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.

THE BIDEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN: LET THE BATTLE BEGIN

 

Elected officials have talked about it for years, but the Democratic-controlled Congress appears on the verge of tackling the country’s infrastructure problems.  President Biden unveiled a plan for

putting over $2 trillion into upgrading the nation’s crumbling bridges, roads, seaports, airports, transportation facilities, housing, broadband, power grid deficiencies, and school construction. Biden wants a good part of the money

allocated to clean energy projects, like  support for electrical vehicles, wind generated power, and solar energy.  He called his plan a “once-in-a-generation investment” in the United States.

 

A Festering Problem

Only the most uninformed would suggest the nation doesn’t have an infrastructure problem. The

problem developed over a long period, as the federal, state, and local governments neglected maintenance and replacement of facilities, especially transportation-related, built years ago. Donald Trump claimed he’d do something about the problem and promised numerous “infrastructure weeks” during his time in the White House. It never happened because (1)Trump cared

much more about tax cuts for the wealthy and (2) his only ideas about infrastructure involved tax credit schemes that would benefit his wealthy donors. He did not propose injecting significant government resources into real projects. Biden has a different idea.

Objective observers of the American socio-economic and political scene have been warning about dangers inherent in the failure to address this

problem for years. Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, in their acclaimed 2011 book, That Used to be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back, wrote that living off our reputation produced a “dangerous complacency” that led to “the potholes, loose door handles, and protracted escalator outages of twenty-first century America.”

The issue goes beyond repairs. Infrastructure

spending, as economist Joseph Stiglitz points out, can stave off “recession in the short run while spurring growth in the long run.”  In other words, a plan like Biden’s could spur long term economic growth as well as repair crumbling infrastructure. Biden, in fact, calls his proposal The American Jobs Plan. 

The Plan

Biden’s proposal allocates almost $600 billion for transportation related projects, including $115 billion for road and bridge work, $80 billion for railways, and $85 billion on public transit.  The

plan proposes investing $174 billion in projects related to electric vehicle development. This means building charging stations, creation of better batteries, retooling factories, and providing incentives that encourage automakers to shift production from fossil fuel vehicles.

The plan also emphasizes people-related investment, like workforce innovation, pandemic preparedness, and domestic manufacturing assistance.  It proposes, for example, allocating $400 billion for community-based care for the elderly and people with disabilities. It would inject $180 billion into research and development, an area in which the United States once excelled but has fallen behind other nations, especially China.

 

The Politics

Without congressional approval the plan goes nowhere. Battle lines formed quickly after the

president unveiled his proposal. Republicans immediately voiced opposition.  They claimed the plan is too big, spends too much money, and most of all, they object to rolling back the Trump tax cuts, an essential element of how Biden would finance  the plan.

Trump’s tax cuts reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Biden proposes increasing the rate to 28%, which supposedly would raise $2

trillion dollars over ten years. Democrats were not all on board, at least not initially.  The price tag exceeded the preferences of a few and others didn’t think there was enough emphasis on certain things. Some, like

New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, arguedthe plan isn’t big enough. She says the country needs a $10 trillion program over ten years.  Still, house Democrats said they hope they can pass the program during the summer. Things are dicey in the senate, where likely unified Republican opposition (already forecast by Mitch McConnell) could topple the plan when added to reluctance from a few conservative Democrats.

 

The Ideology

The fight is also ideological. On the one side are those who feel that government has a significant role to play in improving the quality of life for

Americans.  On the other side are those who want limited government and fear that if government is successful in a matter as important as infrastructure, there might be a “…kind of halo effect that links all forms of government activism…that we need public policies to reduce inequality…expand access to health care.”  See Paul Krugman’s 2021 book, Arguing With Zombies Economics, Politics, And The Fight For A Better Future.

Benefit/Detriment

The expected fight over the president’s plan sets up a classic benefit/detriment battle in which the combatants argue over what Americans want and need.   Advocates of the White House proposal will argue the United States simply can’t put off any longer doing something about the infrastructure problem. Things are going to hell in a handbasket (or already have). The needs are simply too great. In Houston, where one of us (Rob) lives, for example, five bridges along freeways are among the 250 most heavily-traveled, yet structurally deficient, bridges in the nation. Meantime, the

climate crisis continues as this winter’s storms demonstrated. Biden’s plan addresses that problem with an aggressive effort at promoting clean energy.

But, the opponents will argue government spending, and the tax increases needed to fund it, are not the way we should attack this.  While admitting the problem, they at least say they want a private, industry focused effort, perhaps with

limited public participation. Texas Congressman Kevin Brady, who was chairman of  the House Ways and Means Committee until Democrats took back the majority in 2018, argued that “Imposing $2 trillion taxes on U.S. job creators during recovery is a net loser for America.”

