NANCY PELOSI’S INFRASTUCTURE TASK: TOASTERS, CAR WASHES, AND TIGHTROPES

 In the motion picture Apollo 13, as the crippled spacecraft hurtled home after the aborted moon landing, the astronauts tackled the delicate job of powering up their frozen command module after days of what amounted to cold storage in space. Astronaut Jack Swigert, portrayed by actor Kevin Bacon, noticed condensation forming on many of the craft’s instruments as the crew turned them on. “What’s the deal on this stuff shorting out?” Swigert asked mission control. “Just have to take it one step at a time, Jack,” came the reply. Swigert then said, to no one in particular, “This is like trying to drive a toaster through a car wash.”    

Almost every American wants improved infrastructure. People know that we suffer

from crumbling roads and bridges and that many countries in the industrialized world with which the United States competes are far outspending us in that arena. Democrats and Republicans, who often can’t concur on whether the sky is blue, agree about infrastructure. 

That being the case, why has getting infrastructure legislation through Congress been so difficult? As work on the issue resumes, it’s clear the path has gotten harder, not easier.  The reasons lie in the culture of the two political parties. If the United States is

going to get an infrastructure package this fall – and this year may represent the last, best chance for a while – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have to pull off something like driving that toaster through a car wash.

Pelosi’s Divided Caucus

There’s an old saying in politics that “My enemies I can handle, but God save me from my friends.” That’s the source of Pelosi’s infrastructure dilemma. She doesn’t need Republicans for much of anything. Democrats have the majority in the House, though it’s slimmer than before the 2020 election. If all Democrats vote for any infrastructure bill it passes, pure and simple. But it’s not that simple. Pelosi must keep the Democrats pulling in the same direction. In this instance, they’re the house divided.

Two factions make up the Democratic caucus

in the House. First, there are moderates like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and representatives from competitive, swing districts like Lizzie Fletcher of Houston and Tim Ryan of Ohio. Then, there are progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna Pressley from Massachusetts.  The two factions get along sometimes and sometimes they don’t. They stuck together and passed the Biden COVID relief plan, but the love fest may end over infrastructure.   

The Senate has passed what’s usually called the “bipartisan” infrastructure bill, a $1 trillion plan that emphasizes traditional projects like roads and bridges. A bipartisan group of senators hashed it out and 19 Republicans supported it when it came up for a vote.

Moderates in the  House Democratic caucus want to pass that bill immediately and send it to President Biden for signature. Not so fast, say the progressives.

 

“Human” Infrastructure

Biden originally proposed an infrastructure package that not only included what’s in the bipartisan bill, but also significant new

spending on health care, education, immigration, child poverty, and climate change. Republicans, including those in the senate who voted for the bipartisan bill, oppose these programs. In trying to make sure an infrastructure bill passes, Biden agreed on

splitting the measure in two –

the bipartisan bill containing

traditional infrastructure spending

that could pass with enough

Republican support to break a senate filibuster and a bigger nontraditional bill Democrats might have a chance at passing with only   Democratic votes through what’s called budget reconciliation.

The plan had been for the House to act on the bipartisan bill, leaving the president and

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer the job of wooing moderate Democrats like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema. They might vote for the

“human” infrastructure bill and they might not.  Both say they don’t like the cost, about $3.5 trillion, though they have voted with the other Democratic senators on the procedural measures that allow consideration.

 

Progressives and Pelosi’s Tightrope Act

Democratic moderates, desperately seeking something they can run on in the perilous 2022 midterms, don’t want to chance that no infrastructure bill gets to the president’s desk this year. They’re afraid if the bipartisan bill doesn’t pass quickly, chances increase that no bill passes this year, the issue will become embroiled in next year’s campaigning, and all the work will have been for naught.

Progressives, however, want a guarantee the “human” bill will pass before they commit on

the bipartisan bill. They’ve concluded the best way of assuring that outcome is not voting for the bipartisan bill unless the senate first passes the “human” bill.  Pelosi must walk this tightrope – in essence drive Swigert’s toaster though the congressional car wash – so that an infrastructure package gets enacted in this Congress.  She knows that if Republicans take the House next year, no major legislation will get passed. It’s now or never.

       

Both progressives and moderates want things in the two bills. While some moderates have reservations about the price tag – and the taxes – associated with the “human” bill, most are generally sympathetic to its objectives. But the battle is about what the Democratic Party truly stands for. What hill will it die on? Both sides are heavily invested in their objectives and that’s what makes Pelosi’s job so difficult. She’s got to find a way through that car wash.                   

