News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Infrastructure Bill 2021

Started by ITB, August 02, 2021, 05:01:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hotdogPi

#150
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 23, 2021, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 23, 2021, 10:43:00 PM
You'd think Louisiana would be the last state that would vote against more infrastructure funding lol

You'd think, but when it comes time to vote, it's more about how it will look to people back home than it is about what's actually best for the state. Vote against wasteful spending (i.e. any spending you don't personally like), vote against anything the President does if he's not in your party so you can keep him from getting a win.

Besides being a rep from Louisiana, Scalise is also Minority Whip, which makes him part of Republican leadership. If he wants to keep that spot, he also has to keep his boss, Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), happy. McCarthy seems to have decided that his team will do better next November, and therefore he will become Speaker, if they defeat the bill, so Scalise is following the boss's orders.

You see similar maneuvering among the rank and file members. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and John Boozman (R-AR) both sponsored the amendment to the infrastructure bill to get US-412 upgraded to Interstate status, but then voted against the amended bill. This allows them to tell voters both that they got their state road money and also that they voted against "Biden's wasteful spending". They figure nobody is actually going to look up the details and will just take their advertising at face value.

People who sometimes vote against their party are typically more likely to be re-elected (e.g. Susan Collins, John Katko, Jared Golden, even Justin Amash 2010-2018 and it wasn't his voting record that caused an issue in 2020).
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.


Anthony_JK

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 22, 2021, 01:49:43 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 21, 2021, 09:05:49 PM
The evolution of West Virginia into a "red state" is fairly new and somewhat parallels Kentucky's progress in this area. I can remember when Arch Moore, a former Republican governor from my youth, was somewhat of a novelty. West Virginia's entire federal delegation was made up of Democrats when I was a kid, and the state legislature was dominated by them. [...] West Virginia is, and to the best of my knowledge always has been, conservative on moral and cultural issues, but very much a liberal state when it comes to government spending (Robert Byrd, anyone?).
This mostly has to do with the ongoing "switch" between Democrats and Republicans that's been going on since the 1960s. Before the 1960s, the Republican party was the big business party and the Democrats were more in favor of social programs like the New Deal, but other than that, many of their positions were reversed from the present day. It's taken quite a while for state-level politics to catch up.

You see a similar trend in Oklahoma politics–solid Democratic state until Lyndon B. Johnson, then voted for Richard Nixon and hasn't gone blue for President once since then. Same goes with the Governor–all Democrats from statehood in 1907 on until 1962, when we elected our first Republican, Henry Bellmon. Oklahoma has only had five Republican governors, but since the fourth one (Fallin) was elected in 2010 they've had a lock on statewide office, and it seems unlikely we'll see another Democratic governor for a long time.

Quote from: hbelkins on September 21, 2021, 09:05:49 PM
I'm still trying to figure out Sinema. Conservatives were dead-set against her when she ran.

Everyone's trying to figure out Sinema, even her own staffers. I've read social media posts from people who worked for her in her campaigns that are entirely baffled by her Senate record because it doesn't square with her previous positions or values at all. The prevailing theory seems to be that she is attempting to emulate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his "maverick" reputation, without understanding why McCain did the things he did. Besides, Sinema's voting record prior to becoming a Senator was much closer to that of the Democratic party as a whole. Voting against your party because you're making a principled stand might get you grudging respect, but doing it just because you want to draw attention to how different you are makes you primary bait.




ETA: I just wanted to point out that the sort of wheeling and dealing described above is made much easier to potentially resolve by earmarks being allowed again. A "well I don't really care one way or the other but I have to vote no to look good to the people in my state" or type of no vote can sometimes become a "yes" by including funds for a project in that legislator's district or state. Then they can go back home and say "Well, yes, it was a big government spending bill, but look, I got you a new Interstate out of it." Likewise, a "I don't want to vote for the hard bill unless I get the soft bill" can potentially be neutralized by including an earmark for that legislator's district or state, because then they may be called to account for why they were voting against their constituents' interest by voting down a bill that would get them new infrastructure.   

