to "pay" for the bill via increasing taxes on individuals making over $400,000 per year, preventing stock buybacks, instituting an additional surtax on wealthy individuals, and by hiring approximately 89,000 IRS agents, spending $80 billion on expanding the IRS. The assertion that the bill was "paid for" is absurd. For the bill to be "paid for," Congress would need to currently have the money set aside to cover the spending, with no new increases in taxes. That clearly is not the case.

The Democrats were deceptive in their assertion that only the wealthy will have to pay for "Build Back Better," using vague bumper sticker phrases such as "the rich should pay their fair share." The lower and middle-class Americans would have to pay the price for this bill as well. The government's estimated tax revenue from tax increases is nearly always less than expected. Namely, because taxpayers, especially wealthy individuals, will rightfully find new and legal ways to circumvent the taxes. In turn, the costs for "Build Back Better" would be passed down to the everyday American.

Furthermore, this piece of legislation is one of the largest spending bills ever in United States history (and by far the largest if you use the CBO's actual cost, which I will discuss later). It would almost certainly exacerbate the current inflationary problems we are currently seeing—economists such as Larry Summers, who served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, have confirmed this. Inflation disproportionately impacts lower and middle-class individuals as these groups live on substantially tighter margins than wealthy individuals. Inflation causes those margins to be even tighter, cutting into their budget and diminishing their ability to pay for necessities like food and housing. Therefore, the Biden administration's assertion that only the wealthiest individuals would be paying for "Build Back Better" is absurd. Lower and middle-class individuals would have to pay both an overt and covert cost to fund this bill.

The most recent iteration of the bill had a proposed price tag of $1.75 trillion. However, this number is extraordinarily deceiving. Democrats utilized false or arbitrary sunsets to make the price tag deceptively lower. For example, the extension of the Child Tax Credit from the Infrastructure bill passed earlier in 2021 would only be for one year. Additionally, the establishment of universal Pre-K and the support for the Affordable Care Act would be for six years. Furthermore, the expansion of the Affordable Care Act would have only been through 2025. Utilizing false sunsets is deceptive because the bill's price is based on a ten-year estimation. Democrats shortened the length of many costly programs to decrease the bill's overall price tag.

Any truthful person will willfully admit that once Congress starts a program, it is rarely ever taken away. Primarily because citizens quickly get used to these government handouts and subsidies. If Congress attempts to reign in these programs down the road, it would have a significant negative impact on a congressperson's re-election campaign. This means that spineless spending averse Republicans frequently promise not to support new government spending instead of vowing to cut back existing spending and programs. It is all part of their calculation for re-election and results in government programs effectively existing forever.

One can nearly be sure that these programs with false sunsets, in the "Build Back Better" Bill, would be extended in the future and become a permanent cost in the budget. It is evident that this was the thought process of the Democrats, as their original proposal included these same programs at longer intervals. Hence, the initial "Build Back Better" Bill's price tag of $3.5 trillion. This amount was utterly unacceptable for Democratic Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema, which caused Democrats to try to deceive the public. They expanded their use of false sunsets to lower the bill's cost artificially. The Democrats would only do this for one reason – they reasonably believed that these programs would be extended in the future, as they know Congress rarely ever cuts existing spending. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the original $3.5 trillion spending bill was estimated to cost somewhere between $5 trillion and $5.5 trillion.² The CRFB found that the actual cost of the bill was higher due to the false sunsets. Democrats doubled down on the false sunsets to deceptively lower the bill's price tag further. Ultimately, that "paired-down" $1.75 trillion spending bill was determined to cost somewhere around $4.8-$4.9 trillion. The CRFB estimated that the new "Build Back Better" Bill would cost $4.9 trillion if the false sunsets were made permanent. The Congressional Budget Office similarly found that the bill would cost $4.8 trillion if all of the provisions with false sunsets were extended.³

For Senator Joe Manchin, there was no real incentive to vote for this bill. The Democrats did not make a reasonable effort to scale back the bill. Instead, they opted to institute more false sunsets to get the artificially lower price tag, along with all of their policy wishes. Manchin, who represents the conservative state of West Virginia, knew that supporting this bill would effectively end his career in politics in West Virginia. Over 68% of West Virginians voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 election. However, Manchin's moderate approach and connection to working-class voters have helped him retain his Senate seat in the very red state. There was no good reason for him to vote for this bill, yet, there were strong reasons to oppose it.

