Investment in American Infrastructure

[goldenvalley]

Parental leave is sore point with me.   Even the prosperous law firms that I've been around seem to require expectant parents to hoard their vacation and PTO to add on to the piddling little paid leave the firm offered to get a total of 8 weeks off (some paid, some not).  It's insane to think that a person can head off to effective full time work while struggling with lack of sleep and trying to recover from a major stress on the body.  Shame on us all for tolerating this.  California finally sets out 12 week parental leave but it isn't paid. 

[LFC]

I f***ing hate Manchin. (Sinema too but on this particular issue it's Manchin.)

Democrats are expected to scrap paid family and medical leave from their cornerstone economic and climate package, discarding one of the central planks of President Joe Biden's proposal as they scramble to strike a deal with holdout senators, according to multiple people familiar with the talks.

The plan's survival has been in question for several days due to objections from Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat. Biden's initial 12-week proposal was scaled back to four weeks in an effort to secure Manchin's support. That was rejected, leading to an effort by New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand that attempted to find a compromise with Manchin.

That has not succeeded, one of the people said, prompting Democrats to push it out of the package as they seek to scale back the proposal's overall cost and programs to meet Manchin's demands.

Manchin made clear he would not move when asked about the provision on Wednesday, saying: "I just can't do it."

"To expand social programs when you have trust funds that aren't solvent, they're going insolvent. I can't explain that. It doesn't make sense to me," Manchin said. "I want to work with everyone as long as we can start paying for things. That's all. I can't put this burden on my grandchildren. I've got 10 grandchildren ... I just can't do it."

Manchin: "Expanding social programs without better funding doesn't make sense!"

Also Manchin: "Aaaaahhhh!!! You can't touch the Republican tax cuts!"

[LFC]

Manchin said months ago that the Dems had to trust each other. He then proceeded to burn that trust to the ground. Now the House Progressive Caucus refuses (wisely, IMHO) to trust him or Sinema. They just yanked too many chains.

This Is Fundamentally About Trust

Many progressive House members were eager to say that they support the reconciliation framework, and applauded the President for getting to this point. Jayapal told us that there will be a Congressional Progressive Caucus resolution that approves the framework in principle, and that she expects the vote on it to be unanimous. The caucus, she said, definitely harbors some disappointments, but seem to understand that this is a pretty good package considering the achingly slim majorities Democrats are working with.

But the progressives simply do not trust that Manchin and Sinema will provide the votes on reconciliation if House Democrats give away their leverage on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. It’s a mark of how much they trust Biden that they’re willing to take the legislative text of the reconciliation bill and his vow that he has all 50 senators on board as good enough to vote for the bipartisan bill.

It’s a refrain I’ve been hearing all day: we trust the President. We trust 48 of the senators. We do not trust Manchin and Sinema.

[jackd]

Manchin is who he is. The problem for progressives is they simply have not elected enough representatives and senators who agree with them. That being the case, they have to take what they can get and campaign at the midterms for more progressives so that they can get their policies in place. So far, the voters, as opposed to poll responders, haven't agreed to progressive policies. When Bernie Sanders complains that Manchin/Sinema are stopping "the majority", he's talking about the majority of Democrats not the majority of House and Senate members. That's the real majority and its existence has to be acknowledged and worked with. That's what Pelosi and Schumer are doing. As Obama likes to put it, "Don't boo; vote!".

[goldenvalley]

Oct 28, 2021 18:27:16 GMT jackd said:

Manchin is who he is. The problem for progressives is they simply have not elected enough representatives and senators who agree with them. That being the case, they have to take what they can get and campaign at the midterms for more progressives so that they can get their policies in place. So far, the voters, as opposed to poll responders, haven't agreed to progressive policies. When Bernie Sanders complains that Manchin/Sinema are stopping "the majority", he's talking about the majority of Democrats not the majority of House and Senate members. That's the real majority and its existence has to be acknowledged and worked with. That's what Pelosi and Schumer are doing. As Obama likes to put it, "Don't boo; vote!".

