Some dare call it infrastructure

Featured image I don’t think we have a text to go to yet, but I have absolutely no doubt that the editors of the Wall Street Journal correctly assess the so-called bipartisan infrastructure deal as “not so grand.” If the Journal has these details right, that is a grand understatement. They highlight “an epic binge of green subsidies and more handouts for states and localities.” To wit: Consider mass transit, which received »

What price bipartisanship?

Featured image Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the bipartisan infrastructure deal was in a “precarious state” because the Republicans who are a party to the negotiations were balking over details, particularly the idea of beefing up the IRS in order to raise revenue to help pay for the legislation. Today, Politico reports that the needed Republican votes probably aren’t there to agree to anything on Chuck Schumer’s timetable. Schumer has scheduled »

Is Mass Transit Dead?

Featured image One good thing about covid was that highway traffic was way down, so where I live we finally could get where we were going. With covid now more or less finished, traffic congestion has returned. But, as transportation expert Randal O’Toole explains, mass transit ridership remains depressed: Americans drove nearly 96 percent as many miles in May 2021 as in the same month in 2019, indicating a return to normalcy. »

Is “infrastructure” a political winner for Democrats?

Featured image Polling suggests that it probably isn’t. Philip Klein discusses the matter here. One poll found that, by a big margin, Americans answer the following question affirmatively: President Biden recently proposed a $2 trillion infrastructure plan to be spent on roads, bridges and trains, internet access, power grid improvements, and clean energy projects. In general, do you support or oppose this plan. In another poll, by about the same large margin »

Is Lindsey Graham an idiot?

Featured image Philip Klein of National Review thinks so. In fact, his latest column is called “Lindsey Graham is an idiot.” Klein bases his assessment on the fact that Graham is now back on board the bipartisan infrastructure deal. Graham had jumped off when Joe Biden said he would only sign the bipartisan bill in tandem with a multi-trillion dollar Democrats-only reconciliation bill containing the rest of his liberal wish list. At »

Compromise, GOP style, cont’d

Featured image Rich Lowry writes at some length urging Republicans abandon the infrastructure deal. He argues that Republicans “have nothing to gain by blessing a portion of President Joe Biden’s spending plans, when an ungodly amount of money is going to go out the door regardless of whether they vote for a chunk of it or not.” Yesterday I linked to and wrote about Marc Thiessen’s Washington Post column supporting the deal »

Compromise, GOP style

Featured image Marc Thiessen has written a good column on the alleged infrastructure compromise bill in process. The column appears in the Washington Post under the headline “Biden’s fake infrastructure ‘compromise’ has thrown Democrats into disarray.” AEI has posted Thiessen’s column in accessible form here. Thiessen describes what sounds like an illusory deal for the GOP: President Biden’s big gaffe was not his threat to veto a $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal he »

War on the suburbs, infrastructure style

Featured image If Republicans have signed off on the alleged infrastructure bill that is to be formulated as a “compromise” lopping off the ginormous tax and spending package Democrats intend to push through on their own, we should take a closer look at its contents. According to the March 31 White House Fact Sheet: The President’s plan invests $213 billion to produce, preserve, and retrofit more than two million affordable and sustainable »

Mitch at the bridge

Featured image The Democratic cheerleaders at Politico Playbook have McConnell anxiety. Playbook PM runs with the optimistic headline “McConnell plays skunk at infrastructure party.” The Politico team reports (emphases omitted): MCCONNELL’S NEXT MOVE: We’ve been waiting for Senate Minority Leader MITCH MCCONNELL to play his next card on the infrastructure deal. He has encouraged the talks but hasn’t backed the agreement reached between the bipartisan group of 10 senators and the White »

Clean-up on WH aisle five

Featured image The editors of the Wall Street Journal seem to me to bring the necessary cynicism to explicating the infrastructure “compromise” that is to preface enactment of the related Dem wish list/prospective spending blowout: Mr. Biden’s statement Saturday changes nothing except the [White House counselor Steven] Ricchetti atmospherics. Mr. Biden spoke the real truth on Thursday. He knows, because Mr. Ricchetti tells him, that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader »

Reconcile this

Featured image Politico Playbook cheers on the Democrats as it lets us know what “the deal” is. I take it from the Playbook report here this morning that it’s not a good deal. It’s a bad deal (emphases and links omitted in excerpt below): — Reconciliation. Despite Biden’s statement, the enormous reconciliation bill that Democrats are drafting will hang over the process all summer and remain a handy excuse [sic (and sickening)] »

Some questions about the deal

Featured image Joe Biden blundered bigtime when he said he won’t sign the compromise infrastructure bill unless Democrats in Congress first pass his social spending priorities through reconciliation. As I noted at the time, Biden’s statement opened the door for Republicans who had announced their support for the compromise bill to walk away from that commitment, since there is no compromise when the Democrats take some of what they want through agreement »

What’s the deal?

Featured image Politico Playbook in its various manifestations is something like a rooting section for Democrats. Trying to understand where the nascent infrastructure fiasco is at, I turn to Eugene Daniels Playbook report dated yesterday morning: This could’ve been a celebratory moment for the White House. President JOE BIDEN finally — finally! — got his bipartisan deal on infrastructure, last week’s trip to Europe went well, the pandemic is easing, the country »

Building out the IRS

Featured image Any ginormous spending bill that comes under “bipartisan” auspices should be suspect from the git-go. This Wall Street Journal editorial explores one goody that is to be stuffed into the trillion-dollar box: The bipartisan Senate infrastructure deal still hasn’t been written into legislative language, but we already know that its no-tax-increase pledge is a fudge. The deal is counting on $100 billion in new revenue by supersizing the Internal Revenue »

Where is the love?

Featured image How is the GOP wing of the bipartisan infra dig infrastructure contingent taking their exposure as chumps on the morning after? Let’s go to this afternoon’s Politico Playbook PM for an update: This morning, we reported that Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.), one of the 11 Republicans who supported the bipartisan infrastructure framework, was backing out of the deal over President JOE BIDEN’S insistence that he would not sign the bipartisan »

The double-cross system

Featured image It’s hard to believe that a Senator as sophisticated as Rob Portman is a knowing participant in the double-cross system that has been presented to us under the rubric of a “bipartisan deal.” What’s the deal? The editors of the Wall Street Journal describe it bluntly as a “double cross” in their lead editorial (“Instant Bipartisan Double Cross”) this morning: Mr. Biden stood with five Democratic and five Republican Senators »

Here’s the deal [UPDATED]

Featured image It looks like there are now at least 60 votes to pass infrastructure legislation. That’s because a group of ten Senators, five from each party, has compromised on the matter. The compromise reportedly provides for $600 billion in new spending on roads, bridges and other traditional infrastructure projects. I’ve seen reports that the total package is closer to $1 trillion, so there is also spending on things that aren’t true »