CRUNCH TIME ON BI-PARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE: CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR JOE BIDEN

The American people need an infrastructure program because the roads and bridges they use every day are crumbling around them and

because the country needs it to remain competitive with the world’s other industrialized nations. President Biden needs an infrastructure bill that keeps his

administration’s positive momentum and shows ordinary citizens government can work for them. Congressional Democrats need infrastructure

legislation as a signature accomplishment they can run on in 2022. Moderate Republicans need infrastructure legislation so they can show their voters the virtue of being something other than the party of “no.”

So, with so many divergent groups needing something done on infrastructure, why has it become one of the heaviest legislative lifts in recent times? The answer lies in the complex web of political alliances that have put the president in a precarious position. The dilemma illustrates the difficulty America faces in getting things done in an era of extreme partisanship.

A Deal – Maybe

After weeks of talking, the president and a group of senators from both parties announced agreement on a $1 trillion infrastructure package that supposedly has the backing of 11 Republican senators (Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Rounds, Graham, Young, Tillis, and Moran) and two key Democratic moderates, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. The unspoken reality was that Democrats would still try to pass the rest of Biden’s original $2.3 trillion package through budget reconciliation, meaning no need for Republican votes in the

Senate.  Biden first said he would veto the smaller bill if he didn’t get both. The 11 Republicans who were on record as supporting the bill balked and the president walked back that statement. The dust up showed the political peril that infests the whole infrastructure issue.

                                

           

With Manchin and Sinema (and maybe some other Democratic senators) apparently caring more about the appearance of bipartisanship

than the substance of an infrastructure package,  Biden now finds himself trying to thread a needle that can sew together waring elements in his own party with Republicans who might agree to pass something.

Progressive Democrats, particularly in the House, have begun expressing exasperation

with the whole idea of a bipartisan deal. A few, like Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive  Caucus, think the whole bipartisan

effort has been “wasted.” A few in the group have hinted they won’t vote for the kind of narrow bill worked out with Senate Republicans. Given the slim Democratic majority in the House, Biden can’t lose many Democratic votes in the lower chamber, since it’s not clear any Republicans will vote “yes.”

 

Shortcomings

Make no mistake, the deal with Republicans

has major weaknesses.  First,  it’s paid for with gimmicks – smoke and mirrors ideas that placate Republican refusal to raise taxes on the  wealthy. Second,

it doesn’t address a number of real needs Biden’s original big bill took head on.

Paying for the smaller bill will come from a combination of things like unused unemployment benefits money and  increased tax collections generated by a bigger IRS

budget. We’re not keen on that idea in particular. Experience suggests the yield from such an effort often comes up short. Beyond that, the country must address income inequality and the fact the wealthy currently don’t pay their fair share in taxes.  Even without the country’s massive infrastructure need, those earning over $400,000 a year should pay more.

Most experts who’ve analyzed the infrastructure proposals think the bill Biden and the bipartisan group agreed on doesn’t really tackle climate change. With the recent heatcatastrophe in the Pacific Northwest and an already raging Atlantic hurricane season (more named storms earlier than ever), we can’t imagine anyone thinking we don’t face a real climate crisis. Other shortcomings in the bill agreed on concern not enough emphasis on high speed rail and not enough money for improving the nation’s electric grid. That’s especially needed if more electric vehicles and devices come online in transportation and other industries.

 

Who Do You Trust?

Part of the dilemma Biden now faces rests in the fact he must deal with both outright enemies in the other party and skeptics in his own. Most Republicans in both houses of Congress don’t want to do anything except

obstruct him. Some House Democrats now don’t trust him to follow through and fight for a bill based on reconciliation, so some now appear reluctant to give him the smaller bill as a start.

Biden may have to wait until after the 2022 mid-terms before he can complete this process. Democratic prospects don’t look bad now for picking up a seat or two in the Senate. For one thing Republicans must defend 20 seats, Democrats only 14. For another, Republican incumbents in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina aren’t seeking re-election, potentially giving Democrats opportunities. That might diminish the importance of problem Democrats like Manchin and Sinema and pave the way for a doable reconciliation bill with tax increases and meaningful spending on pressing needs like climate change and electric grid development. But, Democrats are in real danger of losing the House in 2022 because of redistricting, Republican voter suppression, and the historical fact a president’s party usually loses seats in the mid-term elections right after that president takes office.

One irony in all this resides in the fact Biden’s original proposal enjoys 68% support among the people. Republicans in Congress apparently listen only to the 29% opposed.