There's a fundamental immaturity in the progressive group. It lacks the ability to understand vote counting in Congress.  As long as states are gerrymandered to reduce the possibility that any Democrat, let alone one of their group, gets elected to the House, the progressives will whine about how the people support them but fellow non progressive Democrats won't.  Not that I like Manchinema at all, but I realize they believe they are trying to deal with red state voters' wishes so they can get re-elected.

[jackd]

In addition, when they run in safe democratic districts, they often lose so its not just structural obstacles. They have to sell more effectively.

[LFC]

Details on Biden's $1.75T proposal.

And details on paying for it.

Here’s the latest plan:

Corporate taxes: The framework would put in place a 15% minimum tax on the corporate profits that large companies report to shareholders, not to the Internal Revenue Service. This would apply to companies with more than $1 billion in profits. The proposal also includes a 1% surcharge on corporate stock buybacks. Also, it would impose a 15% minimum tax, calculated on a country-by-country basis, that American companies pay on foreign profits, consistent with an agreement Biden recently won among 136 countries.

Taxes on the rich: The wealthiest Americans would pay a 5% surtax on income above $10 million, and an additional 3% levy on income above $25 million. It would also close the loopholes to allow some affluent taxpayers to avoid paying the 3.8% net investment income tax on their earnings. And it would continue the limitation on excess business earnings.

IRS enforcement: The plan would beef up IRS enforcement so that it can ensure that people are paying what they owe to Uncle Sam. The new enforcement would focus on Americans with the highest incomes, not those earning less than $400,000 a year.

Rebate rule: The framework calls for blocking the implementation of a Trump administration regulation that would have changed the drug industry’s rebate system.

The corporate tax provisions would yield $800 billion, the individual tax measures $650 billion, the IRS investments $400 billion and the rebate rule $145 billion, according to White House estimates.

[LFC]

It's now pretty clear that Manchin has never taken this process seriously and always wanted it to die. He just decided to take a long time strangling it rather than have the balls to stake out his actual position. I think the reconciliation bill is now dead.

We went into the weekend thinking Congress was finally on the verge of passing a substantially reduced Build Back Better bill, at roughly $1.75 trillion. Joe Manchin was likely more involved in that negotiation than any other member of Congress. He just held a press conference on the Hill in which he not only refused to support it but actually trashed the whole proposal in entirely new ways – now saying he can’t vote on any version of it until he learns more about what’s happening on inflation, gets a report from the CBO and other complaints. He demanded a vote on the so-called BIF and said he’s open to voting against the whole Biden reconciliation bill.

One other dimension to this is that Manchin’s announcement came just as Democratic leadership seemed on the verge on getting House progressives to believe that they had the outlines of a recon bill covered and thus vote for the BIF in advance of a recon bill. In other words, he was about to get what he has claimed to have wanted: passing the BIF bill before reconciliation and still having leverage to shape the reconciliation bill after the rest of the party has surrendered its leverage. The odds of that happening now seem close to nil.

I really can’t make any judgment – just too tired of this drama – about why he would do that. But the most obvious explanation is that he wanted to short circuit the BIF getting passed. Why would he do that? Fill in the blanks.

[AnBr]

[LFC]

The unserious Manchin strikes again. This time it's inflation. If he had been following economics he'd find that there's a number of articles, at least some posted on the old TRS (maybe he should join us), that show government spending and inflation aren't particularly linked. Inflation is just a magic amulet he uses to obstruct the process.

Yarmuth Calls Manchin’s Desire For Specifics On Inflationary Impact ‘Stupid’

“Manchin says he wants information about what the inflationary impact is gonna be — where does he expect that to come from?” John Yarmuth (D-KY), chairman of the House Budget Committee, vented to reporters. “Nobody ever calculates the inflationary impact of anything because you can’t do it. It’s just stupid — I’m sorry but it’s stupid.”