Would it be possible, Scott, for me to give my own perspective of the battle royal? Or, would that be a bit too political for this thread?

hotdogPi

Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2021, 07:41:13 AM
Would it be possible, Scott, for me to give my own perspective of the battle royal? Or, would that be a bit too political for this thread?

If Scott5114 gave that long explanation, you should also be able to. If he didn't allow it, it would be hypocrisy.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 23, 2021, 10:31:45 PM
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Republican Minority Whip, is telling his caucus that House Republican leadership is opposed to the infrastructure bill and is trying to convince Republicans to vote against it. Meanwhile, Axios is reporting that, in a highly unusual move, Republican senators that worked on and/or voted for the bill (Portman [OH], Romney [UT], Collins [ME], Cassidy [LA], Murkowski [AK]) are going behind leadership's back to try to whip them to vote for it!

I have no idea how this is likely to turn out, as this is the first time since I've been watching politics that I've seen this particular situation.

House vote is scheduled for Monday.

I believe I see the politics behind both moves.

Scalise is attempting to hold the line against the "hard infrastructure" bill so that he forces Pelosi's hand and in support of the "moderate" conservative Democrats attempting to nuke the reconciliation (aka the "soft infrastructure" bill), since it would only take three Democrat votes flipped to kill the latter. He's also strengthening the hardline base of his own party, who simply opposes initiatives because they don't want Biden and the Democrats to accomplish anything; and that they feel they can stand on their hands and let everything fall apart and rake the political rewards in the midterm elections next year.

Meanwhile, the "moderate" conservative Senate Republicans are also holding their own line of backing the "bipartisan" hard bill as a buffer for the conservative Democrats (not only Manchin and Sinema, but also long time "moderates" like Mark Warner (VA), Chris Coons (DE), Richard Durbin (IL)), who also helped draft the "hard" bill. Both sides would rather see the "soft" bill defeated in the House by conservative Dems, or at least gutted to remove most of the social spending initiatives because of their concern (I would say "obsession") with deficit reduction and reducing public spending on anything not approved as "pork" for Wall Street, the Pentagon, or private interest groups.


kalvado

Quote from: 1 on September 24, 2021, 07:45:40 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2021, 07:41:13 AM
Would it be possible, Scott, for me to give my own perspective of the battle royal? Or, would that be a bit too political for this thread?

If Scott5114 gave that long explanation, you should also be able to. If he didn't allow it, it would be hypocrisy.
Key difference is that Scott gave his overview in a pretty factual manner, with little agenda included.
Something Anthony didn't try to achieve.

Anthony_JK

There is now a new player in the game that could also bolster the "moderates" and deal the final blow to the "progressives".

The debt ceiling now has to be resolved, and quickly; the Treasury recently stated that they can hold the government ship together only until around early-to-mid October before they would be forced to declare the US in default for their debt. To put it mildly, US default would not be good.

Problem is, the Treasury has now eliminated any solution that would ease the problem that doesn't require Congressional action, and there are only two approaches Congress can take in resolving the crisis.

1) They can extend the debt ceiling or even suspend it through an act of Congress. That, though, requires "regular order" and a 60 vote cushion for cloture (ending debate and allowing a final vote for passage) in the Senate; and the GOP is solidly opposed to giving Biden and the Democrats any wiggle room. In fact, GOP leader Mitch McConnell is on record saying that he would oppose any debt ceiling rise that does not include severe social spending cuts in the name of "deficit reduction" and codifies permanently the corporate tax cuts passed by the previous Trump administration; and that is the standard default position shared by most of the GOP Senate "conference". In a Senate split down the middle at 50-50, that's a big problem.

2) The only other option is for Democrats to raise the debt ceiling on their own, through the reconciliation process. This is the same process that Democrats are using in order to attempt to pass the "soft" infrastructure bill. But, there is a HUGE problem there: Reconciliation has distinct rules on its use for the debt ceiling; meaning that if the current reconciliation process now ongoing for the "soft" bill is adjusted for the debt ceiling, it can't be used for the increased spending initiatives that the "progressives" want.

