DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Infrastructure

Senate passes bipartisan infrastructure bill — but what comes next won't be easy

Democrats must keep their own party in line as they attempt to move the infrastructure bill forward in the House.

The Senate passed its bipartisan infrastructure plan Tuesday after months of fractious negotiations among lawmakers and the White House — but the path ahead may be just as torturous.

Now Democrats must keep their own party in line as they attempt to move the infrastructure bill forward in the House, where it will eventually be paired with a $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package loaded with their party’s climate, health and social priorities. Because of the way reconciliation works, Democrats won't need any Republican votes for that huge bill — but they will need every Democratic senator's support.

At the moment, though, backers of the bipartisan deal are in a mood to celebrate.

“Rarely does federal legislation directly address issues that matter to all our constituents,” Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), the infrastructure deal’s primary Democratic negotiator, said in a victory lap on the Senate floor before the final vote. “How many times have we heard in recent months that bipartisanship isn’t possible anymore?”

She said the bipartisan bill and its $550 billion in new spending would not only create jobs and fix crumbling infrastructure. It would also prevent power outages, help more people gain access to fast internet service, protect against wildfires and more.

On the other hand, signs of rising partisan friction were not hard to find.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), another of the deal’s main architects, called the bill “a lasting achievement” that “will improve the lives of all Americans” − but still spent most of his floor speech on the legislation blasting reconciliation as a partisan “tax and spending extravaganza.”

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), one of the original 11 Republicans to sign onto the bipartisan bill, voted against it in the end because it will add to the debt.

The House poses its own set of questions.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she won't bring the infrastructure bill to a floor vote until the Senate also passes the reconciliation bill, a process that could take months. That bill would include other Democratic priorities such as climate change, child care, elder care and housing but is unlikely to significantly boost other transportation priorities already included in the bipartisan deal, despite some progressives' wishes to the contrary.

The Senate is already getting the ball rolling on the reconciliation process, releasing a $3.5 trillion budget resolution on Monday that they hope to pass as soon as Thursday. The budget framework instructs a slew of committees to draft their pieces of the reconciliation proposal by Sept. 15.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday that the reconciliation bill "will do more to combat climate change than any legislation ever, ever in the history of the Senate." Republicans, though, have slammed it as a “reckless tax and spending spree.”

The eventual reconciliation package will be able to pass the Senate with a simple-majority vote, so Democrats can move it without any GOP support. But all 50 Senate Democrats would need to vote for it, including party-bucking mavericks Sinema and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

Complicating matters is the fact that the federal government’s existing transportation programs are due to expire at the end of September, just 10 days after both chambers of Congress are likely to be back in town at the same time. The infrastructure bill would renew those programs for five years — but lawmakers will probably need to pass a short-term extension first.

Lawmakers had hoped to avoid such an extension, as short-term funding patches make it hard for states to plan.

Still, Democrats are keeping their composure. At an appearance Monday with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in his home state of New Jersey, Rep. Tom Malinowski struck a confident tone.

“I’ll just say categorically, this is going to pass the House,” he said. “It’s going to pass the House with overwhelming Democratic support.”

He acknowledged the political hurdles and the complicating factor of the budget reconciliation bill, but said: “Basically, we have several planes up in the air, trying to come in for a landing in stormy weather, and we have air traffic controllers — our leadership in the House and the Senate — that are going to bring those planes down. I’m not sure what order, or exactly when, but I’m absolutely certain the House will pass this infrastructure bill.”

Passage of the bill follows months of bipartisan efforts that started almost immediately after Congress passed President Joe Biden’s top priority upon coming into office: a massive Covid relief bill. Attempts to negotiate with a group of Republicans headed up by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia collapsed in June, and a bipartisan group of moderates led by Portman and Sinema took up the mantle. The effort appeared to fall apart several times before the group finally came out with legislative text last week, overcame a series of procedural holdups and disagreements over amendments and timetables and managed to pass a bipartisan bill.