Manchin keeps citing inflation whenever he wants to show he’s not too cozy with the reconciliation plan.

Pelosi put out a statement yesterday squarely addressing his inflation concerns: “Build Back Better will grow the economy without increasing inflation, because it is fully paid for,” she wrote. “As seventeen Nobel Prize-winning economists recently wrote in support of this legislation, ‘Because this agenda invests in long-term economic capacity and will enhance the ability of more Americans to participate productively in the economy, it will ease longer-term inflationary pressures.’”

[LFC]

Joe Manchin is more Republican than I realized. Like Republicans with tax cuts, which can be justified using polar opposite issues, he's able to do the same with not passing the reconciliation bill. Apparently McAuliffe losing in VA is proof they need a pause. I'm sure if he won by 10 points it would have been proof the Dems had plenty of time to pass the reconciliation bill.

Centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who has slowed down negotiations on a massive $1.75 trillion reconciliation package, says the “unbelievable” Republican victories in Virginia’s statewide races Tuesday validate his concerns about inflation and moving the Build Back Better Act too quickly through Congress.

Manchin said that GOP gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin’s victory in a state that President Biden won by 10 points in 2020 also underscores the need for the House to pass the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, which progressives are holding up.

“It’s unbelievable to see what went on in Virginia and not just from the governor’s race but all the way down that ticket a good bit of change has happened,” Manchin said, expressing astonishment over Republican victories in the races for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general.

He cautioned that his Democratic colleagues need to take Tuesday’s election results as a warning and proceed more carefully with the reconciliation package that Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) are racing to pass as soon as possible.

“You can read so much into all of that last night. I think it should be a call to all of us have to be more attentive to the people back home,” said Manchin, who also noted the governor’s race in New Jersey, a solidly Democratic state, was still too close to call as of early Wednesday.

“I’ve been saying this for many, many months, people have concerns, people are concerned,” he said, repeating his concerns about federal spending boosting inflation and hurting constituents back home in West Virginia and other rural areas.

“And for us to go down a path that we’ve been going and trying to accelerate it and it has been slowed down – I think we need to take our time and do it right,” he added.

Take your time and do WHAT right? You keep moving the goalposts of what is right you lying, sandbagging sack of shit.

Congratulations Joe, you're the Ben Nelson of infrastructure. (If you don't remember Nelson single-handedly gutted a number of positive features in the ACA.) So many deficiencies of the ACA can be laid at his feet and so many deficiencies of infrastructure funding can be laid at yours. It seems like being a "moderate" in the Democratic Party means not doing anything. In that case Sinemanchin are moderate as f***!

[jackd]

Without defending Manchin's "argument", his statement does call into question the wisdom of Nancy Pelosi's announced intention of voting on a bill he objects to with the apparent intention of trying to embarrass him into voting for it in the Senate. Some day, the House members are going to learn to take what they can get and not try to force what isn't agreed to by the people whose agreement is needed.

[LFC]

The House passed the BIF bill with very few Republicans. And of course the GOPers are desperate to tell us how much they're for it except that they're against it.

They’re sweating it.

House Republicans really want you to know that they love roads and bridges — but just not in this particular case.

Not, in other words, when Democrats score a legislative victory — with the help of a handful of Republicans — that the Trump administration failed to achieve.

Shortly after the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed in the House on Friday night, Republicans who voted against it swiftly issued defensive statements scrambling to explain that they’re all for infrastructure, but voted against the bill anyway.

They gave various reasons as they contorted themselves, including Democrats’ still-pending reconciliation package — a “tax and spending spree,” in their words, spearheaded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Despite the infrastructure bill’s passage in the Senate in August with 19 GOP senators on board, a mere 13 House Republicans broke ranks to pass it in the House on Friday.

