WASHINGTON — Democrats are facing agonizing choices over what to keep and what to drop from their expansive $3.5 trillion social safety net package, as they labor to pacify the most conservative lawmakers in their ranks who have balked at its cost and scope.
Democrats have several options for reducing the package to its smallest size. This includes removing programs, curtailing them, or using gimmicks that reduce their cost. But they have little room for error given their slim majorities in Congress, where they need the support of every Democrat in the Senate and all but a few in the House to deliver it to President Biden’s desk.
Top Democrats inched toward narrowing the differences in their ranks over the bill on Thursday, claiming progress on what they called a “framework agreement” on how to finance the plan. They did not give details on the programs that would be included in the bill or how much it would cost. There were also crucial differences about which tax increases would occur and how big.
Among the issues at stake — even if the price tag remains at $3.5 trillion — are how long to maintain monthly payments to families with children, incentives for companies to transition to clean fuels, and the scale of tax increases for wealthy people and corporations.
“I’m not interested in checking a box and putting half as much money as is necessary to actually make an impact in people’s lives,” Senator Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, said: “The decisions will be tough, but I think we’d be better off to make the decisions, rather than to put a little money into everything.”
The Senate rules regarding what can be included in the bill are a major concern. Democrats plan to use reconciliation, a fast-track process that allows it to pass without a filibuster and still requires it to meet strict budgetary requirements.
Key moderates have not yet specified how big a bill they would accept or their top priorities.
Administration officials have said that the sheer scope of the bill serves as a sort of binding agent to keep their coalition together, offering something for everyone — moderates and progressives alike — and a range of programs that opinion polls show are popular with Americans across the political spectrum.
Mr. Biden met nearly twenty-six Democrats at the Oval Office to ask them to list their priorities and to identify what spending they are comfortable with. But at least two present — Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — have not yet publicly committed to a specific spending level they are willing to support.
Some liberal Democrats still hold firm to the $3.5 billion figure, and they declined to answer questions about what compromise amount they would be willing to accept. Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent and chair of the Budget Committee, addressed the Senate floor to increase the price tag and remind everyone that he initially wanted almost twice as much spending.
Democratic leaders tried on Thursday to quell some of the confusion by talking up their “framework agreement,” which appeared to be largely a list of tax proposals that have been made public by both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.
Aides spoke on condition of anonymity to say that the committees had already agreed on a top income rate of 39.6 per cent, a crackdown tax-preferred conservation measures, and closing a loophole which can protect huge investment gains from being taxed within an individual retirement fund.
“It’s a memo; it’ll give us ample ability to pay for the level of investments that we — of course hasn’t been decided yet — that we choose to make,” New York Senator Chuck Schumer is the majority leader. “It’s hardly conclusory, but it was a good step of progress.”
The majority leader of the party leaders hopes to reach a compromise on the total cost and key components of the social security net bill before Monday’s vote on the $1 trillion bipartisan Senate infrastructure bill. Because they are worried that their conservative-leaning colleagues might not support the larger plan, liberals said that they would withhold their votes until the Build back Better plan is approved by the Senate.
“It’s about values, not dollars,” At her weekly news conference, Nancy Pelosi spoke. “Our goal is to have very specific priorities clearly presented.”
The debate about the package’s scope has been part of the ongoing debate. How much should the legislation be dedicated to existing programs and how much to new initiatives.
“My preference is to fully fund and expand existing programs that we know work rather than to build programs from scratch,” Following a meeting with Mr. Biden this weekend, Representative Stephanie Murphy, Democrat from Florida, stated that she was pleased to be able to share her thoughts.
Some moderates are open to the idea of limiting eligibility for certain programs (including free community college and some tax credit) to lower-income earners in order to reduce their cost.
Democrats may also be able to reduce the duration of some programs. This is another way to lower the cost and not sacrifice cherished priorities. It’s the same method that Mr. Sanders used to reduce the $6 trillion price tag. House and Senate Democrats are both in favor of extending extended monthly payments to families that have children until at least 2024. But adding on an extra year would substantially increase bill cost.
And placement of the end date on a program is a gamble, because there is no guarantee that future Congresses — particularly under Republican control — would be willing to keep funding it.
Democrats are currently confronting a similar situation over the debt ceiling: After a bipartisan vote to lift the limit on federal borrowing under the Trump administration, Republicans are now refusing to endorse similar legislation under a Democratic-controlled government.
“You have to be, but that’s the process of reconciliation more than anything else,” When asked by reporters if he was worried about the possibility of ignoring deadlines, Representative Richard E. Neal, Massachusetts, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee said this month. “It’s not based on philosophy.”
Coral Davenport, Jim Tankersley and Jonathan Weisman contributed reporting.