Reconciliation talks yield slow progress


Democrats continued to make only incremental progress toward a compromise between moderates and progressives on reconciliation tax bill.

The goal for Democrats remains to bridge the divide between Sen. Joe Manchin’s, D-W.V., $1.5 trillion top line and progressive Democrats’ $3.5 trillion proposal—but reconciliation negotiations took a back seat to the fight over the debt limit last week, as Republicans and Democrats averted immediate economic disaster after weeks of partisan deadlock and agreed to raise the nation’s credit limit by $480 billion. The increase was generally intended to align the next debt limit showdown with the expiration of government funding on Dec. 3, but it is possible that the debt limit would not actually be reached until sometime later in December or even January.

With the debt limit dilemma averted in the near-term, Democrats now turn their attention to ongoing negotiations regarding the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package. Democrats are hoping to agree on a top-line number before Oct. 31, when transportation funding is set to expire, and Congress will need to either pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill or extend transportation funding again. The October deadline is not set in stone, however, and negotiations on both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the reconciliation package could easily spill into November and December. The Dec. 3 deadline for government funding—and possibly the debt limit—could provide another soft deadline to spur reconciliation negotiations.

Although there were no major break-through in negotiations, there was some notable progress:

  • President Joe Biden offered both moderates and progressives a topline cost range of $2 to $2.3 trillion and expressed openness to means testing some programs, as proposed by Manchin. The administration also reportedly pitched a $2.5 trillion package to the House.
  • Manchin seemed to open the door to a larger reconciliation package, responding to questions on Biden’s proposals figures by saying: “I’m not ruling anything out.” Previously, Manchin had indicated he would not support a package in excess of $1.5 trillion.
  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and key negotiator for progressive Democrats, indicated she could support a top-line number as low as $2.5 trillion (down from $3.5 trillion).
  • Other influential progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., floated the idea of cutting costs by funding the bill for five years instead of 10.

There were also several hiccups. Progressives wrote to Democratic leadership calling negotiations over whether to either fund only a small number of investments fully or make only shallow investments in a broad package a “false choice.” They expressed support for fully funding a broader package over a shorter timeline. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., also reportedly warned House Democrats on recent call that she would not vote on a reconciliation package until the bipartisan infrastructure bill is enacted.

Negotiations will continue in earnest in the coming weeks, though the White House signaled it is losing patience. An anonymous White House source recently told reported that the “time for negotiations is nearing an end” and that “soon it will be time for negotiations to conclude.”




Tax professional standards statement

This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.


More tax hot topics