Those that voted for it are, of course, traitors who must be punished.

Republican leaders in the US House of Representatives are expecting a bid to punish the 13 Republicans who voted for President Joe Biden's $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill by stripping them of committee assignments, according to a report.

One (at least) received wishes for the death of him and his family and his staff over his vote, likely from somebody who is "pro life." Welcome to 'Murica where people love the Constitution sooooo much that they'll murder you if you vote the wrong way.

Rep. Fred Upton, R- Mich., shared a threatening voicemail he received following his vote to pass the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill last Friday.

The Republican congressman played one of the many voicemails he’s received since the vote during an interview Monday with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on “AC360.”

“I hope your f------ family dies. I hope everybody in your f------ staff dies, you f------ piece of f------ s---. Traitor!” the anonymous caller said in a voicemail.

Upton, who represents southwest Michigan, was one of 13 House Republicans who crossed party lines to approve the infrastructure package, which is an essential part of President Joe Biden’s economic agenda. Upton was also among the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump.

“We have seen civility really downslide here,” Upton told Cooper.

Gee, ya' think Fred? Any idea how that happened?

[LFC]

Now that BIF has passed Josh Marshall says it is a "big fat cudgel waiting to be used against House GOPs." (In full due to paywall.) I agree and really, really hope that the Democrats don't drop this gift. It will be interesting to see if some of the Senate Republicans who voted for it now switch gears and try to kill it. I wouldn't be remotely surprised.

The outcome of elections in 2022 and 2024 are tied in large part to events the President can influence but not control: the state of the COVID pandemic, the health of the US economy and in particular the mix of price hikes and supply shortages amidst COVID exhaustion we’ve seen increasingly in 2021. But there are already steps Democrats can and really must start taking to lay the groundwork for strong showings. One really critical one comes out of the $1.2 trillion bipartisan Biden Infrastructure Bill passed late Friday evening. It goes without saying that Democrats should run on the contents of the bill. There’s tons of funding for repairing roads and bridges, replacing all the country’s lead pipes, broadband and much more. But just as critical is using it as a cudgel against Republicans – something GOP fury at the 13 representatives makes crystal, crystal clear.

To understand this you don’t have to go any further than looking at the announcements Republicans put out announcing their decisions to vote against the bill.

Let me explain.

Virtually all the announcements began by saying no one wants to pass an infrastructure bill for roads and bridges and broadband more than Rep. X. They then follow up with a host of reasons why, that notwithstanding, they voted against a bill that does just that. Some include a series of lies about what’s in the bill. Others don’t even really discuss the bill but insist they couldn’t vote for it because Democrats also want to pass the Build Back Better bill and many Democrats wanted to pass them together. Many added in that the bill passed at night. That was another reason they couldn’t support it.

And what’s the response when they scream and yell that it’s all part of an insidious socialist agenda and actually only funds a single bridge from Harvard Yard to Brookline, Mass? Ask them why 19 Republican Senators – including Mitch McConnell – voted for it.

When you have a question your political opponent cannot answer without sounding silly you ask it over and over and over again and then go back and ask it another time.

You can get into the policy particulars but in political terms those are mostly beside the point. Read these statements with a political-electoral eye and they couldn’t be more clear. The representative knows their constituents support a big infrastructure bill but they don’t want to vote for it because they think the credit will go to President Biden. Super simple. In the zero sum of electoral politics a win for Biden is a loss for them.

If you’re a Republican partisan (and the same would apply on the other side to a significant extent, though not nearly as much) that’s a strong political logic: you’re in a fight with Biden. Don’t give him a win. Simple. But most voters – really a big slice of the electorate – don’t think like that. If it’s good, support it. I said above it’s a mistake to get into the policy particulars. The issue here is something that cuts deeper: an elected official being a hypocrite and a liar. There’s a bill you know your constituents would support and probably you also would support it but for purely political reasons you’re voting against it. Like I said, hypocrite, a liar and really the most toxic thing to the broad middle of the electorate – opposing something that you know is good purely for political reasons. That’s always the most toxic look in politics. Who are you really for? What are your values?

