President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

[lpetrich]

Justice Democrats on Twitter: "NEW: Progressives (@WorkingFamilies, @IndivisibleTeam, @sunrisemvmt, and Organize For Justice) launch six figure ad-buy targeting nine obstructionist Democrats blocking Biden infrastructure deal (vid link)" / Twitter

Talk about fancy ads. Seems like the Working Families Party, the Sunrise Movement, and the like are learning how to play the game of DC influence.

No Labels on Twitter: "Dear @JusticeDems: Saw your video (although so far not on Facebook..) impugning the motives of principled House Ds. They’re fighting for Biden’s agenda, for rebuilding roads, for getting lead out of kid’s water and broadband into their homes. You’re standing in the way." / Twitter

They then tweeted a link to this editorial from them - Opinion | Nine House Democrats: Pass the infrastructure bill. Reconciliation can wait. - The Washington Post - and they then tweeted that these nine are "heroes".

Justice Democrats on Twitter: ""No Labels" ... except Bain Capital. (links)" / Twitter

I tried to track down the pictured page and I found Top Organizations Disclosing Donations to No Labels, 2018 | OpenSecrets - a close approximation


Justice Democrats on Twitter: "Coverage of progressive ad-buy targeting nine conservative Democrats obstructing Jobs and Families Plan.
"Justice Democrats has issued threats to incumbent lawmakers and they have taken down some high profile lawmakers." - @sahilkapur with @GarrettHaake (link)" / Twitter

Like Joe Crowley, Eliot Engel, Dan Lipinski, and Lacy Clay.

 

[lpetrich]

Right-Wing Dems Begin to Cave as Progressives Hold Their Ground on Reconciliation Vote | Common Dreams News

"No bipartisan infrastructure bill without the reconciliation bill. They go together."

Noting
David Dayen on Twitter: ".@TheProspect has learned that "several" of the nine conservative House Democrats who insisted to Nancy Pelosi that they would not vote for a budget resolution without a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure package first have flipped. There are no longer 9 Dem holdouts." / Twitter

David Dayen on Twitter: "Among the possibilities under discussion is a vote on two separate rules (one for the budget resolution and one for the bipartisan bill)" / Twitter

David Dayen on Twitter: "I would add that the situation is very malleable and fluid and there's a ways to go here" / Twitter

Pramila Jayapal responded to The Right-Wing Nine:

Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "This is the path forward: we’re passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill alongside the jobs and families package. Period.

The American people expect us to deliver on child care, paid leave, housing, health care, climate action, and more — and we must." / Twitter

Ro Khanna on Twitter: "To my moderate colleagues:

A vote against the Biden agenda this week is not only a slap in the face to the President, it will obstruct any shot at adopting the policies that define us as Democrats.

(protections for workers, healthcare, clean air…) (link)" / Twitter
noting
Pelosi faces tough budget decisions as Democrats split over plan for $3.5 trillion measure - The Washington Post - "White House officials have tried to intervene and resolve tensions, but a group of centrists is dug in and vowing to challenge the House speaker’s plan"

Pelosi, for her part, has said for weeks that the bipartisan measure and the reconciliation package—which Democrats plan to pass without any Republican support—must move at the same time in order to ensure the passage of both, a position that progressive lawmakers and outside advocacy groups have endorsed.

"We cannot afford any political maneuvers that undermine a guaranteed path towards at least $3.5 trillion of investments to combat climate change, uplift American families, expand healthcare, and secure our economic future," the youth-led Sunrise Movement and other progressive organizations wrote to Pelosi last week, urging the Speaker to stick to her position.

Pelosi: House won't take up the bipartisan bill until Senate votes on reconciliation - CNNPolitics

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If they want to vote on it separate, I want the conservative Dem's well past the blueprint stage version for the second bill.

 

[lpetrich]

Congresswoman Cori Bush on Twitter: "St. Louis sent me to Congress to tangibly improve the lives of regular, everyday people.

