Investment in American Infrastructure

[LFC]

McConnell appears to be moving forward with the strategy of shutting down the government to block the Democrats' bill. Here's the opener but there are live-blogged posts of the action.

As the much-covered drama over the fate of the bipartisan infrastructure deal dies down, McConnell told Punchbowl News Tuesday night that he doesn’t think Republicans will vote to raise the debt ceiling. It’s a revival of old tactics of GOP political brinksmanship that Republicans favored during the Obama administration.

“I can’t imagine there will be a single Republican voting to raise the debt ceiling after what we’ve been experiencing,” McConnell said.

Meanwhile, it’s looking increasingly likely that the procedural vote Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) set up for Wednesday will fail — but that he still may win the long game with his gambit. While some ruffled Republicans, probably critical to today’s vote, have said they won’t vote to proceed to debate with the bill unfinished, Schumer’s play still seems to have had the desired effect. The bipartisan group has put the pedal to the metal, and various members have suggested that they’re close to finishing.

Schumer gave them a bit of buffer, saying that if they finish by Thursday, he’ll swap in the completed text as a substitute amendment. If they don’t finish by then, he’ll offer the bills that have passed through committee as an amendment, calling them the “core” of the bipartisan framework.

And if they don’t finish at all … well, Democrats are prepared for that. Many senators told TPM Tuesday that if the bipartisan deal fails, they’ll just wrap hard infrastructure into the reconciliation vehicle.

There's just one problem for Moscow Mitch and that's that the Dems have months before a Republican shutdown hits.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report that gives some breathing room as Congress’ two-year suspension of the debt ceiling expires on July 31.

The CBO report indicates that the Treasury Department could run out of cash in October or November unless Congress increases or suspends the debt limit.

“Unless the debt limit is increased, the Treasury, after using all available extraordinary measures, will probably be unable to make its usual payments starting sometime in the first quarter of the new fiscal year, most likely in October or November, although an earlier or later date is possible,” the CBO report reads.

If they pass everything via reconciliation the Republicans will be in a position where they shut the government down but have to point to past legislation for a reasoning, at which point Dems can demand all tax cuts be on the table at the same time. It's not nearly as strong a hand as being able to threaten a shutdown BEFORE the Dems pass their bill. I think it's abundantly clear now that the Republicans' plan all along was to run out the clock until the debt ceiling needed to be raised. Schumer clearly understood that.

[jackd]

The debt ceiling shutdown cold be totally finessed if, as Bill Clinton advised during the Obama administration, the administration relied on the 14th Amendments requirement that all federal debts be honored. Obama said Lawrence Tribe told him that that argument wouldn't fly and many of us, myself included. yelled, "Get a new lawyer!" The debt ceiling applies only to new debt, not existing debt.

[LFC]

Chuck has no intention of allowing things to drag out. Now if he can get his own party in line...

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made clear that he fully intends to pass both the bipartisan infrastructure and budget reconciliation bills through the Senate before the chamber leaves for August recess.

“I laid out that precise schedule at the end of June, and I intend to stick with it,” Schumer said.

[LFC]

Rural Republicans once again have their hands out. They represent an ever shrinking percent of the population and a much smaller percentage of GDP but they never shirk from demanding more, more, and more from the "makers."

Over the last 18 hours, two new generations of Americans have inadvertently discovered the travesty that is federal transportation funding.

• Baked into congressional funding formulas since the 1980s is a deep imbalance: a whopping 80% of the federal transportation money goes to highways, and the balance of 20% goes to public transit. (If you’re really into this stuff, this Congressional Research Service report offers a lot of the history; see the “Great Compromise” section.)
• This dated old formula from the car-centric last century is in the spotlight because the senators trying to strike a bipartisan infrastructure deal in the Senate are squabbling over which side is deviating from that already-imbalanced formula. And when I say deviating, I mean by a percentage point or two! Not a fundamental reworking of the formula.
• Punchbowl explains nicely:

Democrats say that Republicans are trying to break the 80% highway, 20% public transit split that’s been in place for 39 years.

Republicans tell us that this complaint is all bunk. They say the funding split over the last five years has been better than 82% highway to just under 18% transit — so highways have gotten more. And over 30 years, it’s been even lower for transit. Republicans said Democrats need to come toward them, or they risk blowing up a deal.