You may be saying, well, sure but they’ll just say it’s socialism and people will believe them. Well, certainly strong Republican partisans will. But here’s the problem. 19 Republican Senators voted for this bill. Including Mitch McConnell. If it’s a Nancy Pelosi trojan horse or a secret socialist plan why did almost half of Republican senators vote for it? It’s basically an impossible question to answer. And it’s the reason House Republicans are so furious that 13 of their voted for it. It’s a genuinely bipartisan bill. And President Biden, wisely, is going to have the signing ceremony full of Republicans.

Here are some tweets from GOP members with my own fairly hard to rebut glosses attached from Twitter. But it’s the one at the end from freshman California Rep. Young Kim I really want to focus on.

Holy Crap. Pole position in the liar's derby. That's Glenn Thompson of PA. Claims he's mainly voting against infrastructure because it doesn't address broadband when that's one of the main things it does. Rep. Thompson enjoys lying to his constituents and I'm sure other hobbies. t.co/yql9OkxGPK
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 6, 2021

Wow. Rep Valadao likes lying to his constituents. Says he totally supports fixing "infrastructure …in desperate need of repair" but claims he has to vote against doing that because he'd also have to vote for a different bill which he wldn't have to vote for. #lyinDave t.co/fJFbCjJ3xq
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 6, 2021

Rep Balderson of Ohio says he wanted to vote for roads, bridges and broaddband REAL BAD! He had "high hopes" for a bipartisan deal but decided to vote against the bipartisan deal for roads and bridges because Democrats want to pass a different bill he doesn't support. t.co/J2zg3jwDlL
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 6, 2021

Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho definitely supports spending on "crumbling roads and bridges" but decided to vote agst it because it doesn't add to the Highway Trust Fund or have "comprehensive funding mechanisms". Mike was for it before he was against it in the same statement. Sad. t.co/IRBM9N1I76
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 6, 2021

Now many of these Representatives are in strong Republican districts. They’re going to get reelected regardless. Democrats should still invest money hitting this message against them. But it’s new members elected in marginal districts in 2020 where it will have the greatest effect – and challengers who will run on opposition to the bill.

Let’s focus in on Rep. Young Kim (R-CA).

Kim lost to Democrat Gil Cisneros in California’s 39th District in 2018 and then defeated him – to Democrats’ chagrin and surprise – in 2020. She’s from blue California and as a Korean-American is from the broader East Asian immigrant community which has shifted into the Democratic column more than almost any ethnic group in the last two decades. Her victory was a great pick up for the GOP. Let’s look at her explanation of her no vote.

Wow. Super good one from Rep Young Kim! Not only claims to support "infrastructure … in dire need of repairs" even claims to have helped write the bill! Now says she's voting against it because Dems want to pass some other bill. Was for it AND WROTE IT before she was agst it! t.co/RPlIkUYSXA
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 6, 2021

Kim’s own words here have the makings of a fairly devastating months’ long campaign against her values and commitment to her district. Based on her own words Kim said spending on infrastructure was something her community is “in dire need of”. She even makes clear that she was one of the people who helped negotiate this bill! So why did she oppose a bill she says the country is in dire need of and which she even helped write? Why did she oppose it? Because she doesn’t support a different bill that Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders support.

That makes no sense!

