Assuming this gets signed into law within a month or two, how long until the new Electric Vehicle Tax credit regime replaces the outgoing one? Is it immediate or generally done at the start of the new year?
I think the relevant cabinet secretary has to issue guidance by 12/31/22 if I'm reading it right.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Also going to point out that a fair bit of this stuff, is likely safe from republican fuckery for at least two years.
The prescription stuff should prove popular enough to reach ACA levels of acceptance. The climate change stuff probably melds with the existing local level stuff that has proven problematic for state and local republican parties to blow off. This all means that Biden is unlikely to be persuaded to roll that stuff back in the even that the GOP gains control of both chambers.
Past that point, I'm less optimistic because the GOP has become increasingly crazier and I'm not keen to bet on the average voter to not royally fuck things up. Partly, I don't think two years will be enough for everything to thoroughly entrench itself into broad public support, ACA took a damn long time to hit that.
Not sure we even have enough time for some of this stuff to start having a noticeable positive impact for the average voter to notice, but maybe it will. It at least has the good time to be getting coverage as things start to improve.
I mean the ACA took them literally failing to repeal it with control of both houses and the presidency before they really did stop. And even then they have tried to poison pill it at every turn.
No matter how popular something is they don't care.
Yeah, they acted squeamish about it at first but the last bill to fail was basically a full repeal and it was killed by McCain only because he was so intensely annoyed by McConnell rejecting traditional Senate procedures.
You're overlooking Sens Murkowski and Collins along with a unanimous Democratic caucus.
You are correct. I am overlooking them because I don't trust them not to fall in line when needed. McCain was the literal last vote at the last minute.
Assuming this gets signed into law within a month or two, how long until the new Electric Vehicle Tax credit regime replaces the outgoing one? Is it immediate or generally done at the start of the new year?
I think the relevant cabinet secretary has to issue guidance by 12/31/22 if I'm reading it right.
There's a super confusing bit whereby that is true for most sections, however the most recent public draft had the North American assembly requirement taking effect immediately upon enactment, but it is ambiguous what constitutes the enactment date.
And now I have two VW id.4s on order (with 1 to be cancelled).....
Assuming this gets signed into law within a month or two, how long until the new Electric Vehicle Tax credit regime replaces the outgoing one? Is it immediate or generally done at the start of the new year?
I think the relevant cabinet secretary has to issue guidance by 12/31/22 if I'm reading it right.
Staffers are probably not going to sleep between now and Thursday writing the fiddley bits, so it's probably worth waiting until the final vote to figure out something that specific if it's relevant for you.
I don't actually think they have enough time to issue new guidance before the end of the year. Guess it'll depend on how much actually has to go into the guidance (if it's the type of rules guidance that requires public comment then there's no way they can accomplish that before the end of the year).
Assuming this gets signed into law within a month or two, how long until the new Electric Vehicle Tax credit regime replaces the outgoing one? Is it immediate or generally done at the start of the new year?
I think the relevant cabinet secretary has to issue guidance by 12/31/22 if I'm reading it right.
There's a super confusing bit whereby that is true for most sections, however the most recent public draft had the North American assembly requirement taking effect immediately upon enactment, but it is ambiguous what constitutes the enactment date.
And now I have two VW id.4s on order (with 1 to be cancelled).....
Yeah I'm hoping to get a PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid EV), but I guess the new regime means that PHEVs won't have a credit? And well I don't own a home and can't justify goin a full on EV yet, so if I can act with time I could probably secure the current credit before the end of this year. If the new credit regime takes place when its enacted then I guess no point in goin for a PHEV.
From what I remember, Biden's initial campaign proposals and all that added up to ~$4trn. Where we currently stand is:
$1.9 trn American Rescue Plan
$1.2 trn Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill)
$0.74 trn Inflation Reduction Act ($0.3trn dedicated to deficit reduction)
Which amounts to basically $3.5 trn (subtracting deficit reduction since :roll: ) so not all that far off.