• It’s an enormous inequity that tilts in favor of rural areas over urban ones (it was also for many years a racist dog whistle, with “urban” meaning black and brown).
• With Democrats pushing hard for climate change provisions in their infrastructure bills, highway funding at the expense of mass transit is another example of how fossil fuels are heavily subsidized, even if indirectly (more below).
• I don’t know how the politics of this plays out in the end, but it’s one of those glaring flaws in the system that is hard to reconcile, especially to anyone coming fresh to the conversation:

'Weird Alex' Pareene
@pareene

I don't even think at my most pessimistic I imagined this process eventually getting to negotiating *down* from a starting position of 80-20%

Here's an urban, suburban, rural breakdown per Pew. Public transportation obviously benefits urban and nearby suburban areas the most. That's likely over half the population of the country and, following the stories of the past two elections, 2/3 of the nation's GDP.

This is the macro version of what we have here in PA. Some years back they were trying to get more funding for public transportation for the 5-county Philadelphia region. Some rural county snapperhead whined about having "their" tax dollars going for that until another legislator in the region noted that the 5 counties only get to keep 60% of their gas taxes. He made the offer that the legislature rescind all funding but the 5 counties get to keep ALL of their gas taxes. Can you say, lead balloon? Republicans have no interest in everybody keeping their own. They depend on Democratic welfare even though they won't admit it.

[LFC]

Portman is whining that he's having his feet held to the fire. It's past put up or shut up time. He knew when he started this process that he was on a deadline and that the Democrats were going to pass a different reconciliation bill.

Sen, Rob Portman (R-OH), who is helping to negotiate the bipartisan infrastructure proposal, on Sunday took aim at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) commitment to not bring the bipartisan infrastructure proposal to the floor until the reconciliation package is ready for a vote.

Appearing on ABC News, Portman said he’s “not happy” with Pelosi’s plan.

“The infrastructure bill has nothing to do with the reckless tax-and-spend extravaganza that she’s talking about in terms of what reconciliation as she called it,” Portman said. “So, no, I’m not happy with what she said because it’s inconsistent with the agreement that we have on a bipartisan basis.”

Asked whether that means Congress may not pass an infrastructure proposal, Portman replied that if Pelosi “has her way, we could.”

“I’m not sure what the future is on reconciliation,” Portman said. “I know that the bipartisan infrastructure package is very popular among the American people and in the United States Congress because it makes sense. We need it badly.”

Portman went on to insist that the negotiations on the infrastructure proposal are truly bipartisan.

“It’s been totally bipartisan from the start. It’s the way we ought to be doing things here in Washington to get stuff done, and I can’t believe the Speaker of the House would be blocking it,” Portman said.

Portman also told ABC News on Sunday that the bipartisan group of infrastructure negotiators are “about 90 percent of the way” into a deal.

If you're 90% then put on your big boy pants and f***ing finish. Chuck and Nancy aren't going to give you a few more months.

[LFC]

Josh Marshall believes that Sinema is just doing some virtue signalling. He's not worried, but he's not kind either.

Yesterday, just as the bipartisan infrastructure mini-bill was coming together, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) announced she didn’t support the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation plan – where most of the Biden agenda is housed. Freak out? I wouldn’t.

First of all while this was played as a rejection of the bill that’s really not how it reads to me. It’s the vaguest of comments that seems focused on the size of the bill. It leaves all her options open and plenty of room to nitpick a few dollars here and there. I would expect that both Sinema and Manchin will work to shave some spending off the size of the bill over the next couple months. That’s similar to what Manchin did during the passage of the original COVID relief bill.

I think this is best interpreted as Sinema throwing up a flag that she’s going to continue to preen and create drama for the purpose of building a reputation as an uber-‘moderate’ and generally have everyone kiss up to her. She wants to come out of this as the person who wasn’t totally down with Democratic priorities and shaved the numbers down, at least a bit. If she really wanted to stop the process she wouldn’t vote to let it begin, which she is. That tells you the story.

