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.

TREES, TRUMP, AND CLIMATE CHANGE

We told ourselves as we planned this blog post we should write about something other than President Trump. We kicked around several ideas, eventually settling on climate change, a pressing issue to which we haven’t paid enough attention. This piece concerns climate change but, even writing about that, we still find ourselves writing about Trump.  In

discussing climate change, we can't ignore his short-sighted policies, including pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accords. Because of the climate-related disasters that have unfolded in recent days, the urgency of electing a president who will attack the problem, not ignore or make it worse, just increased.

First, there’s the incredible destruction wrought by Hurricane Dorian, which dealt the Bahamas a devastating blow and struck some

Devastation of Hurricane Dorian August 2019

coastal areas in the United States. The Bahamas will recover only after years and massive aid from the world community. We know the American people will help,    through generous private contributions and individual actions. What the U.S. government will do under Trump remains uncertain. He balked at doing more than the minimum for Puerto Rico after two hurricanes slammed that island back-to-back, and the people most affected there are U.S. citizens. Scientists say the damage from ever-more-powerful hurricanes like Dorian will only get worse in years to come.

Second, fires continue raging in the Amazon jungle in Brazil. That country’s new Trumpian - president, Jair Bolsonaro,  emphasizes    de-

velopment and seems indifferent about the fires. World leaders chastised Brazil about the destruction, but Bolsonaro rejected aid    from

the G-7 nations for helping fight the fires unless French President Emmanuel Macron apologized for what Bolsonaro considered as

insults to Brazil. Bolsonaro objected to Macron’s insistence the fires are all the world’s concern, not just Brazil’s and suggested Macron infringed Brazil’s sovereignty. Some scientists say losing the trees in the Amazon rain forest, and the underbrush that goes along with them, could have catastrophic consequences for large parts of the planet.

              

The Tree Solution

Among all this bad environmental news comes a potentially hopeful idea. If you want to do  something about climate change, plant

a tree! A study conducted by a group of scientists based in Switzerland and released in July suggested planting one trillion trees could cut atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by 25%. Release of the study unleashed optimism the world might have found a climate change solution almost everyone can get behind, reducing the conflict between supporters of fossil fuels and those who want wider use of clean energy like wind and solar.

Critics of the Swiss study dashed that hope quickly, saying (1) reforestation alone won’t solve the climate crisis and (2) since adult, full grown trees diminish carbon emissions the most, such a planting program wouldn’t have the desired effect soon enough. These critics reminded us we’re running out of time. They added that private property rights and other land use issues could reduce the effectiveness of reforestation programs.

How Trees Help

Even those who recognized the one trillion tree solution isn’t a magic bullet for the climate change problem acknowledge trees make a difference:

          

*Trees absorb large amounts of carbon, about 48 pounds a year for mature trees. Such trees release enough oxygen for four people.

*Trees protect coastal areas from flooding and storms by slowing storm surge and absorbing excess water.

*Trees anchor other plants and provide wildlife habitat.

*Trees – surprise, surprise – provide shade, keeping the earth cooler.

Some countries have moved forward with anti-climate change programs based on tree planting. Ireland, for example, recently announced it will plant 440 million trees

between now and 2040, about 22 million a year. That nation will also impose a carbon tax, increase its investment in renewable energy, and enact land use and agriculture rules that should reduce carbon emissions. Elsewhere, Ethiopia planted 350 million trees in one day as part of a reforestation program and India planted 50 million trees in one day in 2016.

Ethiopia Tree Count Map

                                                                                             Photo courtesy of Mother Nature Network

Needed: Comprehensive Approaches

Planting massive numbers of trees apparently won’t, by itself, solve the climate crisis.  That’s

probably a good thing, since knowing that discourages the idea a simple solution exists for this complex problem. Indeed, some Republicans who once denied we have a man-made climate change problem, now grudgingly acknowledge the situation, but assert a technological solution will appear in time. That, if true, would avoid hard choices   about

energy and spare the fossil fuel industry and its GOP-friendly executives (and donors) the reckoning that may come if climate change weans the United States off oil, gas, and coal. The fact no magic bullet solution apparently exists just means we should attack the problem comprehensively with a combination of government regulation and incentives, along with market-based solutions that reflect consumer demand and entrepreneurial innovation.

