Anyone paying attention to national politics is aware that the 2020 election resulted in a Senate divided 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans.((All right, this is technically not true as Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is not officially a Democrat, although he caucuses with them, chairs the Senate budget Committee, and sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020. Senator Angus King of Maine is another “independent” who caucuses with the Democrats. Close enough for government work.)) Vice President Kamala Harris can vote to break a tie, giving the Democratic Party an effective 51-50 majority.((The Constitutional text providing for the vice president’s tie breaking vote does not provide for her casting vote by an affirmative provision, but by denying her a vote except in case of a tie. “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” Article I, section 3, clause 4.))
This majority is effective only so long as all 50 Democrats vote the party line. Again, anyone paying attention knows that West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema have refused to toe the party line on a number of votes.
It was recently announced that Senator Manchin had been negotiating with the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Charles Shumer of New York, on what is billed as an environmental (read spending) and tax package. With 50 votes (plus the vice president’s tiebreaker) the bill can be (assuming the Senate parliamentarian’s blessing) be passed through the “reconciliation” procedure.
However, that deal contains a tax provision reportedly opposed by Senator Sinema.
It also lacks a tax provision that could result on opposition in the House of Representatives and, more critically, the Senate — the repeal or significant modification of the limitation of the deduction for State and local taxes (sometimes called “SALT”) to $10,0000. As I noted in Some Weaknesses in NJ.com’s Arguments Against the SALT Deduction Limit, the Star-Ledger‘s website, NJ.com, has published quite a few “articles” criticizing that change and advocating for its repeal or evasion.((Many of these editorials masking as news articles have been written by NJ Advance Media’s Washington correspondent, Jonathan D. Salant.)) It seems that several members of New Jersey’s congressional delegation threatened to vote against President Biden’s “Build Back Better” legislation if it did not eliminate (or at least vastly increase) the SALT deduction limit.
Even if two or three House members vote against the “climate” bill, it would probably pass the House, but the Senate is another story. And at least one Democratic senator, New Jersey’s Robert Menendez, quoted as channeling Joe Manchin, has indicated he could be a “no” vote.
The Star Ledger Editorial Board opposes this posturing:
[U]sing the SALT issue to threaten the Build Back plan was wrong, using it to hold up the epic infrastructure bill was a reckless bluff, and using it to stop the Inflation Reduction Act would be political malpractice.
NJ lawmakers can help get Biden into the red zone | Editorial
While I profess no insight into what Senator Sinema will do, I would be shocked if Senator Menendez or New Jersey’s congressional delegation let SALT trump Biden’s environmental pepper.
Jay Bohn
August 1, 2022