To my colleagues seeking to derail passage of the budget resolution: Why are you here? (pic link)" / Twitter

Rep. Bush Statement on the Conservative Democratic Obstruction of Budget Resolution Passage

WASHINGTON, D.C. Today, Congresswoman Cori Bush (MO-01), issued the following statement regarding the need to pass the budget resolution:

"The budget resolution isn't a political pawn. It's an opportunity to deliver our agenda by making long-overdue and life-changing investments in the health, safety, and education of the people who need it most. We are not here to play politics with people's lives we are here to pass transformative policies.

"To my colleagues seeking to derail that effort, I'm urging you as a single mother. I'm urging you as a nurse. I'm urging you as an activist who has worked to save Black lives. I'm urging you as someone who has worked low-wage jobs and struggled to afford child care. We must pass the budget resolution immediately. St. Louis sent me to Congress to tangibly improve the lives of regular, everyday people. Why are you here?"

They might respond with a lot of blather about fiscal responsibility or some such.

 

[TomC]

Congresswoman Cori Bush on Twitter: "St. Louis sent me to Congress to tangibly improve the lives of regular, everyday people.

To my colleagues seeking to derail passage of the budget resolution: Why are you here? (pic link)" / Twitter

Rep. Bush Statement on the Conservative Democratic Obstruction of Budget Resolution Passage

WASHINGTON, D.C. Today, Congresswoman Cori Bush (MO-01), issued the following statement regarding the need to pass the budget resolution:

"The budget resolution isn't a political pawn. It's an opportunity to deliver our agenda by making long-overdue and life-changing investments in the health, safety, and education of the people who need it most. We are not here to play politics with people's lives we are here to pass transformative policies.

"To my colleagues seeking to derail that effort, I'm urging you as a single mother. I'm urging you as a nurse. I'm urging you as an activist who has worked to save Black lives. I'm urging you as someone who has worked low-wage jobs and struggled to afford child care. We must pass the budget resolution immediately. St. Louis sent me to Congress to tangibly improve the lives of regular, everyday people. Why are you here?"

They might respond with a lot of blather about fiscal responsibility or some such.

I can't help but notice how fast "fiscal responsibility" becomes an issue when lefty liberals want to fund health care and education and infrastructure and such. But when conservatives want to invade somewhere or bail out banks or subsidize corporations or pass tax cuts, huge deficit spending suddenly becomes "investment in our future".

It's a big reason I gave up on the Republican party back around 2010.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

Progressives in Congress are standing firm against the Right-Wing Nine.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "First, the House must deliver once-in-a-generation, popular, and necessary investments in child care, paid leave, climate action, health care, housing, education, and more to families.

Then, we'll pass the infrastructure bill to invest in our roads, bridges, and waterways." / Twitter

Progressive Caucus on Twitter: "We were elected not only to improve roads and bridges, but to make transformative change that improves people's daily lives." / Twitter

Congresswoman Marie Newman on Twitter: "Why is the #BuildBackBetter plan so popular?
It creates millions of good-paying jobs
It cuts taxes for American families
It makes billion-dollar corporations pay their fair share
It ensures real investments in climate action
It protects immigrant families" / Twitter

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Our position remains unchanged. We'll only vote for the infrastructure bill when the House passes a reconciliation package that delivers on overdue promises - like lowering drug prices, fighting climate change, supporting childcare & providing vision & dental care to seniors." / Twitter

Progressive Caucus on Twitter: "We’re pleased to see the House Democratic Caucus come to a consensus on the need to pass the budget resolution without further delay.

And we remain united with Leadership and @POTUS in our mission to enact the entire Build Back Better agenda.