The Biden administration has also implicitly signaled that the bill is dead. Press secretary Jen Psaki blasted Senator Manchin for announcing that he would not support the bill. Psaki claims that Manchin's announcement represents

"a sudden and inexplicable reversal in his position, and a breach of his commitments to the President and the Senator's colleagues in the House and Senate.”⁴

Jen Psaki and the Biden administration would not be blasting Joe Manchin's refusal to vote for the bill if they believed there was any pathway forward for Manchin to change his mind and the bill to pass. The administration is implicitly admitting that "Build Back Better" is dead.

Last month, when Republicans had a strong 2021 election night performance, I predicted that the election night results, in effect, signaled the end of the Biden administration from a legislative standpoint. I assume that election night 2021 signals a Republican takeover of the House and potentially the Senate in 2022. Coupled with President Biden and Vice President Harris' meager approval ratings, I felt that it was the nail in the coffin of "Build Back Better." Manchin and Sinema already had reservations about the bill based on their beliefs and its impact on their re-election campaigns. These additional factors certainly ensured that they would refuse to vote for the bill. Now we see that my estimation was correct.

Going forward, I argue that it may effectively be the end of the Biden presidency. Currently, we are nearing the end of 2021. In 2022, it is highly unlikely that much, if anything, will be passed in an election year by Congress. Undoubtedly, nothing substantial or transformational will be passed, as President Biden would prefer. During the 2022 election, unless the Democrats have a miracle - based on current predictions, surveys, and Biden's significant unpopularity, the Republicans should win at least the House or the Senate, if not both. We would subsequently have two years of complete gridlock, where nothing passes at that point. Then in 2024, if things continue as they have, President Biden would not even come close to winning re-election. Americans overall are statistically not happy with the state of the country and disapprove of President Biden and nearly every part of his presidency.

One other interesting point is that there is a significant chance that Biden's cognitive decline and age would prevent him from running for re-election. Presumably, Kamala Harris is the next person in line to succeed Biden and run in 2024, which would be even worse for Democrats as she is historically unpopular. She recently had an approval rating of 28.9% and is currently sitting with an approval rating of 39.4%.⁵ One would also assume that the failure of Biden and Harris to get "Build Back Better" passed will further hurt their popularity and the popularity of other far-left congressional Democrats, as they failed to live up to their promise to pass the bill.

Some argue that Senator Manchin may be saving President Biden from himself, preventing Biden from further tanking the United States economy, which is an entirely valid point. However, based on the nation's current state, Republicans did not need "Build Back Better" to pass to ensure victory's in 2022 and 2024. They simply need American citizens to continue their current level of displeasure with Democrats and the Biden administration.

In short, the future looks bleak for Democrats and promising for Republicans. It remains to be seen whether or not this is the end of the Biden presidency from a legislative standpoint. However, there is a solid case for why this might occur. For now, Republicans should continue forward with their agenda and appreciate that Joe Manchin's stopped Congress from passing another enormous spending bill.

Garrett Gillespie graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Central Florida with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science. He was a member of the Pi Sigma Alpha and the Tau Sigma honor societies. In addition to his knowledge regarding political science, Gillespie is also well versed in residential real estate. He is currently in his 5th year working in the real estate industry.

The Gillespie Report is a weekly news and conservative commentary column written by Garrett Gillespie. Subscribe to receive the newest edition each week for free.

1. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/manchin-biden-build-back-better-white-house-response/)

2. (https://www.crfb.org/blogs/true-cost-budget-plan-could-exceed-5-trillion)

3. (https://www.crfb.org/blogs/permanent-build-back-better-act-could-cost-4-8-trillion)

4. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/manchin-biden-build-back-better-white-house-response/)

5. (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/)