We don’t view low-tech solutions like tree planting campaigns as mutually exclusive with the development of solar energy, wind power, and electric cars that reduce carbon emissions. A lot of things - reliance on internal combustion engines for transportation, coal-fired electric generation, and deforestation driven by overbuilding and urban sprawl - created this problem. Fixing it will require more than one solution.

Individuals, acting alone, can’t solve this crisis. Every American over 18 can, however, do two things. First, plant a tree. Second, vote in 2020 for a president who will get the United States moving on climate change. 

         

 

        

IF WE RULED THE WORLD: JWW AS DICTATORS

An old Temptations hit - / Can't Get Next to You, penned by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong - embodies notions of what each of us might do with complete power over the affairs of humankind. Suppose we could even alter the laws of  nature, as the song contemplated.

For those who don't remember the song (or are too young to have known it when it reached

number one on the pop chart in 1969), we'll recap. A smitten young man laments the fact that though he possesses amazing, magical powers ("I can make it rain whenever I want it to ... I can live forever if I so desire") he can't "get next to" the object of his affections. What would we do with such power? What if we were dictator?

                           

Given our interest in public affairs, perhaps it's not surprising that when asked to list three things each would do if we became dictator and wielded unlimited powers, we focused on the public sphere.

Henry:  Humanitarian Supreme

• I would order immediate and simultaneous destruction of all weapons and weapons delivery systems. While I might need more time for defining "weapon," I can say now I would focus on weapons of war that can massively and randomly destroy human life. We could start with weapons of mass destruction and work from there, whichleads to my second edict.

• I would establish a worldwide commission with a peace agenda. This commission would study peace initiatives and take all actions necessary for implementing them. 

• Finally, I would take every action needed for assuring food and medical supplies reach people in need of them, in both emergency and non-emergency situations. No one in the world should go hungry or suffer from illness because of a lack of medical supplies and treatment.

Woodson: Fixing the Public Square

• Prejudices - racial, ethnic, gender-based, religious, age, sexual orientation - rob our society of its vitality and divert attention and resources from pursuit of our highest aspirations. When I become dictator, prejudices are all gone.

• A lack of education arrests personal development promotes income and wealth inequality and
  
  destroys economic competiveness. As dictator, I would create an educational system that permits everyone to attain the level of education to which they aspire.

• I would focus my dictatorship on America, so I'd seek improvement in the U.S. political system. In a democracy, that means paying attention to elections.  As a dictator, I would institute a system of public
  
  financing of elections, eliminating all private money from the campaign finance system.

Rob: Ignorance, Sports, Climate

• America's racial problem lies, first and foremost, in ignorance. Too many people don't know America's racial past. Too many who do prefer forgetting it and "moving on." To undo this ignorance, I’d require that before getting a driver's license or other government-issued identification or receiving any government benefit, every person spend six weeks in a camp reading our three favorite books about  the history of our racial dysfunction: The Half Has Never Been Told, The Warmth of Other Suns, and The Color of Law.  Can't read? We'll teach you, and then you can do your six weeks.

• As a college sports fan, I abhor the "great man" culture  surrounding many top college football and basketball programs. This culture flourishes, in part, because of a lack of transparency. Coaches
  
  become god-like figures, operating behind closed doors and with hyper­ controlled media access. The coach can do no wrong and is barely accountable to anyone. This led to the Penn State sexual abuse scandal and, I believe, contributed to player injuries and deaths behind closed doors at other institutions.  Sunshine being the best disinfectant, when I become dictator, all college athletic practices, locker rooms, and other facilities will be open to the media and the public.

• Climate change represents one of our most significant public policy challenges of the next two or three decades. Despite overwhelming scientific
  
  evidence, climate change deniers still populate every level of government. When I become dictator, every elected and appointed official who will not certify a commitment to fighting climate change must spend six weeks as {a) a firefighter in the American West, {b) filling sand bags in the flooded Midwest, {c) working on construction of seawalls and barriers in Florida, or {d) monitoring glaciers melting in the Artic.

In a sense, our accounts of what we'd do as dictator represent our wish lists for America and the world. Thinking of it this way offers a different perspective and makes us ask how we could make these things happen. They are fantasies, of course, but think of what life could be like if we, as a nation, and as a world, accomplished them. There's nothing wrong with dreaming.