This is also ignoring the Postal Service Modernization Act which gave the USPS some money on top of eliminating unfunded liabilities, stuff rolled into the Defense Authorization Act, finally renewing the Violence Against Women Act, and all the money and arms we've given to Ukraine. (Also making lynching a federal offense a century+ late.)
From what I remember, Biden's initial campaign proposals and all that added up to ~$4trn. Where we currently stand is:
$1.9 trn American Rescue Plan
$1.2 trn Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill)
$0.74 trn Inflation Reduction Act ($0.3trn dedicated to deficit reduction)
Which amounts to basically $3.5 trn (subtracting deficit reduction since :roll: ) so not all that far off.
This is also ignoring the Postal Service Modernization Act which gave the USPS some money on top of eliminating unfunded liabilities, stuff rolled into the Defense Authorization Act, finally renewing the Violence Against Women Act, and all the money and arms we've given to Ukraine. (Also making lynching a federal offense a century+ late.)
But is it being spent on the same things that Biden's initial campaign proposals earmarked it for?
From what I remember, Biden's initial campaign proposals and all that added up to ~$4trn. Where we currently stand is:
$1.9 trn American Rescue Plan
$1.2 trn Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill)
$0.74 trn Inflation Reduction Act ($0.3trn dedicated to deficit reduction)
Which amounts to basically $3.5 trn (subtracting deficit reduction since :roll: ) so not all that far off.
This is also ignoring the Postal Service Modernization Act which gave the USPS some money on top of eliminating unfunded liabilities, stuff rolled into the Defense Authorization Act, finally renewing the Violence Against Women Act, and all the money and arms we've given to Ukraine. (Also making lynching a federal offense a century+ late.)
But is it being spent on the same things that Biden's initial campaign proposals earmarked it for?
Traditionally Congress doesn't give two shits about what the President wants in his budget. So probably not.
We have a deal to take the biggest climate action in U.S. history. Every Senate Dem has agreed to it. I can think of lots of ways to strengthen it, but I won’t derail this bill by supporting changes. I will vote NO on all amendments - even for stuff I like. Let’s finish the job.
Just so people are forewarned. Looks like at least some Dems are already putting out the message that they're not giving a shit period about any performative stuff during vote-a-rama and just going to reflexively vote no on everything, whether they personally support it or not, to make sure the deal as it currently stands goes through.
I think it's more because they expect some people to toss in amendments that they know Manchin/Sinema don't like but are hugely popular, so they can screech "DEMOCRATS DON'T ACTUALLY SUPPORT FUNDING HEALTH CARE/ABORTION/BORDER SECURITY/WHATEVER." Not just on the Republican side, but in all cases.
Nobody remembers vote-a-rama stuff anyway, but I can understand wanting to cut off the inevitable screeching from the Twitter crowd assuming that this is now a MUST PASS so it's the perfect chance to tack on Random Thing, and that because Democrats voted against it, that again proves they're not serious about it.
I dont know how voting no on stuff makes it go faster? There's still a vote?
He didn't say make it go faster, he said derail. This is the language as agreed upon. Vote-a-rama will take however long it is going to take, but the Bill will have the exact same text at the end as in the beginning. The House will also vote on it unamended to send to Biden immediately rather than going to Conference or kick it back to the Senate again to potentially fail.
Still, Schumer lamented “one unfortunate ruling” earlier on Saturday, the loss of Democrats’ proposed prescription drug price benefits for the millions of Americans who get health insurance through private-sector employers. That was the sole major setback the bill experienced from the Senate’s nonpartisan rules referee, who decides which provisions are eligible for sidestepping a GOP filibuster under the chamber’s strict rules; Medicare-related drug price negotiation remained intact, as did the guts of the deal.
Still, Schumer lamented “one unfortunate ruling” earlier on Saturday, the loss of Democrats’ proposed prescription drug price benefits for the millions of Americans who get health insurance through private-sector employers. That was the sole major setback the bill experienced from the Senate’s nonpartisan rules referee, who decides which provisions are eligible for sidestepping a GOP filibuster under the chamber’s strict rules; Medicare-related drug price negotiation remained intact, as did the guts of the deal.