Infrastructure provides Biden with a major test and a real opportunity. If he gets his two bills, he will have done his own party and the country a major service. Maybe he simply lives to fight another day with a new Congress. In today’s political circumstances, that can rank as a major accomplishment.

WASHINGTON, D.C.: TIME TO MAKE IT THE 51ST STATE

The issue of statehood for Washington, D.C.  has resurfaced with new urgency. This year,the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, as in 2020, passed legislation making the District of Columbia  the 51^st state. Prospects for passage in the almost evenly divided Senate aren’t good, making it unlikely the country will get its first new state in 62 years.

We decided we should tackle the issue because (1) the history isn’t well understood and (2) the matter has become so entangled with racially-tinged partisan politics, it deserves examination in the context of the country’s social justice/racial equality

discussion. Though we each support D.C. statehood, we don’t come  at the issue from the same perspective, so we’ll offer different approaches.   

 

Rob and Henry:  An Idea Whose Time Has 

Come

Why hasn’t Washington, D.C. been a state all along? We mostly can thank James Madison. He contended in Federalist No. 43 that for its own maintenance and safety, the nation’s capital should remain separate and distinct from any other state. He feared “an imputation of awe or influence” dishonorable and unsatisfactory to the other states in the union.

Fair enough. Maybe that rationale made

sense in the late 1700s when the exercise of power by the few people living in the nation’s capital might bring down on them the wrath of the other states. That hardly seems likely now, given the strength of the American military and the difficulty the states would have in taking unified action against Washington.

Opponents of D.C. statehood hardly ever trot out Madison’s argument now. They rely on tradition (that’s how it’s always been), nonsense like Washington’s small geographical size and lack of certain “amenities” (one opponent noted it doesn’t have a landfill), and blatant political concerns (like fear of adding two Democratic senators).

We find the history worth studying because it also shows Americans understood from the

beginning the fundamental unfairness of subjecting Washington’s citizens to the same taxes, military service obligations, and other federally imposed duties the rest of us have, but without representation in Congress (Washington has a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives, but no representation at all in the U. S. Senate). 

Early in the country’s history political pundits recognized the problem. Augustus Woodward, writing in 1801 under the name Epaminondas, suggested giving Washington one senator and House seats based on population. Over 150 constitutional amendments and  bills have

been proposed since that would allow Washington representation in Congress. Since the mid-1980s, members of Congress have offered more than a dozen statehood bills. Until the 2020 and 2021 measures that passed the House, the bills failed. Most never got a vote in either chamber.

                                      

Support for D.C. statehood has become imbedded in the Democratic Party’s agenda. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, the last three Democratic presidents, each endorsed the idea. In November 2016, 79% of D.C. residents voted ‘yes’ on a statehood referendum.

            

As we noted, the D.C. statehood issue now

mostly turns on race and party politics. Washington’s population is  about 47% black and the city votes overwhelmingly Democratic in presidential elections. Republicans who oppose D.C. statehood will talk about political “imbalance.” Most won’t, however, come out and say they just don’t want two more black Democratic senators, even if race in many cases underlies their opposition. 

               

We have a hard time seeing a basis for

opposing D.C.  statehood, given the fairness issue -- we did fight a war with England over ‘taxation without representation,’ didn’t we? As for Washington’s characteristics, while it would be the smallest state geographically, it wouldn’t

have the smallest population (fewer people live in Vermont and Wyoming). It would,  however, have the highest median household income among the states, the highest per capita GDP, and the best educated populace, since almost 60% of its residents hold a bachelor’s degree and 34% have graduate degrees. This is an idea whose time has come.                

Woodson Has His Say

The District of Columbia (D.C.) consists of 712,000 U.S. Citizens – 45.1 percent black, 42.2 white, 5.2 Hispanic, 4.1 percent Asian, 0.2 percent Native American and Alaska Native, 0.1 percent Pacific Islander and 3.1 percent from two or more races. All are bound by the Constitution to fight the country’s wars and pay taxes. There are more residents in D.C. than are in Wyoming and Vermont. D.C’s

population is practically equal to that of Alaska, and North Dakota. Each of these states has two senators and one representative in Congress. Because D.C. is not a state, it has no senators or voting representative in Congress.

Should D.C. be granted Statehood? The U. S. House of Representatives thinks so. In April, it voted 208 – 216 to grant D.C. Statehood. Now it must get through the Senate.