Now, we as people deeply immersed in politics and the maneuverings of Capitol Hill know that there’s been a months-long intra-Democratic tussle over passing both bills or neither bill. But that actually has nothing to do with Kim or any other Republican. Even on its own terms, Republicans voting for the bipartisan Biden infrastructure bill would have made it marginally less likely that the Build Back Better Act would pass inasmuch as it would have stolen leverage from House progressives who were most committed to linking the two bills. But even that is too deep in the weeds and frankly just more BS. The bills aren’t linked. There was nothing preventing Kim from voting yes. Republicans are so desperate to blame their no votes on this entirely different piece of legislation some are literally claiming they were the same bill. Rep. Ben Cline of Virginia went so far in his statement as to lament that the House hadn’t passed a “stand-alone [infrastructure] bill.” But it is a standalone bill. Arguments among Democrats don’t have anything to do with Reps. Kim or Cline. It’s all lies and obfuscation meant to explain a vote these Reps can’t justify on its own terms to voters.

Again, the policy details and these intricacies are all beside the point. They claim they voted against a bill that does something they support because they oppose a different bill Democrats support. Stating it clearly makes clear it makes zero sense. It’s just lies. Getting caught in risible lies is devastating for elected officials in marginal districts. And so is the real reason which is that you cared more about the narrowly electoral interests of your political party more than the needs of your constituents and the country at large.

As I said in the tweet, Kim was not only for it before she was against. She WROTE IT before she was against it.

To any claim the bill itself was a secret Pelosi socialist scheme, then why did 19 Republican senators vote for it? There’s no answer to that. This also gives you some insight into why absolute party unity is so critical to Republicans in these cases. If literally no Republicans vote for something and a bill is exclusively supported by Democrats … well, maybe it is a secret socialist scheme? But once a lot of Republicans are voting yes that falls a part.

The substance of the bipartisan Biden Infrastructure and the legislative history both make up a cudgel wrapped in a bow ready made for whacking vulnerable Republicans as well as challengers to vulnerable Democrats for the next year.

Next November, if President Biden is still ten points underwater and we’re still stuck in shifting gears on the economy and COVID Democrats are going to be walloped. As I said at the top, President Biden can affect and influence those realities; he can’t control or dictate them. But cudgels like this are how you shape any election months or years in advance. Depending on where the country is a year from now it will either prove a way to build margins or stem losses. Either way, the cudgel is just waiting there ready to be picked up.

[LFC]

Here are the House votes that crossed party lines. It looks like some of the furthest on the left were against it.

Here are the six House Democrats who broke from their party to vote against the bill:

• Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York
• Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri
• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York
• Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota
• Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts
• Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan

[Bact PhD]

Nov 9, 2021 19:25:50 GMT LFC said:

Here are the House votes that crossed party lines. It looks like some of the furthest on the left were against it.

Here are the six House Democrats who broke from their party to vote against the bill:

• Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York
• Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri
• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York
• Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota
• Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts
• Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan

Yeah, mostly cuz they were PO’d that this bill got voted on first, rather than the BBB still getting ironed out. They also knew there were sufficient GOP votes for the bill’s passage.

[jackd]

Trying to show they're as tough as the boys?

[LFC]

I'm willing to bet that each one of these whiny a-holes helped build the GOP that exists today. They just thought they could stop the crazy train short of the bridge that's out.

Rep. David McKinley (R-WV), who broke rank alongside 12 of his colleagues to vote for the bipartisan infrastructure bill last week, decried the politicization of his support for the bill from fellow Republicans.

During an interview with WV MetroNews’ “Talkline” on Wednesday, McKinley defended his vote to pass the bipartisan bill, expressing disbelief over the majority of his colleagues’ votes against the measure —even as they claim to support infrastructure.

“The first time that we have a chance to vote on infrastructure in approximately 12 years, 15 years, we’re going to vote no? All because of politics?” McKinley said. “Let’s stop this nonsense. That’s my position.”

McKinley went onto jab fellow Republicans in his home state, Reps. Alex Mooney and Carol Miller (R-WV), for their opposition to BIF.

“I don’t know what motivated them. I don’t know what the infrastructure was like in Maryland,” McKinley said, referring back to Mooney’s term as a state legislator in Maryland. McKinley is set to face off against Mooney during next year’s midterms, after West Virginia lost a seat in reapportionment last year.