The parliamentarian has made their judgement, now let them enforce it.
If fighting it will derail the bill, probably not worth fighting it. Not entirely sure how the rules work there and the risks of telling the parliamentarian off.
If they can't salvage it in this bill. Then put together a new bill that includes and put it up for a vote. Sure the GOP will filibuster it, but they can then hang the GOP for doing so. Everyone, including democrats, needs to remember that the biggest strength of McConnell's no bullshit, was preventing stuff coming up for any votes, if he felt that it would make the GOP look bad. That also included votes to end filibusters. So democrats should absolutely queue up all that shit and have votes on till election day.
Either they make the GOP cave on stuff or they get to drove home what assholes the GOP are and that maybe convinces some to either show up and vote for a change or if they did already show up, to maybe not vote for republicans.
Manchin supposedly wants the insulin thing, despite his daughter. So it's Sinema's crazy ass and the Senate establishment jerks (Warner, King, Coons) that would be a danger. That $35 insulin cap is supposedly getting a vote to overrule, the other prescription drug stuff I think is not. At least that was the case four hours ago and who knows if it's been stable.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Is the vote to overrule the parliamentarian also a 50 vote threshold?
Its great having a single unelected individual decide when democracy is not good enough and you need super democracy.
The Parliamentarian does not set the Rules of the Senate, the Senators do that collectively, she just enforces the rules the Senate has collectively agreed upon.
Is the vote to overrule the parliamentarian also a 50 vote threshold?
To be clear, what's going on here is:
The parliamentarian has advised that the insulin cap stuff for non-Medicare patients on private insurance violates the Byrd rule. For Medicare, it's still in.
Rather than removing it from the bill, Dems are leaving it in.
While the bill is being read, someone (a Republican) may now a raise a point of order to strike it from the bill based on the parliamentarian's judgement that it violates the Byrd Rule.
At this point, there's a vote on whether or not to overrule the parliamentarian's judgement (60 needed).
MANCHIN indicates he won’t go along with any GOP amendments to the bill. “I’m protecting the integrity of the bill”
Manchin is also saying he doesn't give a shit what any GOP amendments are and is going to vote no on everything, sight unseen. Whitehouse (the RI Senator, not the White House) is also claiming it's a full caucus agreement.
They also apparently added an extra $35 billion revenue to it via changing some language in the book minimum tax that Republicans are currently throwing a shitfit about, saying that it targets small/medium businesses, but it looks like it was just changed to include subsidiaries, so it's just dumb screeching over closing a loophole. The tax still specifically only targets companies with >$1 billion in profit.
ArcTangent on
+29
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited August 2022
The one thing we can benefit about Manchin is that he knows what power is, and he knows if this deal doesn't go through now, he is fucked.
Posts
I think the relevant cabinet secretary has to issue guidance by 12/31/22 if I'm reading it right.
You are correct. I am overlooking them because I don't trust them not to fall in line when needed. McCain was the literal last vote at the last minute.
There's a super confusing bit whereby that is true for most sections, however the most recent public draft had the North American assembly requirement taking effect immediately upon enactment, but it is ambiguous what constitutes the enactment date.
And now I have two VW id.4s on order (with 1 to be cancelled).....
Twitter is, of course, mocking the absolute shit out of him and I hope some Dems use that in a campaign ad.
Staffers are probably not going to sleep between now and Thursday writing the fiddley bits, so it's probably worth waiting until the final vote to figure out something that specific if it's relevant for you.
Yeah I'm hoping to get a PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid EV), but I guess the new regime means that PHEVs won't have a credit? And well I don't own a home and can't justify goin a full on EV yet, so if I can act with time I could probably secure the current credit before the end of this year. If the new credit regime takes place when its enacted then I guess no point in goin for a PHEV.
Or even whatever shit manchin was suggesting as an alternative to BBB?
I heard it's about 1/5 of what was initially pitched? But I can't find anything simple to back that up.
