Investment in American Infrastructure

[goldenvalley]

Jun 6, 2021 13:02:56 GMT @probabilistic3 said:

Jun 5, 2021 16:59:55 GMT jackd said:

The POG plus Manchin and Sinema. I think you're wrong about Manchin "coming around" on the reconciliation. Manchin is for Manchin; nobody else. His "vote for the Democrats" without filibuster waiver is meaningless.

Manchin will come around to reconciling with two ideas:

1. Modernity is not for West Virginians, and equally, West Virginians are not for modernity.

2. The country might not be but Joe Manchin will be alright with Republican majority.

Come to think of it, Joe has already reconciled.

Beside Manchin (does he really have pronounced manly chin?), Manchin is also for coal and guns. Goes well with theme #1. 

Manchin is opposed to HR1/S1, the For the People Act, so it doesn't matter what his stance on the filibuster is on this bill.  Democrats would now need 11 Republican Senators to vote for it.  

[jackd]

Manchin had previously expressed support for the act being applied to all 50 states instead of target states.

[goldenvalley]

Jun 6, 2021 16:05:52 GMT jackd said:

Manchin had previously expressed support for the act being applied to all 50 states instead of target states.

That's the John Lewis Voting Rights Act he was talking about which is to restore the pre-clearance requirement for changes to voting and elections laws by states that have a history of discrimination, not the For the People Act.  

Both those bills were introduced at about the same time.  And actually both were introduced in 2019, passed the House, and never was heard by the Senate.  So they were reintroduced in 2021.

[jackd]

And the John Lewis Voting Rights Act would be fine. Problem is, he'd vote for it but wouldn't waive the filibuster. That's no vote under present circumstances.

[Traveler]

Jun 6, 2021 19:36:58 GMT jackd said:

And the John Lewis Voting Rights Act would be fine. Problem is, he'd vote for it but wouldn't waive the filibuster. That's no vote under present circumstances.

Why the Dems wasted political capital on HR 1 is beyond me.  Never had a snowball's chance in hell.  JLVRA has a few POGers on board, but also not much more likely.  

[Traveler]

Given what I am seeing, there are decent reasons to use much of the unspent stimulus money to fund infrastructure. On one hand, way too many folks sitting on the sideline collecting unemployment. There are a ton of jobs out there, and employers are starting to up the pay scales. (Still, just signing bonuses most of the time though, so they won't have to do so.) OTOH, there could well be significant inflationary implications. Smart money says that should not be an issue, but if we we don't need all those funds, then I don't have problems repurposing them. We already have bipartisan consensus on our own industrial policy bill, so why not load that puppy up with sticks and bricks as well? Gonna be the biggest earmark fest in decades.

I am not impressed with Schumer so far. Too many misplaced priorities.

[Deleted]

Capito 'frustrated,' says White House 'kept moving the goalposts' on infrastructure

Incredibly the White House kept moving goalposts towards Capito's position, frustrating her no end.

[LFC]

Biden is going to take a swing at negotiating with Romney. Good luck.

President Biden brought the months-long infrastructure negotiations with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) to an end on Tuesday, formalizing the conclusion of talks with the Republican senator that were widely seen to be going nowhere.

Biden will now move on to talks with another GOP representative, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who has been discussing another potential compromise on infrastructure with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ).

Other than basic and pervasive obstructionism that drives them the Republicans are demanding that Democrats take the hit for the unpopular parts of their own agenda that they always refuse to face i.e. pay for things by cutting other programs.

The talks had been plagued since their April beginning by a basic impasse over Republican demands that Democrats provide detailed ways to pay for the legislation, so long as those ways not include tax increases or increased borrowing.

What was left from that was a GOP counteroffer to repurpose existing COVID relief money towards the infrastructure package. Biden’s initial infrastructure proposal offered $2.3 trillion in new money; the GOP counteroffer proposed $257 billion in new spending.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement that while Biden had ultimately been “willing to reduce his plan by more than $1 trillion, the Republican group had increased their proposed new investments by only $150 billion.”

Sen. Capito issued a statement noting that she had negotiated “in good faith.” The senator added that the failure of the talks “does not mean bipartisanship isn’t feasible.”

On the upside the starting point with Romney is vastly higher.

The Romney group, which includes a total of 10 senators from each party, is reportedly eyeing a $900 billion infrastructure package.

That’s still significantly less than what Biden initially proposed. It’s not clear whether that is new money funded by Biden’s tax proposals or if it would make use of the same tactic of repurposing already-existing funding.

[goldenvalley]

I am beginning to think that bipartisan means giving the hold out group 99% of what it wants.

[Deleted]

Jun 9, 2021 21:25:33 GMT goldenvalley said:

I am beginning to think that bipartisan means giving the hold out group 99% of what it wants.

Bipartisan like budget deficits only become meaningful when Democrats are in power. These words suddenly lose their meaning when Republicans hold power. 

[Traveler]

Manchin. Gotta live with cards we are dealt. But the sheer obstinacy baffles me.

[LFC]

The latest supposed offer from Republicans boils down to "don't touch our signature tax cuts (that we never paid for) but instead take the money from Biden's signature COVID relief bill." Welcome to Republican "compromise."