McKinley was also unfazed by talk of House Republicans who supported BIF losing their committee assignments. Yesterday, Punchbowl News reported that GOP leadership is anticipating a push by rank-and-file lawmakers to strip committee assignments from members who supported bipartisan bill.

“Let them feel that way. I don’t think that ultimately is going to come. They’re upset but they don’t understand,” McKinley said.

And here's the tiger they rode spinning back around to eat them.

One caller instructed Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois to slit his wrists and “rot in hell.” Another hoped Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska would slip and fall down a staircase. The office of Representative Nicole Malliotakis of New York has been inundated with angry messages tagging her as a “traitor.”

Investing in the nation’s roads and bridges was once considered one of the last realms of bipartisanship in Congress, and President Biden’s infrastructure bill drew ample support over the summer from Republicans in the Senate. But in the days since 13 House Republicans broke with their party leaders and voted for the $1 trillion legislation last week, they have been flooded by menacing messages from voters — and even some of their own colleagues — who regard their votes as a betrayal.

The vicious reaction to the passage of the bill, which was negotiated by a group of Republicans and Democrats determined to deliver on a bipartisan priority, reflects how deeply polarization has seeped into the political discourse within the Republican Party, making even the most uncontroversial legislation a potentially toxic vote.

The dynamic is a natural outgrowth of the slash-and-burn politics of former President Donald J. Trump, who savaged those in his party who backed the infrastructure bill as “RINOs” — Republicans in name only — who should be “ashamed of themselves.”

Mr. Trump’s frequent threats and insults directed at Republicans whom he considers insufficiently loyal have created powerful incentives for the party’s lawmakers to issue similarly bellicose statements. The former president’s approach has also encouraged an expectation among Republican base voters that their representatives will hew unswervingly to the party line.

Last week’s infrastructure vote has prompted intraparty warfare among Republicans, illustrating how just a few of the loudest voices in the party can — and will — direct a wall of ire at those who break with them even just occasionally.

“I regret that this good, bipartisan bill became a political football in recent weeks,” said Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, one of the 13 Republicans who backed the legislation. “Our country can’t afford this partisan dysfunction any longer.”

[goldenvalley]

Nov 9, 2021 20:10:25 GMT jackd said:

Trying to show they're as tough as the boys?

I think they believe that "business as usual" is a problem and they are determined not to follow that pattern of voting for less than what they want.  Incremental change is not what they want.  They want to be disruptors of the old order.

There aren't enough Congress members who agree with them on this idea.  They are pragmatic enough to believe that bringing home the bacon is better than gambling on whether the human infrastructure bill will pass.

[LFC]

Trump is lashing out at the House Republicans who voted for the BIF bill. It makes sense. He completely blew it and Biden is succeeding where he failed completely. Unsurprisingly he failed because he was throwing a hissy fit about something else completely, in this case the fact that Democrats were investigating his shady activities. (In full due to paywall.)

“It’s infrastructure week!”

Now, it really is — or so says Joe Biden. But let us remember an earlier time, before the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill last week, and before Democrats spent every week of the past several months haggling with each other to get their reconciliation package across the finish line.

We’re taking you back to the Trump era, when “infrastructure week” was a punchline rather than a reference to the actual sausage-making behind infrastructure negotiations.

A simpler time? Not so much.

Flash back to May 2019: Trump meets with then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for a second discussion about infrastructure. This summit came about a month after their long-awaited first meeting, which then-White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders would later describe as an “excellent” and “productive” conversation. Although Trump and the Democratic leaders agreed on a $2 trillion investment in roads, bridges and rural broadband, the group didn’t get into any hard specifics during that first meeting.

So the second meeting arrived full of promise. But then, almost immediately, all hope for an infrastructure bill was dashed. The then-President stormed out — after just three minutes. Trump and the Democratic leaders reportedly barely touched on infrastructure before the then-President threw a fit.