$1.9 trn American Rescue Plan
$1.2 trn Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill)
$0.74 trn Inflation Reduction Act ($0.3trn dedicated to deficit reduction)
Which amounts to basically $3.5 trn (subtracting deficit reduction since :roll: ) so not all that far off.
This is also ignoring the Postal Service Modernization Act which gave the USPS some money on top of eliminating unfunded liabilities, stuff rolled into the Defense Authorization Act, finally renewing the Violence Against Women Act, and all the money and arms we've given to Ukraine. (Also making lynching a federal offense a century+ late.)
But is it being spent on the same things that Biden's initial campaign proposals earmarked it for?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Traditionally Congress doesn't give two shits about what the President wants in his budget. So probably not.
Just so people are forewarned. Looks like at least some Dems are already putting out the message that they're not giving a shit period about any performative stuff during vote-a-rama and just going to reflexively vote no on everything, whether they personally support it or not, to make sure the deal as it currently stands goes through.
It keeps them from introducing changes to a bill that then has to get agreed to as a whole, and then agreed to in the house.
It blocks the addition of ANY poison pills.
I am good with this.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Nobody remembers vote-a-rama stuff anyway, but I can understand wanting to cut off the inevitable screeching from the Twitter crowd assuming that this is now a MUST PASS so it's the perfect chance to tack on Random Thing, and that because Democrats voted against it, that again proves they're not serious about it.
He didn't say make it go faster, he said derail. This is the language as agreed upon. Vote-a-rama will take however long it is going to take, but the Bill will have the exact same text at the end as in the beginning. The House will also vote on it unamended to send to Biden immediately rather than going to Conference or kick it back to the Senate again to potentially fail.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/06/democrats-health-care-climate-tax-bill-00050201
Plus, you know, cheaper drugs for my folks.
The parliamentarian has made their judgement, now let them enforce it.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
If they can't salvage it in this bill. Then put together a new bill that includes and put it up for a vote. Sure the GOP will filibuster it, but they can then hang the GOP for doing so. Everyone, including democrats, needs to remember that the biggest strength of McConnell's no bullshit, was preventing stuff coming up for any votes, if he felt that it would make the GOP look bad. That also included votes to end filibusters. So democrats should absolutely queue up all that shit and have votes on till election day.
Either they make the GOP cave on stuff or they get to drove home what assholes the GOP are and that maybe convinces some to either show up and vote for a change or if they did already show up, to maybe not vote for republicans.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
60
The Parliamentarian does not set the Rules of the Senate, the Senators do that collectively, she just enforces the rules the Senate has collectively agreed upon.
To be clear, what's going on here is:
The parliamentarian has advised that the insulin cap stuff for non-Medicare patients on private insurance violates the Byrd rule. For Medicare, it's still in.
Rather than removing it from the bill, Dems are leaving it in.
While the bill is being read, someone (a Republican) may now a raise a point of order to strike it from the bill based on the parliamentarian's judgement that it violates the Byrd Rule.
At this point, there's a vote on whether or not to overrule the parliamentarian's judgement (60 needed).
It's actually 50 or more elected individuals deciding to let this single person adjudicate the dumb rules they've decided to enforce upon themselves.
Hilariously "getting legislators to show up and do their fucking jobs" is a problem going back literally centuries.
Senate hours. Which is like Metric time. So probably finished around Tuesday.
The parliamentarian's role is advisory, the Presiding Officer (usually the Vice-President) can overrule them.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Manchin is also saying he doesn't give a shit what any GOP amendments are and is going to vote no on everything, sight unseen. Whitehouse (the RI Senator, not the White House) is also claiming it's a full caucus agreement.
They also apparently added an extra $35 billion revenue to it via changing some language in the book minimum tax that Republicans are currently throwing a shitfit about, saying that it targets small/medium businesses, but it looks like it was just changed to include subsidiaries, so it's just dumb screeching over closing a loophole. The tax still specifically only targets companies with >$1 billion in profit.
"when it's my name on the thing, 'bipartisanship' can get stuffed."