Our statement (pic link)" / Twitter

Congressional Progressive Caucus on Enactment of Budget Resolution

WASHINGTON - Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, issued the following statement on the enactment of the budget resolution:

We are pleased to see the House Democratic Caucus come to a consensus on the need to pass the Build Back Better budget resolution without further delay. This transformative budget resolution is a win for the American people, putting us on the path toward enacting popular and urgent policy change for our communities, including universal child care, paid leave, aggressive climate action, Medicare expansion, affordable housing, and a roadmap to citizenship.

"Our position remains unchanged: we will work to first pass the Build Back Better reconciliation bill so we can deliver these once-in-a-generation, popular, and urgently needed investments to poor and working families, and then pass the infrastructure bill to invest our roads, bridges, and waterways. As our members have made clear for three months, the two are integrally tied together, and we will only vote for the infrastructure bill after passing the reconciliation bill. We remain united with Congressional Leadership and President Biden in our mission to enact the entire Build Back Better agenda that voters put us in the majority to accomplish - and every elected Democrat should do the same. Congress must now move urgently to send both pieces of this package to the President's desk for his signature so we can transform people's lives and livelihoods."

I looked in Congressional Progressive Caucus and I couldn't find it, though I found some similar statements in recent days.

 

[lpetrich]

It's nice to see such firmness. It's such a great contrast with the rollout of Clintoncare. President Clinton whimpered and apologized about it and let it go down to defeat, despite spending a LOT of effort on developing it. Even more than Obamacare, I must note.

House votes to advance Biden's jobs and infrastructure plans, breaking logjam - NBC News - "To tame a rebellion from centrist holdouts, Democratic leaders offered a Sept. 27 deadline to vote on the Senate-passed infrastructure bill."

Indivisible Guide on Twitter: "It's probably just a coincidence these 9 House Democrats keep getting support from groups that consistently support Republicans. (pic link)" / Twitter
Linking to a screencap of an opensecrets.org page about the US Chamber of Commerce.

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "Chamber of Commerce is running ads thanking the 9 Democrats for fighting to blow up Biden's agenda. They all look like this: (pic link)" / Twitter

However, from that NBC article,

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told NBC News that the Sept. 27 deadline "a bit arbitrary."

"Personally, I'm not committing to any date," she said, warning that "if reconciliation is not done by that time," Democratic leaders "absolutely should not" assume she will vote for the infrastructure bill.

"I remain committed to voting on these two pieces of legislation together," she said.

She clearly isn't giving up.

Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives - Vote Details - Roll Call 257 | Bill Number: H. Res. 601
However, House Resolution 601 was a dead link in congress.gov

Aug 24, 2021, 03:33 PM | 117th Congress, 1st Session

Vote Question: On Ordering the Previous Question

Providing for consideration of (H.R. 4) John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act; providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to (H.R. 3684) Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act; and providing for the adoption of the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 14); and for other purposes

Vote Type: Yea-And-Nay

Status: Passed

The vote:
D 220
R 212
Strict party line, and none present or not voting

 

[Derec]

Progressives in Congress are standing firm against the Right-Wing Nine.

They are not "right wing", they are moderate. It is the so-called "Progressive" Caucus and especially the Squad (led by Sgt. Sandy) that are left wing.
And they are - or rather had been - right, which is to say correct. The two bills are very different and should not be artificially shackled together.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "First, the House must deliver once-in-a-generation, popular, and necessary investments in child care, paid leave, climate action, health care, housing, education, and more to families.

At least she is not pretending that it is an "infrastructure" bill. Small steps.
If the bill was as popular and necessary, what's the harm in debating and passing it separately from the bipartisan infrastructure bill?
In reality, the $3,500,000,000,000.00 spendapalooza is a bloated monstrosity. It does contain some good nuggets, but it really should be several separate bills. Child care does not have much to do with climate measures or healthcare, so why should they all be in the same behemoth of a bill?

Then, we'll pass the infrastructure bill to invest in our roads, bridges, and waterways." / Twitter

So basically, she and the other left-wingers in the House are holding the bipartisan infrastructure bill hostage in order to get what they want.