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.

BIDEN ABROAD: RESETTING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

In our October 28, 2019, post one of us saw “repair[ing] our alliances around the world thereby protecting our national security in a way consistent with our values and those of our allies” as a major task of any Democrat elected president in 2020. We’ve consistently emphasized the importance of demonstrating America’s global leadership after the decline caused by the Trump administration’s

dysfunctional foreign policy.  With Joe Biden just back from his first foreign trip as president, now seems a good time for looking at 46’s progress on that task of restoring American preeminence in the world.

 

The Man and His Team

Biden arrived in the White House superbly

qualified for taking on foreign policy challenges. He served as chairman or ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 12 years. Foreign policy comprised a major part of his portfolio during his eight years as Barack Obama’s vice president. He’s on a first name basis with many foreign leaders.

Biden picked an experienced foreign policy team. State Secretary Antony Blinken had key foreign

policy jobs in both the Clinton and Obama administrations and served as Democratic staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Defense

Secretary Lloyd Austin, a respected retired four star U.S. Army general, commanded troops in Iraq and led the U.S. Central Command. Jake Sullivan

served on President Obama’s staff and was Biden’s national security advisor as vice president. United Nations Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield

worked for 35 years in the State Department.  If experience matters, Biden’s team passes the test.

 

To This Point

Despite raging domestic problems like the covid pandemic, its resulting economic dislocation, and

his agenda on infrastructure, climate, and racial justice, Biden moved quickly on some important foreign policy fronts:

·    Emphasizing alliances – Trump disdained NATO, ridiculed the joint defense aspects of the Atlantic alliance, and managed to have nearly all the major European leaders laughing at him in public at international meetings. Biden has pledged his backing for NATO, most importantly reaffirming the mutual security aspect of the NATO treaty that makes an attack on one NATO member an attack

on all. European leaders like England’s Boris Johnson, Germany’s Angela Merkel, and France’s Emmanuel Macron welcomed the new American president with open arms.

·    Resetting the relationship with Russia – Biden met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Both said it wasn’t unpleasant or confrontational, but Biden clearly aimed to let Putin know he won’t find the same coziness and acquiescence he found with Donald Trump.        

·    International organizations and cooperation – Biden put the U.S. back in the Paris Climate Accords, stopped the American withdrawal from the World Health Organization, and returned the

United States to the U.N. Human Rights Council. Participation in these  organizations assures the U. S. a voice on major international issues and helps prevent other nations from taking actions that affect the U.S. when we’ve had no say.

·    Getting out of Afghanistan – Americans of all political persuasions want an end to our military

presence there. We went there in 2001 in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. We spent $2 trillion. About 240,000 people lost their lives. The only real debate has been over timing of withdrawal. Trump pledged we’d get our remaining 2500 troops out by May 2021. Biden did a review of the situation and announced we’re leaving by September 11. Maybe it’s the right thing to do, maybe it’s not. It apparently will happen with the agreement of most Americans.

·   Fine tuning American policy – Biden has changed many of Trump’s policies, but not all of them. On

China, for example, Biden will  keep in place tariffs Trump imposed and continue diplomatic pressure on the Chinese over alleged atrocities committed against Uyghur Muslims.  In the Middle East, however, he’s resuming financial aid for the Palestinians that

Trump cut off. He’s reaffirmed American support for a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a longstanding U.S. policy Trump essentially abandoned. Biden also ended American backing for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. 

·    Launching a global anti-corruption effort – The Biden administration’s first National Security Study Memorandum established fighting corruption as a core national security interest. The memorandum ordered that federal agencies prioritize efforts at confronting financial crimes. Cybercrimes and “strategic corruption” by foreign entities and governments will receive new attention.    

 

What it Means for Americans

Biden believes ordinary Americans have a stake in foreign policy beyond simple national security. “He’s always seen foreign policy as part of the overall interest process of our country,” says

former defense secretary and Republican  Senator Chuck Hagel, a long-time Biden friend.  “It’s something that is very much a part of who he is ….” International trade, the pandemic, and basic economic concerns motivate Biden. He sees a robust American role in the world as part of his effort to hold on to the working-class voters who helped him get elected. In that sense, Biden’s foreign and domestic policies are bound up with each other.

The G7 meeting and the face-to-face with Putin

represent steps in Biden’s early efforts at returning the U.S. to its premier place in the world. He’s been in office five months. Five  months will

neither undo all the damage Trump did nor accomplish Biden’s long-term objectives. He has made a promising start, and for that Americans can rest a bit easier.

