THREE TAKES ON THE BIDEN AGENDA

 President Biden laid out his ambitious agenda in a generally well-received speech to a pared down, socially distant joint session of Congress on April 28. The president apparently has the wind at his back in terms of public support for the measures he’s proposing. Polling indicates voters, including many Republicans, back Biden’s proposals.

That does not mean he has Republican support in Congress. If much of his program becomes law, it will happen because Democrats unify and pass

financially related matters through budget reconciliation. The fate of voting rights and police reform measures, to which reconciliation doesn’t apply, remains doubtful.

Though all three of us count ourselves as supporters of the president and his administration, we don’t have a unified view of all Biden’s proposals.  The differences are sometimes subtle and can turn on political calculations, not substantive policy views:

 

Henry:  All In                                                                   

Biden’s overarching themes hold great appeal for me. I particularly like the fact he has cast his program in terms of creating opportunity out of crisis. The United States still faces the pandemic and the economic fallout it created, not to mention potentially existential

threats in climate change and systemic racism. As Republicans increasingly claim systemic racism doesn’t exist, Biden and other progressives must push for changes in policing and attack economic inequality. These difficult issues offer an opportunity for much needed solutions we’ve put off long enough.

Biden has also struck a chord with me by emphasizing that his plans address the nation’s

need for reality and hope. That means legislation and an administrative approach that tackles problems in

concrete ways and offers Americans hope they can have better futures and an efficient government that works.

As for the individual components of Biden’s legislative agenda, I offer my total support on rejoining the Paris Climate Accords, reforming and revising the corporate tax structure so the wealthy and big business pay their fair share, universal background checks for firearms purchases, an end to so-called ghost guns that law enforcement can’t track, recasting the ways we look at and think of infrastructure, and creating a citizenship path for undocumented immigrants.

President Biden is on the right track and I’m there with him.

Woodson: Congress, Your Move                         

I find little in Biden’s speech with which to disagree. We will have to wait and see how

many of Biden’s policies become law. I hope they all do. These policies are the most progressive since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.   

                                        

Reminding his fellow countrymen that he is a man of action, Biden opened his speech by pointing out that his AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN had already resulted in $1,400.00 checks reaching 85% of American families and 220 million Americans receiving Covid-19 shots. 

Biden elaborated further on his agenda:

AMERICAN JOBS PLAN – jobs in theconstruction of roads, bridges, rails, transit lines, replacing lead pipes in schools and day

care centers, and bringing high speed internet to the entire country. He urged Congress to pass pay equity legislation for women and endorsed $15.00 as an hourly minimum wage.

AMERICAN FAMILIES PLAN – 2 years of quality preschool and 2 years of free community college; $3,600.00 in childcare tax credits; greater investment in black, and tribal colleges.

AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN – lower premiums and deductibles for persons who get their medical insurance through the Affordable Care Act; and a reduction in the cost of prescription drugs.

Biden will pay for this with no increase in taxes on the middle class or poor. Only individuals and corporations who make more than $400,000.00 annually will experience a tax increase.

Biden announced the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan but remained committed to fighting terrorism abroad and at home,

saying that white nationalists were the greatest terrorist threat that the nation faced. He mentioned George Floyd by name when urging Congress to pass legislation to insure equitable policing and urged the passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

In my view, Biden got the policies and the politics right. Congress should pass the necessary legislation.

Rob: Consider at Least Tapping the Brakes

                         

I’m generally supportive of the administration’s

agenda. We must address infrastructure and climate. The corporate tax structure requires a  fix even if the federal government didn’t need one additional dime for Biden’s program or anything else. I see raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy as the necessary first step in ending our grotesque income inequality problem.

That’s the primary beef I have with the Bernie Sanders – Elizabeth Warren economic and tax

programs from which Biden has borrowed so  heavily. They propose tax increases for new spending. I propose tax increases because we  need a fairer tax system in which everyone pays their just share. Enacting the

tax increases without as much spending as Biden plans would make us a more equitable society and likely spur an economic revival reminiscent of the Clinton years. Forty-two increased taxes on upper income taxpayers and wiped out the deficit in the process. He presided over modest spending increases, but the main impact of higher tax revenue was holding down interest rates. Government borrowing didn’t absorb capital that became available for businesses, large and small.  We experienced prolonged growth that lasted into the George W. Bush years.

We should do much of what Biden proposes. I’m not interested in giving aid and comfort to obstructionist Republicans by opposing him. If I were a senator, when push came to shove,

I’m  sure I’d vote for his bills. We might, however, consider doing what he wants in bite-sized chunks. Just saying, you know.  

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.

LET THE DEBATE BEGIN: HOW MUCH ‘‘SOCIALISM’’ IN AMERICA?