The most interesting thing to me is that Joe Manchin seemed to signal he’s totally on board. Now I suspect that both will try to shave the top line numbers down a bit. But what interests me here is that Manchin doesn’t seem entirely in sync with Sinema. And here’s why that’s important. Manchin is from a very red state. He’s got his own politics and set of concerns that seems to work for him in his state but he rarely actually shuts his party down on critical stuff. None of this is new for Manchin. His vote is just more pivotal. Sinema meanwhile is a preening phony. She started out as a member of the Green party. Then she was progressive Democrat. Now she’s an uber ‘centrist’. She’s a total phony and I doubt very much that she will be able to pull any of this off if she’s there alone without Manchin. Without Manchin, she’ll fold.

[jackd]

I hope he's right.

[LFC]

Jul 29, 2021 16:51:33 GMT jackd said:

I hope he's right.

I didn't realize she moved around from Green to progressive to moderate. It really does sound like she's the ultimate political chameleon. She'll never get to keep her seat as a Republican (unless of course she goes full metal MTG) but she also won't keep it if she torpedoes a host of key Democratic policies. Personal political survival seems to be her one principle.

[indy]

I agree with Josh Marshall and there is a fundamental difference between Manchin and Sinema and maybe he is right that she will get on board with a slightly reduced Democrat-only reconciliation bill. I would say the dual infrastructure strategy is currently on track but I still think it can be blown up any minute, not only by Sinema but also by the fact that the bill needs virtually every Democratic vote in the House. You never know what grandstanding will take place there once just a couple of them get whiff of the idea that they can hold the bill hostage if they want.

[Traveler]

Agree. But I do think the stars are finally aligned. The progs better realize most of the loaf is a lot better than none. Pretty sure Pelosi will keep them in line. None can afford to live down the consequences of blowing up the deal. Bottom line, Manchin is totally on board and Sinnema is on board as well, regardless of her flaking out. The POG has backed themselves into a corner. Either they approve the bipartisan deal, or its gonna get rammed down their throat without them being able to claim any credit. Of course, this is all pretty obvious now, but it wasn't until Manchin finally got his bipartisan vote teed up.

[LFC]

Loads of info coming out on this but it looks like the smaller infrastructure bill is moving forward. In the meantime the Dems look relatively on track to roll on their reconciliation bill. Here's TPM's live coverage.

Senate Democrats released on Monday morning a sweeping $3.5 trillion budget resolution, the legislative vehicle for a vast array of programs that cover both physical and “human” infrastructure.

The text of the resolution is here. Its release comes as the parallel track, bipartisan infrastructure bill cleared a key procedural hurdle on Sunday night.

The Senate vote on that bill is currently scheduled for Tuesday morning — though, like everything else in this process, that’s subject to change.

For the budget resolution, we can expect to see the coming weeks and months be filled with jockeying, as various advocacy groups try to ensure that they don’t miss out on what could turn out to be one of the last opportunities for significant legislative changes for years.

[LFC]

Politico notes that the Dems didn't include raising the debt ceiling in their bill. Good! The overwhelming majority of the debt since 2000 lands squarely in the laps of Republicans. Tax cuts. Medicare Part D. Bush years drunken spending. Meanwhile Obama got rid of many of the Bush tax cuts and the ACA was paid for. (The Bush Bust relief package was not.)

Senate Democrats released a $3.5 trillion budget on Monday morning that doesn't tackle the imminent need to raise the debt ceiling, setting the stage for a dramatic standoff with Republicans this fall.

The exclusion of debt limit language amounts to a political gamble by President Joe Biden's party, with the Treasury Department expected to run dry on its borrowing limit in the coming weeks. Senate Republicans have already warned that they won't give Democrats the votes needed to approach the issue on a bipartisan basis, which means that the debt limit's omission from the budget tees up a future cross-aisle fight over the debt.

From a link in that article here's a little older info on how Dems are looking to pay for it.

Democrats are scouring for savings and new tax money to bankroll their multitrillion-dollar plan of liberal spending priorities, drumming up a list of options ranging from raising the corporate tax rate to lowering prescription drug costs.

The majority party has said the still-forthcoming bill will be “fully paid for.” But it won’t be easy to raise enough money to offset as much as $3.5 trillion in spending — a sum so massive it would eclipse the total GDP of Spain, Australia and Switzerland combined.

“We're gonna pay for $3.5 trillion,” insists Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who is tasked with raising revenue in his role as chair of the Finance Committee. “We expect to be working all through the summer.”