            

Granting D.C. Statehood has the benefit of giving this diverse population what they have voted for through a free and fair election. In a 2016 referendum, 79 % of D.C’s residents voted for Statehood. The principle of  “one

man, one vote” should be respected. Granting D.C. Statehood would say to other countries around the world that America believes in democracy no matter the racial makeup of the constituency. Also, because of the diversity of the constituency (the most diverse in the country) D.C. would serve as secure senatorial seats for racial progressives to advance policy discussions and legislation on race, ethnicity, and nationality. Because these officials are almost certain to be persons of color,  it offers the country the opportunity to regularly have brown and black 

faces in high places. The

country could use more of this symbolism. While 

this representation would be more than mere symbolism, symbolism does matter. That would be good for us and our children.

IS THIS DIFFERENT? CIVIL UNREST OR REVOLUTION?

If you watch much cable news, you often hear the question posed to guests appearing about

the George Floyd case and the ensuing demonstrations, “Is this different?” The question recognizes that there’ve been protests before about police misconduct and racial injustice, but many argue things didn’t significantly change. The hosts

ask if the length of time the protests have continued and the diversity of the crowds means something might happen this time that hasn’t happened in recent history.

We believe the “Is this different question?” suggests a number of answers, depending on

how the questioner defines “different.” If the question speaks to short term reform of police practices, that might warrant one answer. If the question refers to long term, systemic change regarding race relations,

income and wealth inequality, and universal medical care for all Americans a much different answer seems in order. Today, we wade into the question of policing.

A partisan divide: What did you expect?

Democrats and Republicans in Congress have

put out police reform proposals and  might vote on them soon in the houses of Congress they control. Some reports say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi already has the votes for a legislative package spearheaded by the Congressional Black Caucus. The measures would: 

Senate Republicans, led by the GOP’s only black senator, South Carolina’s Tim Scott,

and Jim Lankford of Oklahoma, put out their plan. Its highlights include: 

Republicans aren’t sure if they’d ever  accept

codification of a use-of-force standard, like a chokehold ban. Overall, the Republican plan focuses on record keeping and transparency, while Democrats prefer specific limits on police conduct. Representatives of both sides offered early conciliatory talk about the possibility of compromise and suggested patience during the legislative process. That’s admirable. The question of getting the gap bridged remains.

The absence of prohibitions against chokeholds and no-knock warrants in the Republican proposal stand out. Qualified immunity reform might become the biggest sticking point. Some Republicans called that Democratic proposal a “poison pill,” something Republicans could never accept. Scott said any “poison pill” in the legislation means getting nothing.

Waiting for the Election  

We don’t doubt members of Congress have an obligation to try getting something done now. Things keep happening. With George Floyd barely buried, another high-profile case developed in Atlanta, where a white police officer killed another black man, Rayshard Brooks, by shooting him in the

back as he fled after a scuffle with officers. The optics in the Brooks case were different than what happened to Floyd in Minneapolis, but the bottom line remained the same – a police officer used deadly force when reasonable alternatives existed. Experienced law enforcement observers said no reason existed for shooting Brooks. He wasn’t armed with a deadly weapon and wasn’t likely to get away or harm anyone else since police had his driver’s license and vehicle. 

 

The Brooks case and the continuing protests highlighted the need for action but the truth remains that with Donald Trump in the White House and Republicans in control of the U.S. Senate, passing the kind of bill Democrats want just may not happen this year. That puts them to a choice – accept something like what the Republicans now propose or wait things out until the election in the hope of getting a senate majority and winning the presidency. Then, Democrats could pass their version of police reform legislation.

The Long Run

Whatever happens with police reform measures, the debate about race and whether this moment is “different” will continue.  Whether or not this is “different” depends on changes in the heads and hearts of Americans and in the structure of institutions. How different it becomes depends first on individual decisions

Americans of all races make about their own attitudes and behaviors concerning racial issues. Do white people finally recognize the role white supremacy has played in American society and decide they will help eradicate its effects? Will people of color embrace the idea of equality is within reach? How “different” this time becomes also depends on public policy decisions political leaders, businesses, and institutions make in the weeks, months, and years ahead in response to the protests.

The debate over police reform constitutes a significant part of our current racial angst, but it’s not all the problem. As the developing controversies over income and wealth inequality, the lack of universal health care

coverage, names of military bases and monuments in cities and on college campuses, even university alma maters, make clear, this is a multi-faceted problem and we have miles to go before we sleep.