In short, the debt ceiling battle gives even more of a political nuke to the ConservaDems wanting to kill the social spending parts of the reconciliation bill. If worse comes to worse and the government shuts down or even goes to default, there will be major pressure on Congress to act with warp speed; and the only lifeline that would be available for the Democrats to defuse the situation would be to readjust the current reconciliation bill strictly for raising the ceiling, and then pass the bill with Democrat votes only. The Democrats could try to use another reconciliation bill process beginning in October based on the new 2022 fiscal year starting in October 1st after that to try to initiate the social spending goals of the "progressives", but more than likely that would get blocked by the "moderates" and Manchin/Sinema, who would say that one reconciliation debacle is enough and it's time to get back to "regular order" and let the GOP in.

In other words, it's not looking good for the progressives in any form.

Rothman

Quote from: 1 on September 24, 2021, 07:16:42 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 23, 2021, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 23, 2021, 10:43:00 PM
You'd think Louisiana would be the last state that would vote against more infrastructure funding lol

You'd think, but when it comes time to vote, it's more about how it will look to people back home than it is about what's actually best for the state. Vote against wasteful spending (i.e. any spending you don't personally like), vote against anything the President does if he's not in your party so you can keep him from getting a win.

Besides being a rep from Louisiana, Scalise is also Minority Whip, which makes him part of Republican leadership. If he wants to keep that spot, he also has to keep his boss, Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), happy. McCarthy seems to have decided that his team will do better next November, and therefore he will become Speaker, if they defeat the bill, so Scalise is following the boss's orders.

You see similar maneuvering among the rank and file members. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and John Boozman (R-AR) both sponsored the amendment to the infrastructure bill to get US-412 upgraded to Interstate status, but then voted against the amended bill. This allows them to tell voters both that they got their state road money and also that they voted against "Biden's wasteful spending". They figure nobody is actually going to look up the details and will just take their advertising at face value.

People who sometimes vote against their party are typically more likely to be re-elected (e.g. Susan Collins, John Katko, Jared Golden, even Justin Amash 2010-2018 and it wasn't his voting record that caused an issue in 2020).
Katko's in a very tenuous position due to his purple district which is turning more blue.  He's making some missteps:  Focusing on implementing punitive measures to stem immigration, when that is a secondary issue at most for his constituents.  Going to be another nail-biter of an election for him.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: kalvado on September 24, 2021, 08:22:57 AM
Quote from: 1 on September 24, 2021, 07:45:40 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2021, 07:41:13 AM
Would it be possible, Scott, for me to give my own perspective of the battle royal? Or, would that be a bit too political for this thread?

If Scott5114 gave that long explanation, you should also be able to. If he didn't allow it, it would be hypocrisy.
Key difference is that Scott gave his overview in a pretty factual manner, with little agenda included.
Something Anthony didn't try to achieve.

I'm offering my own personal perspective on this battle. Nothing more, nothing less. Same as everyone else.
Not everyone on this forum is bent to the Right.

I'll move on from this now and stick to the rules.

JoePCool14

Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2021, 08:52:24 AM
Not everyone on this forum is bent to the Right.

Based on my experience here, I think that might be an understatement.

:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

triplemultiplex

The longer this drags on, the stupider it gets.  Makes me think the whole thing implodes and we get jack-dick out of this process and shit crumbles for another 2-4 years.
Republicans don't need to torpedo infrastructure to win back the House and maybe the Senate.  That's going to happen anyway due to history and reapportionment.
And they don't have to worry about Democrats riding the success of an infrastructure bill in 2021 to the polls 3 years from now.  First off, that's so far in the future no one will remember or care.  And secondly, Dems are just awful at running on accomplishments.  It'll be a non-factor, I guarantee it.  Might as well snag some cash for local projects while you can, for crying out loud.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Plutonic Panda

So is Monday the turning point on this then? That's what it seems like.

