Biden infrastructure/tax increase megathread

[Frodo]

Are we seriously going to allow this bill to get bogged down over SALT when this is the last, best opportunity to invest in our infrastructure, among our other priorities? 

[Frodo]

I wish expansion of Social Security benefits had been included, given there is already legislation to give Medicare negotiation authority on prescription drugs.  Medicare and Social Security changes together in the same overarching infrastructure bill should pass muster with the Byrd Rule:

A provision is deemed extraneous if one or more of these six statements applies:

1. It does not produce a change in outlays or revenues or a change in the terms and conditions under which outlays are made or revenues are collected.

2. It produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions.

3. It is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure.

4. It produces a change in outlays or revenues that is merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the provision.

5. It would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond the “budget window” covered by the reconciliation measure.

6. It recommends changes in Social Security (referring to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, or OASDI, program, and not Medicare or any additional programs under this act).

[Frodo]

The International Monetary Fund, which critics have long viewed as neoliberalism encapsulated in a single organization, has come out in favor of Biden's higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy to fund the infrastructure investment package before Congress:

IMF backs new taxes on corporations and the wealthy, furthering organization's historic shift

For those of us who remember the 1999 anti-globalization protests in Seattle, this is noteworthy.  

[Frodo]

So-called Senate GOP 'moderates' will be proposing a non-starter of a counter-offer that cuts Biden's infrastructure plan by more than half, as well as shift the financial burden away from the wealthy and corporations to everybody else.  And following their playbook from the Obama years, they will vote against their own plan should it come close to becoming law even if Democrats adopt it:

A bloc of Senate Republicans prepare their own infrastructure plan as Biden tries to ramp up outreach

The Republican alternative is expected to be less than half the size of the White House’s plan, according to party lawmakers, who in recent days have suggested its total price tag could ultimately cost between $600 billion and $800 billion.

Moderate GOP members of Congress also have pledged to narrow their focus to include only the elements they consider traditional infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, while jettisoning the corporate tax increases that Biden has endorsed in favor of other ways of financing the overall package.

Capito explained that most of the money would go toward roads and bridges and not items many Republicans allege are unrelated to infrastructure. And she joined Republicans in blasting Biden’s proposed tax increases as a nonstarter for the GOP, echoing the staunch opposition earlier this week from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Romney later said the $800 billion price tag may be “a little high,” though he said the proposal is likely to include funding for highways, railways, airports, water and sewer systems, and Internet connectivity. The GOP lawmaker said he hopes to finance it through fees on the users of those services, a category of revenue-raisers that could include higher payments on drivers of gas-powered or electric vehicles. Democrats largely have resisted the idea, fearing it may encroach on Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on Americans who make under $400,000 per year.

As many of us suspected from the start, they are clearly more interested in playing gotcha games than in governing.  

[Frodo]

White House considers splitting $3 trillion recovery plan into two bills

The Times reported that the president’s advisors will bring him a plan as soon as this week that would divide the recovery proposal into two planks. One would put money into boosting manufacturing, improving transportation systems, expanding broadband access and reducing carbon emissions, according to the newspaper.

The other would focus on reducing economic inequities through investments in paid leave, universal pre-K and community college, the report said. The administration is leaning toward pursuing a bipartisan infrastructure bill first, then trying to pass larger pieces of the economic package through budget reconciliation, which would only require Democratic votes in the Senate, according to NBC.

[Frodo]

Even if an infrastructure bill that follows Biden's vision and breadth passes Congress, there is still a key obstacle to overcome -the endless red tape that is the bane of anyone trying to build anything here:

Biden's infrastructure plan yet to address causes of decade-long project delays

Yet, despite the urgency, there has been virtually no discussion of one of the most frustrating aspects of building infrastructure in the United States: the regulations that often turn a two-year project into a decade-long endeavor.

Industry advocates are warning that the potential benefits of Biden's massive infrastructure investment plan could be offset by the lengthy, complex approval process required to build almost any significant project in the United States.

"If the two points of the president's initiative are to build infrastructure and to stimulate economic activity, having those funds tied up in an endless, Kafkaesque regulatory process certainly doesn't meet either objective," Brian Turmail, vice president of public affairs and strategic initiatives for the Associated General Contractors of America.

