The Cynical Pol's Case for Dumping Biden's Dole

#42: Which parts of the "Build Back Better" agenda can bite Dems in the midterms?

Democrats are now in the process of cutting down their $3.5 trillion“Build Back Better” social spending bill so they can at least pretend it's only a $2 trillion spending bill. The process is invariably described as "painful," a "Sophie's Choice" in which idealistic, entrenched advocates debate whether to restrict programs to the poor or keep them "universal," whether to fund them for only a short time to make them look cheaper (hoping to renew them later), whether to please vulnerable old voters or alienated, young voters, whether to expand Medicare or shore up Obamacare, etc.

I want to propose a less idealistic, more cold-blooded Democratic approach to the problem: pass the things that are least likely to cost Democrats their seats in the looming midterm election, given expected GOP incompetence. This is not quite the same as the David Shor “popularist” approach, which would include only programs that poll well. It’s more cynical than that! And it points in at least one direction.

Here's the argument: Democrats have actually been fortunate that Republicans — and Manchin, and Sinema, and the press — have focused their criticism on BBB's overall $3.5 trillion price tag. That's because the overall price tag will not be $3.5 trillion. As noted, it’s going to be around $2 trillion. So what will Republicans argue then, after Dems have cut the cost almost in half (a cost that will, after all, be spread over 10 years). 'Hey, it's still quite a bit of money" doesn’t seem like a galvanizing cry.

Instead, if they’re smart, the Republicans will (finally) scour the plan and find ways to criticize what's in it, as opposed to what it costs. What’ll they find? Child care subsidies. Free community college. Subsidized “family and medical leave” rights. Various climate change subsidies. Tax increases. And a big “refundable” Expanded Child Tax Credit.

Which will be easiest to attack on non-cost grounds? Seems like a trickier decision than you might expect. Do you really want to run against free community college? Against medical leave? It’s … why it’s socialism! Good luck with that, Mr. Rove. (How did that pitch work out in the Georgia runoff?) Yes, 12 weeks of paid “family” leave might be a burden on business. But it’s not fodder for a killer negative campaign spot.

There are exceptions, though. One is the provision that would flag the IRS about your bank account for any net inflow or outflow over $600. That’s creepy — or at least it can easily be made to seem creepy in 30 seconds. So there’s one issue. On the other hand, it’s hard to believe the $600 provision is going to stay in the bill very long.

Another exception … well, you know what it is: the Child Tax Credit, which is welfare-like in that it sends no-strings cash checks to households in which nobody works.

Many voters who are not under 30 may remember when we thought the cash welfare system had been reformed , back in 1996. The potential negative ad in 2022 is easy to imagine:

"In 1996 both parties came together to end the system of cash checks to parents who refuse to work. The result: People on welfare got jobs. Child poverty dropped. Now Democrats like Congressman [target’s name here] have revived that old welfare idea. No work? No problem! You still get a check.

And not just during the pandemic. Forever.”

The ad would be similar to Romney’s 2012 anti-Obama welfare spot, but more effective, because Romney had a lot less to work with. (Obama hadn't yet actually sent out the checks, which allowed his campaign and friendly media to mount an all-hands attack on the ad as untrue).

One way to know Republicans are (if barely) smart enough to launch these attacks is that they've alread done it. GOP House leader Kevin McCarthy debuted the theme back in September (“You don't have to work for the child tax credit … You don't have to work”). He brought it up again recently, as part of a stream of consciousness campaign preview (that also featured the $600 rule and lots of illegal immigrants). McCarthy has been known to look at polls, which — even before any GOP negative ads — show that making the Expanded Child Tax Credit permanent is disfavored by a 52-35 margin.

Politicians respond to 52-35 margins — but that’s Shor’s point. ‘If it’s not popular, drop it.’ My point is cruder: ‘If it can easily be made into a devastating negative campaign ad, don’t do it.’ Call it the Anti-Ailes principle. It’s not something successful politicians really have to learn — they’re innately skittish about doing anything that might, fairly or unfairly, cause them to lose an election. Good God, in the past week we’ve learned that House Democrats were scared to even vote for a number to put on the national debt limit — an obscure, practically meaningless technical issue that might have moved a vote or two back in the Eisenhower era. They should be terrified of voting for the Biden CTC today.