Scott5114

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 10:50:49 AM
So is Monday the turning point on this then? That's what it seems like.

It is, unless it isn't. That's currently when the House vote is scheduled for. But the real power in the Speaker position is that you get to set the calendar. So if Pelosi feels she needs more time to negotiate, she can push the vote back to whenever she likes. The only hard deadline is the end of the Congress (that is, the vote has to be held before January 2023, or else the bill will expire).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

hbelkins

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 23, 2021, 10:31:45 PM
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Republican Minority Whip, is telling his caucus that House Republican leadership is opposed to the infrastructure bill and is trying to convince Republicans to vote against it. Meanwhile, Axios is reporting that, in a highly unusual move, Republican senators that worked on and/or voted for the bill (Portman [OH], Romney [UT], Collins [ME], Cassidy [LA], Murkowski [AK]) are going behind leadership's back to try to whip them to vote for it!

I know nothing of the internal politics of Louisiana or of Cassidy's ideology to posit an opinion, but Portman's a lame duck so he can do whatever he wants, and Romney, Collins, and Murkowski are RINOs who are often unpredictable.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

abefroman329

Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 24, 2021, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2021, 08:52:24 AM
Not everyone on this forum is bent to the Right.

Based on my experience here, I think that might be an understatement.
Considering we all have our own personal definition of left, right, and center, it's hard to say with any certainty.

Scott5114

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 24, 2021, 12:47:52 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2021, 10:50:49 AM
So is Monday the turning point on this then? That's what it seems like.

It is, unless it isn't. That's currently when the House vote is scheduled for. But the real power in the Speaker position is that you get to set the calendar. So if Pelosi feels she needs more time to negotiate, she can push the vote back to whenever she likes. The only hard deadline is the end of the Congress (that is, the vote has to be held before January 2023, or else the bill will expire).

In an interview this morning with George Stephanopolis Stephanoupl Stephanapoul Steppenwolf Indianapolis, Pelosi said:
Quote from: Speaker of the House
I'm never bringing a bill to the floor that doesn't have the votes. [...] You cannot choose the date. You have to go when you have the votes.

It would appear, then, she does not have the votes–this afternoon, she rescheduled the vote to Thursday.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

JoePCool14

Quote from: abefroman329 on September 24, 2021, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 24, 2021, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 24, 2021, 08:52:24 AM
Not everyone on this forum is bent to the Right.
Based on my experience here, I think that might be an understatement.
Considering we all have our own personal definition of left, right, and center, it's hard to say with any certainty.

Sure, you can't say with total certainty, but you can make a reasonable assumption.

Also on topic, the federal government will probably end up shutting down over all this. I guess that's basically a yearly occurrence at this point.

:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

Scott5114

Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 27, 2021, 11:15:44 AM
Also on topic, the federal government will probably end up shutting down over all this. I guess that's basically a yearly occurrence at this point.

The potential government shutdown/debt ceiling/budget continuing resolution ball of wax is a completely separate thing that just happens to be hitting at the same time. Based on the positions everyone is taking over that, I have no doubt it would still be going down the same way even if both infrastructure bills had passed three months ago.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Plutonic Panda

This is so frustrating. Basically certain members are holding a bill that is less partisan and greatly needed hostage to push their pet bill forward.

https://apple.news/Aj0HeB2KPT1yipo9krsmPow

The longer this plays out the less optimistic I get.

HighwayStar

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2021, 12:06:59 AM
This is so frustrating. Basically certain members are holding a bill that is less partisan and greatly needed hostage to push their pet bill forward.

https://apple.news/Aj0HeB2KPT1yipo9krsmPow

The longer this plays out the less optimistic I get.

I would be happy with a D none of the above outcome. None of these bills address the fundamental infrastructure needs so no sense in wasting the money.
There are those who travel, and those who travel well

Scott5114

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2021, 12:06:59 AM
This is so frustrating. Basically certain members are holding a bill that is less partisan and greatly needed hostage to push their pet bill forward.

https://apple.news/Aj0HeB2KPT1yipo9krsmPow

The longer this plays out the less optimistic I get.