In the Senate, there is hope from Krysten Sinema.
Sinema: I simply won't back a $3.5T spending bill
Good on her! I hope Chuck Schumer does not successfully intimidate her into giving up.

Progressive Caucus on Twitter: "We were elected not only to improve roads and bridges, but to make transformative change that improves people's daily lives." / Twitter

The 2020 election was a close one. The House is 220:212 and the Senate is 48(+2):50. That is not a mandate for "transformative change". Especially the kind of change that relies on irresponsible spending.

It creates millions of good-paying jobs

How? [citation needed]

It cuts taxes for American families

It cuts taxes while increasing spending by $3.5T? How does that work?

It makes billion-dollar corporations pay their fair share

By "fair share" you mean the highest corporate tax rate in the OECD?

It ensures real investments in climate action

I support that, within reason. But it should be it's own plan, not a spendapalooza with trillions of dollars of tofu.

It protects immigrant families" / Twitter

You mean, illegal immigrants? Another reason to oppose the bill. Not to mention that this has nothing to do with the budget, and therefore it should not be included in a reconciliation bill.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Our position remains unchanged. We'll only vote for the infrastructure bill when the House passes a reconciliation package that delivers on overdue promises - like lowering drug prices, fighting climate change, supporting childcare & providing vision & dental care to seniors." / Twitter

In other words, the Squad is being obstructionist and threatens to block the bipartisan bill unless they get their way on the $3,500,000,000,000.00 spendapalooza.

Progressive Caucus on Twitter: "We’re pleased to see the House Democratic Caucus come to a consensus on the need to pass the budget resolution without further delay. And we remain united with Leadership and @POTUS in our mission to enact the entire Build Back Better agenda.

Biden really disappointed me here. He was supposed to be a moderate, and he is governing like a lefty. My guess is that in his old age he has become more susceptible to manipulation. Like that old King of Rohan with Alexandria Ocasio Wormtongue in his ear.

 

[Derec]

They might respond with a lot of blather about fiscal responsibility or some such.

Why is that "blather"? Spending $3,500,000,000,000.00 is dangerous especially since a lot of trillions had to be spend over the last year and a half because of COVID.

Money does not grow on trees, you know. You either borrow, devaluate currency or heavily tax to spend that amount of money. And for what? Random collection of spending issues that are not related to each other, and are even less related to infrastructure.

 

[Derec]

After the first round of expanded Child Tax Credit payments reached nearly 40 million families, hunger rates in households with children dropped nearly *24 percent*. That’s the lowest rate recorded since the beginning of the pandemic.

Although researchers say it’s too early to determine what factors specifically led to the drop in hunger rates, the Child Tax Credit appears to have played a major role: while households with children saw a major decline, households without children didn’t experience a change over the same time period.
The lesson: Poverty is a policy choice. Don’t believe anyone who tries to tell you differently.

It is pretty obvious that if you give certain people more money they will have more money. Duh! (also, fuck those households without children, amirite?)

But that does not mean that this policy is a sensible one. What making this $3k-$3.5k/child giveaway permanent is doing is incentivizing people who can't afford children to have even more of them. And it certainly doesn't mean that this babymaking subsidy is in any way related to "infrastructure", no matter how much the Biden administration wants to pretend that it is.

 

[fromderinside]

If you think $3.5 K per child per year will produce a net gain if you produce more children you have no children.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If you think $3.5 K per child per year will produce a net gain if you produce more children you have no children.

That may not even be enough to get you out of the hospital on the second day.

 

[Derec]

That may not even be enough to get you out of the hospital on the second day.

The cumulative benefit is actually worth $57.6k over 18 years. For each and every child you have. Funded by people who actually pay their taxes and don't have an effective negative tax rate because of all the children.

The expanded child tax credit will actually cost ~$1.6T, which is almost half of the entire $3.5T spendapalooza bill. It is ridiculously expensive and I hope Kyrsten Van Kenobi holds firm. She may be our only hope!