Theoretically, the House could decline to take up the bipartisan Senate bill as written and instead take it to a conference committee to be melded with a larger, more liberal surface transportation and water infrastructure bill sponsored by House Transportation Chair Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). But White House officials have privately cautioned Democrats against going the conference route, saying they would risk delaying or blowing up the deal.

A leadership aide told POLITICO on Monday that “the House schedule remains fluid and conversations regarding the [bipartisan infrastructure bill] are ongoing.“

Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/10/senate-passes-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-503265

U.S. Senate turns to $3.5 trillion bill, key to Biden's agenda

WASHINGTON, Aug 10 (Reuters) - The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed a massive infrastructure bill and immediately kicked off debate on a $3.5 trillion spending blueprint for President Joe Biden's key priorities on climate change, universal preschool and affordable housing.

The bipartisan $1 trillion infrastructure bill, which the 100-member chamber passed in a 69-30 vote, could provide the nation's biggest investment in decades in roads, bridges, airports and waterways.

U.S. stocks headed to fresh records on the news. read more

With a razor-thin majority in the Senate, Democrats pivoted quickly to a budget resolution containing spending instructions for the multi-trillion-dollar follow-up package. They plan to push the package through over the next few months, using a process called "budget reconciliation," which bypasses the chamber's normal rules requiring 60 votes to pass most legislation.

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said that her chamber will not take up either the infrastructure bill or the spending package until both are delivered, which will require the Democratic leadership to hold its narrow majorities in Congress together to get the legislation to Biden's desk.

"Today we move this country in a very different direction" with a budget plan that will "ask the wealthiest people in our country to start paying their fair share of taxes," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders said on Tuesday as debate began.

Sanders, one of the Senate's most liberal members, added, "The American people are sick and tired of growing income and wealth inequality in our country where two people now own more wealth than the bottom 40%."

Senator Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the budget committee, railed against the spending plan, saying it would fuel inflation, lead to higher taxes and energy costs on working Americans and open the border to more illegal immigration.

"This is why we have elections," Graham said, referring to next year's contests that will determine control of Congress. "In 2022, this idea will be on the ballot, and my goal and my Republican colleagues' is to fight like hell."

The Senate on Tuesday began a "vote-a-rama," a process that gives senators the opportunity to propose amendments to the budget resolution. Debate can run for days unless party leaders agree to a shorter period.

INFRASTRUCTURE WIN

Polls show that the drive to upgrade America's infrastructure, hammered out over months by senators from both parties, is broadly popular with the public. The bill includes $550 billion in new spending, as well as $450 billion in previously approved infrastructure investment.

"Big news, folks: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal has officially passed the Senate," Biden said on Twitter. "I hope Congress will send it to my desk as soon as possible so we can continue our work of building back better."

Once the budget resolution is adopted, Democrats will begin crafting the reconciliation package for a vote on passage after they return from their summer break in September.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office last week said the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill passed on Tuesday would increase federal budget deficits by $256 billion over 10 years -- an assessment rejected by negotiators who said the CBO was undercounting how much revenue it would generate.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who voted for the infrastructure bill, signaled that Republicans would try to use the vote-a-rama to erode support from moderate Democrats for what he called a "radical" larger spending plan that he said would create a permanent welfare state and usher in the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history.

"Every single senator will be going on record over and over and over," McConnell added. "We will debate, and we will vote, and we will stand up, and we will be counted, and the people of this country will know exactly which senators fought for them."

The budget plan would provide various Senate committees with top-line spending levels for a wide range of federal initiatives, including helping the elderly get home healthcare and more families afford early childhood education.

It also would provide tuition-free community college and foster major investments in programs to significantly reduce carbon emissions blamed for climate change. read more

Later, Senate committees would have to fill in the details for scores of federal programs.