Over the past two months of infrastructure talks, there’s been a constant refrain from Republican negotiators: why not just use all the unspent COVID aid money to pay for the bill?

The idea has helped negotiators avoid Biden’s demand for new spending, and has been met with some concessions, even from Democratic senators.

“You need to look at, see what hasn’t gone out the door or what has gone out the door, hasn’t been spent yet or dedicated in any way,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said last month.

But a close look at which COVID relief funds remain “unspent” reveals that the vast majority of money available would come from President Biden’s biggest legislative accomplishment: the American Rescue Plan.

That effectively reduces the negotiations to a debate over how far the Biden administration would be willing to go to strip its signature COVID relief package, passed in March, of resources to fund entirely different priorities.

“It’s a political challenge to get anyone to repeal parts of their own bill,” Marc Goldwein, Senior Policy Director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, remarked to TPM.

A group of five Democratic and five Republican senators announced on Thursday that they had reached a deal that includes $579 billion in new spending, out of a total of $974 billion. It’s not yet clear how that would be paid for, and if that proposal would also draw on repurposed COVID funding.

Since infrastructure negotiations began in April, Republican senators have demanded that the Biden administration account for how the package is to be funded. Any new spending in the plan, meant to go to roads, bridges, water pipes and eldercare programs, needs to have new revenue to match it.

But at the same time, the GOP said that it would be opposed to any tax increases — framing that as changes to the Trump tax law.

What that has left as a way to finance the package is to use what Republicans refer to as “repurpose unused federal spending.”

[Deleted]

Jun 11, 2021 1:12:52 GMT Traveler said:

Manchin. Gotta live with cards we are dealt. But the sheer obstinacy baffles me.

Failure begets more failure. *sigh*

[Traveler]

Jun 11, 2021 18:06:01 GMT LFC said:

The latest supposed offer from Republicans boils down to "don't touch our signature tax cuts (that we never paid for) but instead take the money from Biden's signature COVID relief bill." Welcome to Republican "compromise."

Over the past two months of infrastructure talks, there’s been a constant refrain from Republican negotiators: why not just use all the unspent COVID aid money to pay for the bill?

The idea has helped negotiators avoid Biden’s demand for new spending, and has been met with some concessions, even from Democratic senators.

“You need to look at, see what hasn’t gone out the door or what has gone out the door, hasn’t been spent yet or dedicated in any way,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said last month.

But a close look at which COVID relief funds remain “unspent” reveals that the vast majority of money available would come from President Biden’s biggest legislative accomplishment: the American Rescue Plan.

That effectively reduces the negotiations to a debate over how far the Biden administration would be willing to go to strip its signature COVID relief package, passed in March, of resources to fund entirely different priorities.

“It’s a political challenge to get anyone to repeal parts of their own bill,” Marc Goldwein, Senior Policy Director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, remarked to TPM.

A group of five Democratic and five Republican senators announced on Thursday that they had reached a deal that includes $579 billion in new spending, out of a total of $974 billion. It’s not yet clear how that would be paid for, and if that proposal would also draw on repurposed COVID funding.

Since infrastructure negotiations began in April, Republican senators have demanded that the Biden administration account for how the package is to be funded. Any new spending in the plan, meant to go to roads, bridges, water pipes and eldercare programs, needs to have new revenue to match it.

But at the same time, the GOP said that it would be opposed to any tax increases — framing that as changes to the Trump tax law.

What that has left as a way to finance the package is to use what Republicans refer to as “repurpose unused federal spending.”

Save that for reconciliation.  Just take what you can get the POG to go for.  There are plenty of stimulus funds to work with.  No reason to extend unemployment beyond July.  What else is out there that would get sliced?  Get the damn bill so Manchin can fell all smug.  And then hammer him to help getting the rest under reconciliation, which gets paid for by the tax hikes.  Jeez, you think folks would take the sensible path.  Dems already blew it with HR 1 overreach.  

[LFC]

Josh Marshall worries a bit.

One of my subsidiary frustrations in the infrastructure debate and legislative process is how difficult it is even to make sense of what’s going on. I’ve mentioned in a few posts that this is not only a research or reporting problem. It’s hard to have good messaging for what you’re trying to do, build public support or keep supporters engaged, if even those whose job it is to make sense of things, who understand a lot of the jargon and technicalities, struggle to make sense of it. I’ve read a fair amount and discussed it with various people at the highest levels of the process. And I can barely make sense of it.

With that introduction, a few thoughts.

One of the number of ideas or strategies Democrats are working with is the idea that Biden can get his bipartisan deal by cleaving off some portion of ‘hard’ infrastructure for a bipartisan vote and then pass the rest of his infrastructure agenda through a 50 vote reconciliation bill. Under ‘soft’ infrastructure you have all the caring economy and most of the climate stuff. But critically also the tax increases.

This has a certain logic to it. You get the whole package, hard and soft infrastructure even if not quite at the same spending levels, and you also get a big bipartisan deal. Most Democratic partisans don’t care about that. But Biden does and many Democratic senators do too. As we’ve discussed before, getting something done matters far more politically than who votes for it. But to the extent you can get both we shouldn’t discount the value of the symbolism of bipartisanship for some voters who Democrats need.