[LFC]

Josh Marshall responds to an op-ed by Alex Pareene in the NYT which is brimming with "oh noes!" and sage prognostications about how the Democrats could have done soooooo much. As Josh points out there is, once again, a massive disconnect from political reality in the piece. It's a little long but worth the read since it's Josh using his analytical strengths.

The much-heralded bipartisan mini-bill actually seems on its way to passage in the Senate. On the critical (and mind-numbing) vote to allow a majority vote, 18 Republicans ended up voting in the affirmative. It now seems very likely that Biden will get his bipartisan deal while also managing to pass close to his entire fiscal, infrastructure and climate agenda. If that happens – and it is likely to happen notwithstanding a few more months of haggling and drama – it will be a major, major accomplishment.

Yet in a guest opinion piece Friday in The New York Times Alex Pareene argued that it is in fact a “pyrrhic victory in a broken Senate.” I’m almost never in the practice of responding to people in the Editors’ Blog. But I wanted to do so in this case because Pareene is a gifted writer and incisive political observer. So it’s important to explain why he’s wrong.

To understand his argument, you should certainly read his essay. But I would summarize his argument in three parts. First, it is highly uncertain that the extensive reconciliation bill will actually pass, in which case you’re left with a bipartisan bill that is vastly insufficient to what is needed on every front and dramatically less than Democrats say is necessary. Second, that same six months-plus effort shows that, despite the rapid-fire party line vote on the COVID relief package, Biden and the Democrats actually haven’t learned the key lesson of the Obama years, which is to act boldly and quickly and not allow Republicans to slow or stymie your progress with bad faith negotiation. Third, the lengthy and agonizing process of negotiating this package, which will end up taking most of 2021, comes at the expense of critical legislation like the PRO Act (unions) and the For the People Act (democracy).

The first point is easiest to deal with because I think Alex is simply wrong. It’s a prediction about the future. He or I could be right. We’ll know in six months. But it seems wildly pessimistic and not backed by the available facts to assume a very large reconciliation bill won’t happen. That’s not just aspirational thinking. The two bills are moving in unison and support for one is premised on promises from other Democrats about support for the other. The mini-bill wouldn’t be moving forward if members of the Democratic caucus weren’t confident in their colleagues’ commitments to support the much larger reconciliation bill. The mini-bill will die in the House regardless if those commitments don’t pan out.

Alex says there’s no policy logic in dividing this package into two bills. And he’s absolutely right about that. But the scale and importance of the package is so great that if that’s the cost of getting it done that really seems fine. If the overall package passes, who cares? Basically the Democratic coalition is in the process of having its cake and eating it too. Those who think it’s important to have a “bipartisan” win get that bipartisan win while they pass the rest of the agenda with 50+1 votes. Like I said, having their cake and eating it too.

The second and third arguments are wrong in more significant and complicated ways. But they both come back to a simple point. Democrats managed only a 50 seat quasi-majority, with the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote. (Looking at you Maine and North Carolina Democrats!) So they need literal unanimity on every vote to do anything. And that 50 vote caucus has at least two members firmly wedded not only to the filibuster but to the cult of bipartisanship and in more ambiguous ways more right-leaning policy positions.

Put sharply, it’s Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema’s fault.

[jackd]

And, as I observed in an earlier comment, there's the 14th Amendment. Obligations of the federal government already incurred cannot be denied.

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2021 22:03:51 GMT jackd said:

And, as I observed in an earlier comment, there's the 14th Amendment. Obligations of the federal government already incurred cannot be denied.

Hmmm. Do you want to take the risk of the Supremes coming up with a fresh interpretation of the 14th? Do ya feel lucky ____?

[LFC]

As we head towards the inevitable right-wing screeching over the Democrats' reconciliation bill I'd like to remind people of the difference between the spending by the two parties. The Dems are trying to figure out how to pay for their bill. Sure there will be economic tricks that ensure it's not really fully funded but I expect it to be funded at a very high percentage.

Let's compare that to the Republicans' passage of Medicare Part D and it's lack of funding.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that spending on Part D benefits will total $96 billion in 2021, representing 13% of net Medicare outlays (net of offsetting receipts from premiums and state transfers).

Financing for Part D comes from general revenues (71%), beneficiary premiums (16%), and state contributions (12%).