Trump, that day, was enraged over congressional Democrats’ efforts to investigate him, including subpoenaing his banking records. Some in Pelosi’s caucus also wanted to begin impeachment proceedings in the wake of the Mueller probe. In May 2019, the Speaker was still fending those members off.

“We do believe that it’s important to follow the facts. We believe that no one is above the law, including the president of the United States, and we believe that the president of the United States is engaged in a cover-up,” Pelosi said before heading to the White House.

The “cover-up” comment was, apparently, what set Trump off.

“Instead of walking in happily to a meeting, I walk in to look at people that just said that I was doing a ‘cover-up.’ I don’t do ‘cover-ups,’” Trump griped inaccurately to reporters during a hastily called news conference in the White House Rose Garden shortly after his planned meeting with Schumer and Pelosi. He stood at a lectern with a sign reading “No Collusion, No Obstruction.”

Trump claimed that he told Democratic leaders that he “wants to do infrastructure” — but just not “under these circumstances.”

“I walked into the room and I told Sen. Schumer and Speaker Pelosi, ‘I want to do infrastructure’ … but we can’t do it under these circumstances,” Trump told reporters while declaring that infrastructure talks were off the table.

Sound familiar?

Fast forward to yesterday, when Trump went after the 13 House Republicans who dared to help Democrats pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill — a bill that presumably included provisions that could have been his to tout, two years earlier.

While continuing his attacks against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who was among the 19 GOP senators who helped pass BIF earlier this year, Trump in a statement sidestepped the fact that he had thwarted his own chances of reaching a bipartisan deal on infrastructure during his presidency.

“Why is it that Old Crow Mitch McConnell voted for a terrible Democrat Socialist Infrastructure Plan, and induced others in his Party to do likewise, when he was incapable of getting a great Infrastructure Plan wanting to be put forward by me and the Republican Party?” Trump said in a statement on Tuesday.

He could have had a real accomplishment on his record. Instead he tripped over his own mushroom-shaped dick.

[jackd]

"Not voting for less than they want": it's the American way. If you won't make deals, nothing happens unless you're trying to claw your way out of the Depression like FDR. That's not today. Fortunately, Jaypal figured that out.

[goldenvalley]

Nov 11, 2021 20:40:58 GMT jackd said:

"Not voting for less than they want": it's the American way. If you won't make deals, nothing happens unless you're trying to claw your way out of the Depression like FDR. That's not today. Fortunately, Jaypal figured that out.

Politics is the art of the possible. (Bismarck is credited with that statement.) When Republicans started to complain about earmarks and lack of compromise became a virtue, the US government started to become more and more difficult to run and is completely inadequate for handling the challenges and crises of the modern life.

[AnBr]

Nov 11, 2021 19:04:17 GMT goldenvalley said:

Nov 9, 2021 20:10:25 GMT jackd said:

Trying to show they're as tough as the boys?

I think they believe that "business as usual" is a problem and they are determined not to follow that pattern of voting for less than what they want.  Incremental change is not what they want.  They want to be disruptors of the old order.

There aren't enough Congress members who agree with them on this idea.  They are pragmatic enough to believe that bringing home the bacon is better than gambling on whether the human infrastructure bill will pass.

Posted before on the old board, but this how you make progress. www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/9/14543938/donald-trump-richard-rorty-election-liberalism-conservatives

[pnwguy]

Nov 11, 2021 20:28:20 GMT LFC said:

He could have had a real accomplishment on his record. Instead he tripped over his own mushroom-shaped dick.

You think he can even SEE his fungal appendage below that belly, let alone trip on it?

[jackd]

Rorty suggests that the left should ignore practical politics? I don't think so. Bernie Sanders' politics are practical? Not if it won't make deals. There's a reason that Bernie and other "progressive" candidates didn't get nominated and Biden did: the electorate. Can't do much without them.