 

[Derec]

If you think $3.5 K per child per year will produce a net gain if you produce more children

It does not have to be a net profit to be an incentive to have more children.
You have to consider that this tax credit is not the only benefit parents get. There is EITC, there is SNAP. Neither is specifically a child credit, but both give you more money for having (more) children.

Note also that these benefits do not phase out after a certain number of children but increase linearly with number of children n. However, marginal cost of having he n^th child gets smaller as n increases because of economies of scale.

So, at some point there will be a net profit. It would not surprise me if the break even point did not occur as early as 7th child or earlier, as long as you keep spending on those children modest. Maybe do not get those overpriced Baby Air Jordans for your 6 months old.

you have no children.

True. I've always wrapped my tool.

 

[lpetrich]

But that does not mean that this policy is a sensible one. What making this $3k-$3.5k/child giveaway permanent is doing is incentivizing people who can't afford children to have even more of them. And it certainly doesn't mean that this babymaking subsidy is in any way related to "infrastructure", no matter how much the Biden administration wants to pretend that it is.

But the US birthrate is getting dangerously low, right?

 

[Derec]

But the US birthrate is getting dangerously low, right?

Not among the uneducated and stupid.

There is an income phaseout and the uneducated and the stupid are much more likely to be poor. So the very people that benefit most from the Biden child tax credit breed a lot already.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you think $3.5 K per child per year will produce a net gain if you produce more children you have no children.

It is funny because they are actually arguing the polar opposite positions at the same time.

1) that they don't have enough money to have babies
2) will get all that free money from having more babies

So arguing that people that are too poor to have kids, will have more kids in order to have more money... while still being poor. The whole bogus "welfare queen" strawman, where actual "welfare queens" were actually conning the welfare system into believing they had more children than they actually had.

 

[Rhea]

It really should be several smaller bills that should be debated on their own merits.

Whenever I read this, all I can hear you say is, “Let’s make it so that I can get what I want and then walk away without consequences.”
Or, “we really should be able to remove all of their leverage and refuse to negotiate. That’s the way we should do it.”


Instead Pelosi seems to have done a good thing. The conservative Dems got something they wanted, a date, and the progressive Dems got something they wanted, commitment to consider human infrastructure as infrastructure.

There’s a weird and self-serving consevative definition that “infrastructure only means things I like, while things I don’t like, I will call something else so I can dismiss them without negotiation.”

I would argue that the economy needs available child care a lot more than it needs a bridge in order to keep going.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It really should be several smaller bills that should be debated on their own merits.

Whenever I read this, all I can hear you say is, “Let’s make it so that I can get what I want and then walk away without consequences.”
Or, “we really should be able to remove all of their leverage and refuse to negotiate. That’s the way we should do it.”


Instead Pelosi seems to have done a good thing. The conservative Dems got something they wanted, a date, and the progressive Dems got something they wanted, commitment to consider human infrastructure as infrastructure.

There’s a weird and self-serving consevative definition that “infrastructure only means things I like, while things I don’t like, I will call something else so I can dismiss them without negotiation.”

I would argue that the economy needs available child care a lot more than it needs a bridge in order to keep going.

The bridge that takes I-90 traffic across the Cuyahoga River Valley was in danger of collapse and required lowering traffic capacity until the bridge was replaced. Had that bridge gone, the cost to the economy would have been noticed. But let's ignore bridges and realize our sewer and water lines are upwards of 100+ years old!!! Oh and climate change and suburban sprawl has led to more issues regarding stormwater related land stability issues and houses going up in flames.

That some people can't afford to work because they can't afford daycare, is indeed a serious problem as well.

 

[Derec]

1) that they don't have enough money to have babies
2) will get all that free money from having more babies

Well both can be true. They have all these kids and then demand other people pay for their brats. There are already more than enough subsidies for breeding, we do not need any more!