When Congress returns in September, it will not only debate the large investment measures but have to fund government activities for the fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1, increase Washington's borrowing authority and possibly try to pass a voting reform bill.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-sena...get-2021-08-10/

The bipartisan bill is a:




The progressive bill might be excessive, but excessive for the poor might be necessary at this point. So I'm good with any amount being spent to make working people's lives a little better.

It would be awesome if someone would list the dollars spent, on what, and where, and why.

Face it, none of congress has read it - they just know their little (or big) piece of the pie is in it. R's, D's, I's.

It's all a show. Media covers it as some huge accomplishment. Next thing you know, congress people will be back home bragging about how much money they brought their constituents. Gotta get re elected, you know.

Was on CNN earlier and saw this...doesn't completely cover what you suggested, but its a start
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/politics/infrastructure-bill-explained/index.html

Here's another link...

https://www.usaspending.gov

Hey, your boy had a chance to get it done. Instead he passed out tax cuts to the super wealthy and sat on his fat orange arse when it came to infrastructure… healthcare… releasing his taxes…
At least Biden gave it more than lip service.

"Lip service" is what Scrotus45© gets from Stupor Brown on a regular.

Thanks. What I was really looking for - and it will never be available, I know - was how much pork is in the bill. And if you've followed congress and bills, there is so much pork in the bills they pass it's un real. This one will be no different. I guess that's partly why it's 2700 pages long, with footnotes, and references, and totally unreadable.

Shoot, the congress people don't even read it. They just want assurance their pet projects are in it.

You're not wrong.
You're not wrong at all.

I'm old and jaded enough to know how stuff works in the 202. That fat will always hang off any bill or package that gets passed. That said, I have to also say this: anything, however inefficient or laden with grift, has got to be better than what we have now. What was it- 8 years ago?... a bridge in MN collapsed during rush hour.

I don't like it any more than you do. We come from the same ethos: honest pay for honest goods/services. That's how it's supposed to be. To a certain degree, it is- in almost every facet of our lives... but not politics.

That's why it's so infuriating to all of us, from one day to the next. The only thing that changes is the headline of the day- and which camp is outraged by the latest news cycle. Spin/rinse/repeat.

____________________


IMO, I think America needs to make a big investment in its future right now. 50 years ago would have been ideal, but that ship sailed long ago. I had hoped that we'd done it at the turn of the century, but that ship sailed long ago, too. I look at it this way: America's infrastructure is 1999-2018 Cleveland Browns: Slap-dash, built on an ancient foundation, held together with spit, chewing gum, bailing wire... and luck.

I'm going into this with eyes wide open.
I know there's gonna be a lot of stuff in this package I'm gonna absolutely hate. And other parts that will make me go, "Whuuuut?"

But as long as the beginnings of infrastructure get started, I'll look at pork as "the cost of doing business." For me, what's more important is that we don't just keep on doing nothing.

Not one single path forward is ever gonna be perfect.
But some path forward has GOT to be better than no forward pat at all.

I'm willing to try another path.
And I'm willing to put my tax dollars behind that effort.


just another .02,
clem

Submit a FOIA request. We have submitted FOIA requests for several projects. You'll receive specs, email correspondence, plans, 65% design submitals, 95% designs and engineered calculations, up through 100% design submission.

Also, included will be contract award total, competitive bids, contractor payment and performance bonds backed by the Dept.of Treasury.

Hope this link helps!
https://www.foia.gov/

FOIA
Freedom Of Information Act.
The everyman American citizen's sharpest tool.

Google is a useful tool. If used other people wouldn't have to do your homework for you. But I can see you need the help, so....

The package calls for $550 billion in new spending over five years.

Transportation

Roads, bridges, major projects: $110 billion
Passenger and freight rail: $66 billion
Public transit: $39 billion
Airports: $25 billion
Port infrastructure: $17 billion
Transportation safety programs: $11 billion
Electric vehicles: $7.5 billion
Zero and low-emission buses and ferries: $7.5 billion
Revitalization of communities: $1 billion

Other infrastructure

Broadband: $65 billion
Power infrastructure: $73 billion
Clean drinking water: $55 billion
Resilience and Western water storage: $50 billion
Removal of pollution from water and soil: $21 billion

How would they pay for it?