I think this sums up Republican spending and revenue cuts. They never pay for anything and haven't for a long time.

[Deleted]

Don't understand why it's so difficult to pay for anything, especially because we have been doing so for decades. Sell the debt to the world. The biggest American export. American debt is the financial instrument that quantifies the amorphous idea of security and stability. The world is buying that from America with cash. The debt paper is just vehicle of transaction. On our side the ROI easily pays for the debt servicing cost.

See?! 

[jackd]

Not risking a bad interpretation of the 14th Amendment by this court is leaving that bad interpretation in place by default.

[Deleted]

Birthright citizenship only for the right kind of births. You're now warned.

[jackd]

I assume that's a joke.

[LFC]

Aug 10, 2021 19:20:19 GMT jackd said:

I assume that's a joke.

It's so tough to tell anymore.

[LFC]

The Senate vote was 69-30. That's a lot more Republicans than I expected. Now on to the bulk of what is needed!

[LFC]

Senate Democrats are still moving forward.

Hit The Ground Running
Democratic senators early Wednesday morning approved the $3.5 trillion budget resolution for their massive package to push sweeping changes to the country’s “soft” infrastructure, including health care and education.

• After the vote, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that his caucus “just took a massive step towards restoring the middle class in the 21st Century.”

• While he voted for the budget resolution, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) continues to throw cold water on the size of the package, calling it “simply irresponsible.”

[LFC]

Madame Speaker must once again show her pimp hand.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) remained unmoved after moderates in her caucus threatened to withhold their votes on the reconciliation budget resolution unless she brings the bipartisan infrastructure bill to the floor first.

“This is no time for amateur hour,” she said on a Monday leadership call, per a source familiar with the conversation. “Biden’s agenda needs to show the results that we know it can produce.”

She added that there is no way for the bills to pass unless they proceed in the order that she, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and President Biden laid out months ago.

“For the first time, America’s children have leverage,” she said on the call. “I will not surrender that leverage.”

A group of House moderates wrote a letter to Pelosi Friday, saying that families’ livelihoods couldn’t wait for “months” of delays.

“We will not consider voting for a budget resolution until the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes the House and is signed into law,” nine House Democrats wrote. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), who has a predilection for bucking party leadership in threats if not in execution, seems to be leading the charge.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has previously warned that a majority of its members will vote down the bipartisan bill if it’s brought to the House floor before the Senate approves a reconciliation package.

I cringe at what the Democratically House would have looked like if the inexperienced and not particularly bright had succeeded in ousting her. The Republicans would have run them over like they weren't even there. Thanks heavens there's a strong, firm hand on the tiller.

[goldenvalley]

Aug 17, 2021 15:38:17 GMT LFC said:

Madame Speaker must once again show her pimp hand.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) remained unmoved after moderates in her caucus threatened to withhold their votes on the reconciliation budget resolution unless she brings the bipartisan infrastructure bill to the floor first.

“This is no time for amateur hour,” she said on a Monday leadership call, per a source familiar with the conversation. “Biden’s agenda needs to show the results that we know it can produce.”

She added that there is no way for the bills to pass unless they proceed in the order that she, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and President Biden laid out months ago.

“For the first time, America’s children have leverage,” she said on the call. “I will not surrender that leverage.”

A group of House moderates wrote a letter to Pelosi Friday, saying that families’ livelihoods couldn’t wait for “months” of delays.

“We will not consider voting for a budget resolution until the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes the House and is signed into law,” nine House Democrats wrote. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), who has a predilection for bucking party leadership in threats if not in execution, seems to be leading the charge.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has previously warned that a majority of its members will vote down the bipartisan bill if it’s brought to the House floor before the Senate approves a reconciliation package.

I cringe at what the Democratically House would have looked like if the inexperienced and not particularly bright had succeeded in ousting her. The Republicans would have run them over like they weren't even there. Thanks heavens there's a strong, firm hand on the tiller.

This is the first time in a while that Congress members have actually had a bill to work with.  The Covid relief bills don't count because that was an emergency and even most Republicans didn't haggle over them. There are many new people in Congress and they're not accustomed to compromise and, dare I say it, pork to bring home to their districts.  They may find their ideology and the lure of bringing something concrete (ar ar) to their districts conflict. We'll see what they value more.