Bipartisan infrastructure group swells to 21 senators

[Omaha Steve]

Last edited Thu Jun 17, 2021, 09:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: AP

By LISA MASCARO

WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan senators’ group working on a $1 trillion infrastructure compromise more than doubled in size to 21 members Wednesday, a key threshold that gives momentum to their effort as President Joe Biden returns from overseas at a pivotal time for his big legislative priority.

Biden told reporters he had yet to see the emerging proposal from the group but remained hopeful a bipartisan agreement could be reached, despite weeks of on-again, off-again talks over his more robust $1.7 billion American Jobs Plan.

“I’m still hoping we can put together the two bookends here,” Biden said as he prepared to depart Geneva after attending a summit of European leaders.

The administration dispatched top White House advisers for back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill while the president was away. Biden and his Democratic allies in Congress are proceeding on a two-track strategy — seeking a bipartisan bill while preparing to go it alone if Republicans try to block the investments with a filibuster in the Senate.



Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., one of the key Senate infrastructure negotiators, rushes back to a basement room at the Capitol as he and other Democrats work behind closed doors, in Washington, Wednesday, June 16, 2021. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)


Read more: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-lifestyle-business-government-and-politics-494f67f3014ec5d1361ebf27646f8340

[jimfields33]

1. Getting closer. This will be another win for President Biden.

[lark]

2. I hope you are right, but just can't see repugs being reasonable about paying.

Think this could be the worst of the worst so repugs take total credit, it doesn't do nearly enough for the working class, and rich get to keep all their ill gotten monies, not making us anymore fair and keeping the ground tilted to the right. This is quite alarming to me since I don't trust repugs not to shoot us (working class/poo) in the face and give their rich relatives & friends and huge boost.

[hatrack]

4. Toll roads, user fees, regressive taxes, punitive registration charges on EVs . . . no problem!!

But making Amazon pay a nickel in corporate income tax - bad!!!!

[Elessar Zappa]

8. We can pass it without Republicans.

It will be passed under reconciliation which only requires a simple majority. I know Biden wants Republicans but if they don’t play ball then infrastructure will be passed without their input.

[lark]

9. Not if Mancin and/or Sienema refuses to back the partys pollicies.

Since Mancin thinks he's got the repugs behind him, he will not vote with the Dems. This is his show, he thinks.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. At this point, it's not Manchin and Sinema who hold the power

It’s the Congressional Progressive Caucus. They will not support a gutted, watered down “bipartisan” bill.

There is strength in numbers, and the CPC can resist the pressure to cave to pass a bad bill better than Manchin and Sinema can obstruct passing a fantastic bill via reconciliation, when the spotlight is on just the two of them.

[gab13by13]

3. I take anything the Senate does with a grain of salt.

If Speaker Pelosi endorses it then I'm on board but not until then.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. GOP rigidity made of Swiss cheese

I'm no fan of Manchin but blending bills with GOP input so we get what we want, and they get a milder, sane version of what they want does not strike me as a bad thing as long as they're not trashing democracy. It would defuse GOP talking points. And it's a sign that Biden's wisdom and strength is turning America's attention away from 45ism.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Where's the link?

[Omaha Steve]

7. OOPS

I fixed it. Here it is again: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-lifestyle-business-government-and-politics-494f67f3014ec5d1361ebf27646f8340

[lark]

10. Still bet repugs are playing rope a dope and are totally unserious about this.

We'll see. Hopefully when they show their perfidy, Mancin will decide to back the Dems version, but it's not certain at all that he will put average Americans over the rich.

[William Seger]

11. They'll never vote for a bill that raises taxes on the rich

The donor class will be perfectly happy with rebuilding our broken infrastructure -- they'll get richer faster -- as long as the working class pays for it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. I see this as overall positive

...whether or not it moves forward and gets passed. For one thing, if Democrats go along and then the participating Republicans fail to deliver their votes, that absolutely clears the decks for Democrats to pass bold and sweeping infrastructure legislation through reconciliation. Republicans bailing on this type plan would be a stab in the back for moderate Democratic Senators who are invested in efforts at bipartisanship: a bright green light for Democrats only governance to follow.

The fact that that this plan is relatively light at best at delivering less traditional forms of people centered infrastructure opens the door for Democrats to fashion a different piece of legislation to address needs not covered by the "bipartisan bill" We can legitimately claim that we compromised in areas where Republicans "negotiated in good faith", and only acted alone where they dug in as obstructionists.

When weighing big picture factors into the equation (more on that below) I can live with a "compromise" funding plan somewhat along the lines seemingly being proposed. I think it gives Democrats enough "wiggle room" to not have to go into contortions defending that we didn't "cave in" on new middle class taxes. Pegging gas taxes moving forward from here to inflation can be seen as preserving the status quo, the same way COLA increases for Social Security are framed. And it can be argued that the current formulae for maintaining our highways and bridges, through use of gasoline taxes, dates back to an era where few if any foresaw the time we now are entering when electric vehicles are rapidly displacing gas powered cars on our roads. Not to make a "technical adjustment" to draw revenue from the operation of electric powered vehicles could lead to a collapse in the current funding stream for bridge and highway maintenance. If we find tax formula that ensures that electric vehicle owners are not burdened any more by taxes than current gas operated car owners are, that can be argued as a wash as well in an all but technical sense.

THEN Democrats will be free to implement most if not all of the remainder of Biden's current infrastructure plan using Reconciliation, reserving an increase in the corporate tax rate as the funding mechanism. We may not be able to get 50 Democratic caucus Senators to support raising that rate all the way up to 28% from 22%, but even Joe Manchin is on record favoring rising it to 25%.

And as to that bigger picture, delivering on all of the above will strengthen the Democratic hand heading into the mid terms. From whatever angle voters view it, from Center Right to Progressive, Joe Biden's Administration will have delivered for Americans and shown that Democrats deliver on their promises, including the pledge Biden made to act in a bipartisan manner when possible. While working with Republicans in the Senate now might result in Biden getting less than 100% of his economic agenda, what he will have delivered on, factoring in the Covid relief package, a bipartisan infrastructure bill and follow up legislation passed through Reconciliation, will still be very substantial. If Democrats can then do relatively well in the mid terms, we can come back in January 2023 and pick up where we left off on our progressive agenda.

[Bayard]

14. Not even close to the figure needed

Manchin thinks he's going to end up a hero, when all he's going to get is humiliation.

That wild and reckless reconciliation if the only way to go, with the additional monies coming from the wealthy and corporations. (that use our transportation, electrical, and other systems, but don't want to pay for them).

[paleotn]

15. Find a legitimate way to pay for it....

or no deal. And I don't mean cutting existing spending outside of the Pentagon.