Some conservatives have complained

about the measures Congress enacted aimed at helping Americans get through the coronavirus dislocation. They label the measures “socialist,” “un-American”,

and at odds with capitalism.  They say

we must get business as usual going or risk having these adjustments become permanent.

The country faces questions about the

appropriate level of government involvement in the economy and other aspects of life. Cries of “socialism” are not new when the government tries helping non-corporate middle America and the poor.

The 1936 Republican presidential nominee, Kansas Governor Alf Landon, attacked Social  Security as “socialism” (Franklin Roosevelt won the Electoral College, 523-8).

New York Governor Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic presidential nominee, wrote that year, “The cry of socialism has been patented by the powerful interests that desire to put a damper on progressive legislation. Is this cry of socialism anything new?... I have heard it raised by reactionary elements and the Republican Party … for over a quarter-century.”   

Many Americans who never thought

they’d seek or accept government assistance found themselves doing just that under the unprecedented circumstances the pandemic wrought. The pandemic exposed flaws in our healthcare and food supply systems. What happens when the

pandemic ends? Is the kind of government assistance provided in connection with the pandemic an outlier or are significant policy changes on the horizon?

Will the nation remedy these weaknesses in our health care system

with new measures addressing some of the systemic shortcomings that made the coronavirus situation worse? Or, will the “socialism” objections prevail and keep the status quo in place?

Harry Truman’s 1945 health care

proposal was defeated in large measure by the American Medical Association’s labeling of the legislation as “socialized medicine.”  Things have changed. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed over 70 percent of respondents favoring universal health care.

                     

That Old Definitional Issue

When opponents leveled charges that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs

were “socialism,” he said in his 1936 State of the Union Address that the proper role of government was “the adjustment of burdens, the help of the needy, and the protection of the people’s property.”

This year, Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren presented safety net programs aimed at assuring more Americans better access to health care,

child care, and other services. They proposed Medicare-for-All, a federal guarantee of health insurance mandated for everyone that would replace private health insurance. Other candidates, including presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, also proposed expanded health insurance plans, though not Medicare-for-All.

In light of the virus experience, must we adopt measures that seem like “socialism?” The pandemic exposed three particular shortcomings in the health care system. First, many Americans don’t have insurance

coverage, meaning they couldn’t get adequate treatment if infected. Second, the lack of health care puts some groups at greater risk. Louisiana, for example, became an

early coronavirus “hot spot” because so many of its low-income citizens, most of the people of color, had limited access to health care before the virus hit. They suffered from medical conditions – hypertension, diabetes, obesity - that made death more likely upon contracting the virus. Finally,

health care workers faced massive shortages of equipment and supplies.

Theodore Roosevelt, the 26^th president, responding to charges he was a capitalism obstructionist and opponent of individualism, wrote, “Ruin faces us ... if we permit ourselves to be misled into refusing to exert the common power of the community where only collectively action can do what individualism has left undone or can remedy the wrongs done by an unrestricted and ill-regulated individualism.”

What Will Americans Accept? What do they Want?

Post pandemic life in America probably will look different than life before March

2020.  Until we get a coronavirus vaccine, limits on large gatherings and close personal contact will likely remain necessary. Many won’t like that (sports fans?), but they’ll probably accept it in exchange for re-starting the economy. But what about political changes?  How much government will Americans accept or desire?

Democrats flipped the House of Representatives in 2018, relying on health care as a way of attracting suburban women and people of color. The pandemic assures the push for improved health coverage will play a central role in the 2020 campaign and in the next session of Congress. Once the emergency ends, will Republican resistance to expanded health insurance fade? We don’t know.

                   

Many Democrats will seek a larger

federal investment in the health care system. That means lots of money for assembling and maintaining government stockpiles of medical equipment. Will anybody suggest rolling back the Trump tax cuts for financing such investment? Is doing such a thing “socialism?” 

                                        

What about unemployment insurance?  That’s mostly funded by taxes on employers. In light of the record number of unemployment claims, will

political and business leaders agree on a different way of funding that system? Would using general revenue and assessing higher taxes for that purpose make sense? Debating the issue seems reasonable now.

The Most Vulnerable

Many of these questions center on what America does about issues faced for the first time by middle-class people. How much “socialism” will they accept or want? That’s a political question on

which the spotlight will fall in the months ahead. Another issue, however, lurks beneath the surface. America has a population for whom the issues raised by the pandemic were not new. They live with them every day and have for a long time.

For this group, health insurance often doesn’t exist. Visits to doctors don’t happen except in the direst emergencies. Trips to food banks occur regularly, something middle-class people recently experienced for the first time. These most at-risk Americans need a voice in the political debate about “socialism.” Over the next few months, in this space, we intend to give it to them.