From the start though I’ve been concerned that this creates a situation in which Republicans get to participate in the really popular stuff and then Democrats have to carry the more demonizable caring economy and tax increases on their own. Again, at the end of the day you want to pass the whole program. Maybe this is overthinking it. But again, why let Republicans pick and choose the sweets while Democrats have to eat all the vegetables?

[jackd]

Because of Manchin, Josh's concern about sweets and vegetables is proabably academic. Manchin has stated he wouldn't support reconciliation for these issues. Getting something bipartisan may be the only way to turn him around on that. If he doesn't get turned around, the Democrats get nothing, sweet or vegetable.

[Deleted]

Anyone who thinks Republicans are going to let Biden have a victory, if they can prevent it, is allowing hope to triumph experience.

First, who are the 10 Republicans ready to vote against McConnell's will? At most one will have 5, which under pressure will fall to zero. There is a library of excuses ready to be trotted out. Perhaps, none would be required.

Secondly, the infrastructure spending currently in negotiation is mostly about repairing existing infrastructure. Yeah, repair those horse shoes and buggy wheels all you like. If one doesn't prepare for the age of automobile one will be left in the dustbin of history.

[jackd]

I think the hope was that they might be able to get a bipartisan bill on "hard" (roads and bridges) infrastructure that would sufficiently satisfy Manchin to let him vote for reconciliation on the balance. I don't think anyone was saying this result was likely.

[Deleted]

That hope has no logic. Manchin doesn't want to modernize infrastructure. He sees decarbonization to be a further threat to West Virginia. All his political incentives align with preventing these changes. He's hiding behind excuses. He's happy to patch roads and bridges but nothing more. However, that too is not terribly high on his priority list. Certainly nowhere near surviving in West Virginia.

[jackd]

A little bit of logic: his constituents, according to polling, support "modernizing" infrastructure. That would suggest that supporting it shouldn't hurt him politically in West Virginia.

[Deleted]

Jun 15, 2021 19:41:50 GMT jackd said:

A little bit of logic: his constituents, according to polling, support "modernizing" infrastructure. That would suggest that supporting it shouldn't hurt him politically in West Virginia.

Recent polling among pollsters show that 50% of them believe polling is reliable.

Could you refer me to statewide polls in W. Va  on this issue?

[jackd]

I don't have that readily at hand; I saw them referred to in articles and posts. I'll see if I can find them.

A google search yields references to Data For Progress polling of pivotal states including West Virginia and Arizona with popular support for the infrastructure plan in all of the states polled.  It was done in April and May according to the story.  Further searching did not come up with the precise figures for West Virginia.  You can find many stories discussing the nationwide figures to the same effect.

[RichTBikkies]

Jun 15, 2021 20:23:38 GMT @probabilistic3 said:

Recent polling among pollsters show that 50% of them believe polling is reliable.

This seems ironic in a way I can't put my finger on.

[Deleted]

Jun 16, 2021 11:55:04 GMT RichTBikkies said:

Jun 15, 2021 20:23:38 GMT @probabilistic3 said:

Recent polling among pollsters show that 50% of them believe polling is reliable.

This seems ironic in a way I can't put my finger on.

That's the thing with irony. One cannot accurately grasp meaning and yet maintain potency simultaneously. It's called ironic indeterminacy.

Seriously though, the attempt wasn't at irony but sarcasm. 

[LFC]

TPM posted Crunch Time on Infrastructure. There's a bipartisan bill being proposed but it's much smaller at $1.2T and requires the clawback of COVID relief funds. I see no mention of tax increases. In other words it's not sounding particularly bipartisan at this moment though few details have been released yet so we'll have to wait and see.

I wanted to update you on what seems to be the state of play on negotiations for an infrastructure bill.

There appears to be some momentum for a purported deal created by the latest bipartisan “gang”, either called the G20 or the ‘problem solvers caucus’. (The first step of bipartisaning is to come up with a cheesy or cloying name.) This is the deal which is rather incongruously labeled as a $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal with $579 of “new spending.” That sounds like a $579 infrastructure deal to me. But let’s set that aside for the moment.

The question the President may soon confront is whether to take this deal, check that bipartisanship box, and then try to pass the rest of the infrastructure agenda through the reconciliation process. In the abstract, that’s a win-win. Those who feel the political need to score a bipartisan accomplishment get that and then the rest of the agenda passes with 50 votes.

But of course it’s not that simple. Democrats worry that they will help pass this paltry mini-bill, largely funded by cannibalizing the Covid relief bill and then folks like Joe Manchin or Kirsten Sinema won’t be there with their 49th and 50th votes for the reconciliation bill. So far they’re not committing to doing so. Indeed, that appears to be part of Republicans’ plan: provide some support for a small traditional infrastructure bill to short-circuit support for the rest of Biden’s agenda.

Not in this article but it appears that Schumer is ready to push an infrastructure plan through reconiliation. Nobody is waiting to see if Republicans actually do the right thing. That's good. The GOP earned this mistrust and casual dismissal over decades.