DONALD TRUMP’S LEGAL TROUBLES: CLOSING IN?

In late May news broke that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. had impaneled a special

grand jury in his investigation of former President Donald Trump’s business activities. Since then, it has become increasingly likely Trump and/or his top executives could soon face criminal indictments. Reporting

indicates prosecutors have several Trump confidants in their sights, including his main money man, Alan Weisselberg.  Reportedly, Vance has targeted tuition payments the Trump organization made for Weisselberg relatives as potential tax evasion.

On May 20, New York Attorney General Leticia

James announced her office would also  investigate Trump. A Vance-James combination could spell real trouble for Trump. She has a reputation for aggressively prosecuting political figures.  

The prospect of indictments against Trump’s closest business associates, and even the former president himself, raised the prospect of what a criminal trial of a former chief executive would look and feel like. That inspired differing responses from the three of us.

 

Woodson: Action and the Matter of Process

Throughout his presidency Trump demonstrated 

repeatedly that he aspired to be an autocrat.

Congress refused to act. 

                         

Losing the presidential election Trump incited an 

insurrection. Congress refused to act. 

Trump is a clear and present danger to democracy. But Republicans continue to follow him. It now appears that someone will act.

                                      

Donald Trump’s criminal misdeeds may finally undo him. Prosecutors in New York seem to think they have enough evidence to criminally indict and convict him. 

In prosecuting their cases, they must be careful  not

to deny Trump – or even appear to deny him - due process of law and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Due process and the presumption of innocence  are

fundamental rules of law in our democracy. Trump and his supporters will surely holler “foul” at the slightest provocation. The criminal proceedings must be meticulous, solid, and above reproach.

The prosecutors must demonstrate that they believe in the rule of law and not violate it in their eagerness to secure a conviction. If Trump behaved in any way in his business life as he has in public life, there will be plenty of evidence with which to criminally convict.

The prosecutors might want to take a page out  of

the playbook of Jerry Blackwell and Steve Schleicher, prosecutors in the Derek Chauvin trial. Let meticulous preparation and the rule of law be the order of the day.

 

Henry: Smoke and Fire

How does the American justice system handle a criminal defendant with 70 million loyal followers

who believe everything he says? That’s  the key question for me in contemplating the criminal probe of the former president now proceeding in New York. Since Trump’s 2016 campaign began a plethora of potentially criminal allegations swirled

around him – possible tax evasion, corruption in his foundation, alleged payoffs to porn stars with whom he supposedly had affairs, and

more. The list grows through the reporting on the current criminal probe. With as much smoke wafting in the air, isn’t there fire in the vicinity?

Then there’s the matter of Trump’s associates. The names have become familiar – Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, et al.  All have incurred the wrath of the law because of things that involve Trump. Could the boss have been innocent in each and every one of their cases?  

But, Trump was president and that makes this situation unique. Yes, Richard Nixon had a collection of criminals around him, but Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon. He was never prosecuted for his crimes. Many of his associates went to jail, but Nixon went about his business.  Joe Biden certainly isn’t giving Trump a pardon, so the system must deal with him, with the backdrop of his widespread public support. That’s new for America.    

                       

Rob: A Meaningful Moment?

As much as my Democratic heart flutters at the

thought of Donald Trump in an orange jump suit and the Secret Service figuring out the logistics of protecting a former president in the Big House, that prospect isn’t what intrigues

me most about Trump’s legal troubles. Whatever possibility exists he might be called to account for the crimes he may have committed is one of the best things that could happen to the United States.

As a lawyer, I agree about letting the process play out, trusting in the rule of law, and all that business. Trump enjoys the same presumption of innocence as any criminal defendant.  Having said that, the country’s legal system would benefit from tangible evidence that the law applies to everyone. Trump

avoided indictment in connection with the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election because of the Justice Department prohibition on prosecuting a sitting president. We were told Trump remained subject to the law once he left office. Now, apparently, we’ll find out if that’s really true. It would do the country good to know that it is.

Politically, Trump has caused all kinds of mischief since he left office. He controls congressional Republicans who have taken unfortunate actions at

his behest, like blocking a commission that would have investigated the January 6 insurrection. Trump recently claimed he’ll soon be “reinstated” into the presidency, a ludicrous proposition. If nothing else, criminal indictments should occupy Trump’s attention, leaving him less time for such nonsense. Our politics will benefit greatly from such a respite.