That’s the debate we’re certain to have. Hopefully

we can have it on the merits.

SOCIAL DISTANCING: THE WAY WE ARE AND WILL BE FOR AWHILE

Millions of Americans find themselves under some kind of social distancing order. Many

cities and counties, and some states, have imposed shelter-in-place requirements as a way of fighting the coronavirus. Some political leaders and media pundits have cast the need for social

distancing in patriotic terms, invoking John F. Kennedy’s “…ask what you can do for your country” language as a way of inspiring compliance with social distancing orders or requests.

                  

                                                         JFK delivering inaugural speech, 1963

There is a lot going on in the world now and a lot we could talk about. Today, we explore social distancing and its current and future influence on life in America. How are people coping? What does this practice mean for the nation going forward?

We’re All Day-to-Day

Sports teams describe players with injuries that leave the player’s status uncertain as “day-to-day.” It means the player might or might not make the next practice or game. Whether he or she participates depends on

healing, rehab, pain toleration, the player's mental attitude, etc. Given the uncertainty brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, many people are feeling day-to-day about life.

Much uncertainty exists about what contracting the disease means. A minor

irritation akin to the common cold? Severe illness and hospitalization resembling pneumonia? A death sentence? The answers depend on age, overall health, availability of medical care, and some unknowns. There’s a lot we don’t know about this disease, as the absence of a vaccine demonstrates.

               

That brings us to another problem. The United States lacks sufficient medical resources for fighting a massive outbreak in

which huge numbers of people require hospitalization. Health officials cry out for ventilators for patients and for masks and other protective gear for medical workers. Many people justifiably fear contaminated medical providers and equipment. 

          

                                          Ventilator & Protective Gear needed for Covid-19 care

Another thing creating uncertainty lies in the fact no one knows when this situation will improve. Projections of the duration run weeks, to months, to a year and a half, the earliest we’ve heard we might expect a vaccine.  In the meantime, we suffer loss of human contact, sports, and other things that make us whole. Neither men nor women live by adequately stocked grocery stores alone.

How long must we stay home, avoid friends and neighbors, forsake bars, restaurants, and other gathering places?  How long before we can give a friend or business colleague a firm handshake or big hug expressing our joy

at greeting them? How long before we see live sports played on television again? All three of us sorely miss March madness. Henry and Rob lament the absence of the Masters Golf Tournament this spring. Woodson faces withdrawal symptoms with no NBA playoffs in reasonable sight. 

              

The New Normal

After the September 11 attacks people asked when we’d get back to normal. The truth is

that it didn’t take long, but it never happened. Yes, by October we returned to work, flew again on airplanes, and shopped in stores, things people questioned if we’d do anytime soon after those bleak days in September 2001. Life got going again, but with big differences.

We put up with things – intrusive airport security, metal detectors, and bag searches

at sporting events, massive camera surveillance on public streets – we never thought we’d stand for. We accepted, in the form of the Patriot Act, censorship and other limits on civil liberties many of us abhor. We haven’t felt much of that law’s sting lately because we haven’t had another attack approaching the magnitude of September 11. Those provisions remain in place, however, and the government will trot them out in the event of another calamity. America usually lives with a “New Normal” after tragedies and the coronavirus will probably produce its own. Like what?  Start with economic dislocation.

Even if this ends before summer, the The United States will face significant economic problems going forward. Despite the stimulus package, some small businesses –and many

jobs – will disappear. Unemployment may remain high for months. Even industries getting federal help could have a rough time recovering.  Sooner or later, we must pay for the stimulus

funding. If we don’t, we’ll have limited growth for a long time or face significant inflation or both.

What about replenishing and restocking the

medical supplies being used up in this pandemic? Is this a warning about our health care system in general? We won’t debate Medicare-for-All v. some other approach here. But, doesn’t this crisis make clear we must tackle the entire health care issue with the objective of getting every American insured?

At a social level, how soon will Americans

feel comfortable attending sporting events, patronizing theaters, eating at restaurants, and showing up at other places where large crowds gather? Since many houses of worship coped with the virus crisis by putting services online, could that become the new way we do church in America? Could corporate worship services become obsolete and won’t this new approach affect church

giving? How about shopping? Will more and more of it happen online? Will brick and mortar stores become a thing of the past? What’s

the long-term impact on voting? Did the pandemic make a definitive case for voting by mail?  Will personalized political gatherings go extinct, since campaigning for office likely will change?

We are in uncharted territory. Americans are resilient, as demonstrated in past calamities. Everything in our history says we’ll bounce back. It will, however, take some time and some things may forever look different.