While there's excitement around the idea of Congress authorizing billions of dollars for infrastructure, the men and women who would build those projects are concerned that existing regulations mean they won't see any of the work for several years.

"That's the worry of our members," Turmail said. "It's, wow, they gave our state x-billion dollars, but that money's not going to be used for eight years while the lawyers sort it out."

[Frodo]

https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1387777171083743232

We really ought to make it a policy not to expand Medicare unless we simultaneously expand Social Security as well. If we see fit not to make changes in Social Security unless we also make changes in Medicare (per the Byrd Rules), it should also be the other way around. 

[Frodo]

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1393174776781361154

For the sake of a bipartisan agreement, we should agree largely with Republicans on the definition of ‘traditional infrastructure’ and on funding it, bearing in mind we can always repeal the 2017 tax cuts (for the most part) like we always wanted to fund the ‘human infrastructure’ portion that we have agreed will be passed via reconciliation.

[Frodo]

Well, he tried. Now he can just pass whatever he wants and not feel bad or partisan about it.

Yes, but will Manchin and Sinema see it the same way? 

[Frodo]

Republicans are at war with those trying to fight human-induced climate change -and it is reflected in their latest infrastructure proposal:

Republican infrastructure counteroffer slashes Biden’s electric vehicle and climate spending

[Frodo]

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1400469381361147906

If I had to pick a concession, it would be this, but still not happy about it.

I will understand if Biden caves in on raising the gas tax.  At least it makes sense to do so, as distasteful as it may be as a Democrat -the infrastructure package is too important to let fail.  It is a pity we ended up where we did with Manchin and Sinema calling the shots, even with the last-minute chance Senate victories in Georgia, but it is what it is.  In exchange, congressional Republicans should raise the new spending on infrastructure closer to where Biden wants them, especially with regards to electric vehicle charging stations.  

[Frodo]

Can't blame President Biden when it is clear that congressional Republicans are just trying to string him along and wait out the clock:

https://twitter.com/dsupervilleap/status/1402375365214015489

[Frodo]

At least he ended the nowhere discussion with Capito, but why he's still reaching across the aisle is mindboggling to me. Although he is meeting with Schumer, Sinema, and Manchin so hopefully he's really just focusing on getting the borderline Dems to agree to a deal.

He did it because Joe Manchin has publicly demanded it.

So we’ve now cut the package in half for no gain at all. But thank god Mr. Manchin got to feed his ego.

What exactly was cut from the original package? I image it's stuff Biden/Dems may have wanted to jettison off anyways

From what I was able to find:

The updated plan, which now costs about $1.7 trillion, features reduced funding for broadband, roads, bridges and other major projects, Reuters reported. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Friday that some components, such as investments in research and development, had been removed but would be included in other bills. Broader details about the new package have not yet been made public by the administration.

A White House memo obtained by The Associated Press notes that the cut of research and development funds alone account for $480 billion of the $550 billion total removed from the proposal. The initial package would be paid for at least in part by corporate tax increases, and the memo notes that the administration has not budged on this plan, saying the "approach should ensure that corporations are paying their fair share."

So the bulk of what was removed was R&D funds, with the $70 billion remainder cut elsewhere.  

[Frodo]

A bipartisan panel of House moderates (aka, the 'Problem Solvers Caucus') have weighed in:

House moderates unveil $1.25T infrastructure plan

We'll see how they fund this plan, but this is probably President Biden's best bet on getting that infrastructure package through, assuming Senator Manchin doesn't buy into reconciliation. 

[Frodo]

According to Hill staffers from both parties, once (or if) infrastructure is finally passed by Congress and signed into law by President Biden, that's probably going to be it in terms of big legislative accomplishments, thanks largely to Manchin & Co. not budging on the filibuster.  

[Frodo]

According to Hill staffers from both parties, once (or if) infrastructure is finally passed by Congress and signed into law by President Biden, that's probably going to be it in terms of big legislative accomplishments, thanks largely to Manchin & Co. not budging on the filibuster.  

I did see reports that Schumer and Sanders are considering a reconciliation bill that includes American Jobs and American Family plans.