The package would be financed through a combination of funds, including repurposing unspent emergency relief funds from the COVID-19 pandemic and strengthening tax enforcement for cryptocurrencies. While negotiators said that the cost of the plan would be offset entirely, the Congressional Budget Office predicted it would add about $256 billion to projected deficits over 10 years.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/24/100992346...k-with-senators

You're welcome.

BTW- 19 Republican senators also voted for the bill.

Hmmm...

I wonder why every media outlet is leaving out the "infrastructure" spending for the other 700 billion dollars (not that it's any of our business).

Was there something specific in the Bill they weren't covering or the Bill itself? A google search shows multiple stories within the last 24 hours.

https://www.google.com/search?q=infrastr...me&ie=UTF-8

I'm just noticing that nearly every media outlet is basically showing what Pit posted above.

A line item list for the 550B in spending on infrastructure with no mention to the other 700B in spending contained in the $1.2 trillion bill.

SHHH That's the GMdawg slush fund

I may be wrong, but I think he was referring to the other half of the bill.

I think the devil is in the details. If one looks at it, the bill only actually approves an additional 550 billion to what has already been approved previously. So while our infrastructure spending will total 1.2 trillion, only 550 billion of it is new.



So if someone wants to know about what the actual increase in the infrastructure spending is, the 550 billion dollar figure covers that.

jc

The bill contains a pilot program for taxing miles driven. I've seen very little coverage of that by the media.

Here are some details on the study as part of the pilot program...

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verif...fc-a25f515b6387

That's very interesting and brings up a logical set of circumstances.....

If we're moving from gas powered vehicles to electric vehicles, the current gas tax will fund less and less of our highway and road maintenance. There hasn't been an increase in the federal gas tax since 1993. We all know it costs much more now to repair our roads per mile than it did in 1993 so we're already losing ground in that department and have been for some time now. When you combine that with the fact that vehicles have become much more fuel efficient since 1993, it's a situation that has formed the perfect storm as to why our highway infrastructure has gotten so bad an in such disrepair.

So there is no doubt that continuing the use of a federal gas tax is not going to work moving forward. There is 7.5 billion going toward building electric charging stations which will make EV's even more practical and many auto makers have announced a major increase in EV models coming out.

So somehow they had to come up with a new method to make up for the loss in gas tax. I think this may be a practical solution in addressing that issue.

A strict 'mileage tax' leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but the gas tax amounts to more or less the same thing... I guess.

Still, I would be really bummed (to put it nicely) to realize my master plan of a Tesla Model Y coinciding with a solar panel and power pack just to get taxed on my mileage anyway.

Then you have to ask the question, how are they going to fund the highway system?

I see it much the way I see the state tax system. Here in Tennessee there is no state income tax. They just get that money in a different way. They tax all food. When you go to the grocery store they tax everything you buy. So in effect every person who eats contributes to the tax base of our state. Rich, poor or otherwise, you pay your share. Does that seem fair to a family of five who have an income of 45k? Maybe not, but everyone contributes.

An EV already saves you a ton on fuel and the overall maintenance costs appear to be much lower. A lot less moving parts. I really didn't think you would be one who felt driving an EV should exclude you from paying your fair share of the maintenance of the very highways you drive on and use.

There are certainly some I would expect that from however.

Yeah, that's what I was starting to get at with the first statement in my previous post. If the only thing I have issue with is the 'packaging' of how I contribute to maintaining roads, then it's probably not much of an issue at all.

As for the original argument... repurposing 'rona dollars to something other than response right now doesn't seem to be the savviest move. And prior to that, it doesn't address the issue of pork. A response to pork spending that includes "it's ok, more than half of the money is just diverted funds from other stuff like Coronavirus relief" doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence.