That's good.  That's very good. Especially if the more centrist Democrats are gradually getting on board with it, tentatively judging from the above texts.  If we have to resort to reconciliation, we might as well do the whole combined package in one fell swoop, and end the year on a high note.

[Frodo]

Here is a conservative case for including child care as part of the infrastructure package.  It's worth a read:

Conservative values support investing in child care as infrastructure. Here’s why.
Done right, Biden’s plan to expand child care could be as foundational to our nation’s prosperity as any shovel-ready bridge or tunnel project.

[Frodo]

Is it too late to include a national infrastructure bank into existing legislation, assuming it isn't in there already?  What has happened with this idea?

OP-ED: A National Infrastructure Bank could solve the U.S.’s trillion-dollar infrastructure investment challenge
The creation of a National Infrastructure Bank will cover project costs that federal, state and local governments are unable to cover.

[Frodo]

Just to provide some context to why Republicans are so angry with President Biden over explicitly calling for a two-track infrastructure deal, and are backing away from negotiations:

Republicans plot an infrastructure 2-step: Spend more, then kill Biden’s agenda

Senate Republicans are mulling support for a massive amount of new spending on infrastructure — in part because they think it’ll help kill President Joe Biden’s liberal agenda.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has yet to tip his hand on whether he supports the bipartisan negotiations on Biden's plan for roads and bridges that are being led by Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio). But a growing number of Senate Republicans are betting that if a deal is reached on that sort of physical infrastructure, Democrats won’t have the votes needed to pass the rest of Biden’s “soft infrastructure” priorities, such as child care and clean energy.

This is from mid-June.  They only supported the compromise on the presumption that it would kill the rest of Biden's agenda.  Talk about being two-faced.....  

[Frodo]

U.S. House approves $715 bln infrastructure bill

The Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives approved a $715 billion surface transportation and water infrastructure bill on Thursday in what Democrats see as an early step toward sweeping infrastructure legislation that Congress hopes to complete in September.

The bill, which includes provisions from President Joe Biden's initial $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal, authorizes additional spending for roads, bridges, highway safety, electric vehicle charging stations, rail, transit, drinking and wastewater infrastructure.

It also funds programs that would provide money for major projects, including an $11.6 billion plan to connect New Jersey and New York's Penn Station in midtown Manhattan via four modern transportation tubes beneath the Hudson River.

The 221-201 vote sends the legislation to the Democratic-led Senate.

[Frodo]

I have seen this movie before.  Just like with Obamacare, the Democratic president and Congress bend over backwards to accommodate Republicans, and just when the rubber hits the road, those Republicans then start looking for reasons to back away from the deal:

GOP support for bipartisan infrastructure deal going wobbly
Democrats need 10 Republican senators to pass the bipartisan bill, but some are wavering.

Just wait -those same Republicans will then start accusing their Democratic colleagues of being overly partisan, and blame them for their eventual decision to vote against the infrastructure deal. 

[Frodo]

https://twitter.com/jakesherman/status/1415659236546289668?s=21

I wish someone would tell him that if his constituents wanted a Republican to represent them in Congress, they would have voted for one.  They want a choice, not an echo. 

[Frodo]

Republicans insist on protecting wealthy tax dodgers at the expense of infrastructure:

Senator: Bipartisan infrastructure bill loses IRS provision

The deal keeps getting worse and worse.  I am nearly at the point at which I want the bipartisan infrastructure plan to fail, and just do one massive combined infrastructure bill under reconciliation.  

[Frodo]

Republicans insist on protecting wealthy tax dodgers at the expense of infrastructure:

Senator: Bipartisan infrastructure bill loses IRS provision

The deal keeps getting worse and worse.  I am nearly at the point at which I want the bipartisan infrastructure plan to fail, and just do one massive combined infrastructure bill under reconciliation.  

I thought that the problem with reconciliation only bill is that due to the 10 year role investment in physical infrastructure which could have time horizon longer than 10 years will have to go through regular order. I always thought the "bi-partisan" bill is necessary is because of this and the need for Dem high command to placate Manchin.

I was venting.  And I did say 'nearly'. 

[Frodo]

It's mostly sunny skies for Senator Joe Manchin:

Joe Manchin Optimistic as Infrastructure Deal Inches Closer