No, it's not a tax because they called it a fee. The bill does not specify that this is only for electric vehicles.

From the bill:
PER-MILE USER FEE.—The term ‘‘per-mile
user fee’’ means a revenue mechanism that—
(A) is applied to road users operating
motor vehicles on the surface transportation
system;

Knowing how the government works, I wouldn't put it past them to make us pay a gas tax and a per mile user fee.

Not putting it past them and having any evidence that's what is happening are two different things.

I forgot, the liberals that run this board completely trust the government and think the government can do no wrong. My mistake.

No, most of us really don't. We're just not ready to convict them based on nothing. There's a difference. That's why there's so many conspiracy theories floating around. The "I think, I feel and I believe" crowd might wish to put the brakes on once in a while.

I have the same master plan.

I sometimes wonder if you and I are actually the same person posting from two different dimensions.

You just have to be you, don't you.


I was asking about the PORK in the project. And you know it's there.

Using text from the bill itself is nothing? Is a conspiracy theory?

Again, from the bill:


Enlighten me. Where in the objectives does it state this will only apply to electric vehicles?

Also note item B. It states additional revenue. Not a replacement for gas tax revenue. This will be in addition to all other taxes we pay.



Note item F above. Fueling stations. Another indication this will apply to all vehicles. If this was meant to be a revenue stream for electric vehicle owners, that would have been specified in the bill.

Gas taxes are a big portion of the money used to maintain roadways, bridges, etc. At least in theory.

I would be against all of these electric and hybrid car drivers driving down the road tax free. Going to a mileage based taxation seems to be the only way.

How it is collected will be the key. Currently we are on a pay as you go system. Collecting on mileage won't be simple. We can forget the honor system.

Do we just set a standard tax you pay when you get your tag renewed, then have a annual adjustment up or rebated at the end of the year? Probably more like quarterly.

How and who enforces that? Local and state police? Bad idea.

More toll roads?

It will probably be quarterly stamps on your tags where drivers have to go through a undermanned tax station at the DMV to have mileage verified and stamps issued and fees collected at that time. People who drive gasoline, diesel powered vehicles won't have to go through that process since they pay as they go at the gas station.

That or maybe electrics pay at the charging station. People with home charging stations will have to have them on separate, monitored meters that collect the tax as they charge.

Those electric vehicles are going to get a usage tax slapped on them one way or another. People who already own them will probably owe some sort of back tax. Those cars are being used and helping to wear down our roads and bridges without out paying road taxes.

OK...probably no back tax, but we need to insist those folks start paying one way or another ASAP. They should be paying in to the road maintenance pool.

j/c

Pffffft. The miles-driven fee idea is really just a dastardly plan to get camera equipped GPS devices into every vehicle, so the government knows everywhere you go. Then they can also sell that data to bring in even more revenue. Plus these devices would be a convenient place to install remote detonation units or amplifiers for vehicle control takeover stations, so that "accidents" can be staged to dispose of dissenters.

They often do a lousy job allocating the money they have. I don't think more money solves the problem if they continue to waste it. Investing in infrastructure sounds great, but the devil is in the details. They'll probably put in millions of random roundabouts that idiots don't use properly.

The corporations that are obviously gonna control the electric grid are gonna make a crap ton of money the more EVs get in the road.

Tax them an extra 1% every 5 years and call it a day.

Liberty Twp vs Mason? Sounds about right... :-p

I was going to suggest a meetup, but I don't want to create a tear in the space-time fabric.

Ha! Sounds good to me. Who cares about the apocalypse anyhow...

You crack me up. Everything you quoted is nothing more than looking into how this would be accomplished. There is nothing, I repeat nothing in the bill that mandates any of these measures into law. As you even admitted yourself....



An indication and your beliefs do not and did not make any of these measures a law. They are simply measures to see how they could work. An exploratory experiment when looking towards the future.