I would be happy with a D none of the above outcome. None of these bills address the fundamental infrastructure needs so no sense in wasting the money.

k Avalanchez71
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 01, 2021, 01:00:00 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2021, 12:06:59 AM
This is so frustrating. Basically certain members are holding a bill that is less partisan and greatly needed hostage to push their pet bill forward.

https://apple.news/Aj0HeB2KPT1yipo9krsmPow

The longer this plays out the less optimistic I get.

I would be happy with a D none of the above outcome. None of these bills address the fundamental infrastructure needs so no sense in wasting the money.

k Avalanchez71
lol my thoughts exactly. I wonder if any progress will be made today.

Scott5114

#171
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2021, 01:03:38 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 01, 2021, 01:00:00 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2021, 12:06:59 AM
This is so frustrating. Basically certain members are holding a bill that is less partisan and greatly needed hostage to push their pet bill forward.

https://apple.news/Aj0HeB2KPT1yipo9krsmPow

The longer this plays out the less optimistic I get.

I would be happy with a D none of the above outcome. None of these bills address the fundamental infrastructure needs so no sense in wasting the money.

k Avalanchez71
lol my thoughts exactly. I wonder if any progress will be made today.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), who has taken on the role as spokesperson for the progressives, said about an hour ago that while she doesn't expect a deal to be reached today, conversations are ongoing and she's optimistic about how things are going. She also stated that progressives are really just looking for a commitment of some kind toward the soft bill (which has started to be identified in media as the Build Back Better or BBB bill) before they'll support the bipartisan infrastructure bill (which I've seen referred to as BIB or BIF). They prefer an actual Senate vote, but Jayapal says "If there's something else that's short of a vote... that gives me those same assurances, I want to listen to that." I have no idea what would have the same assurances as an actual vote, but presumably Jayapal has something in mind.

Meanwhile, over on the Senate side, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has finally been beaten into at least releasing his "list of demands", such as they are, for the soft bill, so at least there's something to work with there, even if the progressives are not terribly happy about it. Among the things Manchin wants is a reduction in its size, which caused a very irritated Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to remark that the bill had already been negotiated down to half of what it started out as. The more conservative Democrats are also irritated that if he was going to quote a dollar amount that he didn't do it at the beginning of the process and save everyone the trouble of having to try to read his mind.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), meanwhile, is saying nothing about what she wants, instead getting drawn into a controversy regarding some 10-year-old tweets that seemed to imply that 2011 Sinema would be pretty disappointed in 2021 Sinema for holding up the bill. Sinema's response was to say nothing and delete the old tweets. [ETA: Apparently Sinema isn't even in town today, instead taking the day off to go to Phoenix for a doctor's appointment. So nothing is likely to get done on the Senate side today.]

Of course, we could be spared this whole drama if there were some House Republicans that wanted to step up and announce they supported the hard bill. That would give Pelosi some room to maneuver since she wouldn't have to care so much about what Jayapal wants. But, unlike the Senate Republicans, so far none of them are willing to do so.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

FrCorySticha

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 01, 2021, 02:26:51 PM
Of course, we could be spared this whole drama if there were some House Republicans that wanted to step up and announce they supported the hard bill. That would give Pelosi some room to maneuver since she wouldn't have to care so much about what Jayapal wants. But, unlike the Senate Republicans, so far none of them are willing to do so.

The Republicans are having a good time watching the Democrats fight among themselves. They're not going to give Pelosi any favors. They know the bill is going to pass, and most will vote for it regardless of what's in it. They just like the optics of groups of Democrats fighting against her causing the bill to be delayed.

Scott5114

Quote from: FrCorySticha on October 01, 2021, 04:06:31 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 01, 2021, 02:26:51 PM
Of course, we could be spared this whole drama if there were some House Republicans that wanted to step up and announce they supported the hard bill. That would give Pelosi some room to maneuver since she wouldn't have to care so much about what Jayapal wants. But, unlike the Senate Republicans, so far none of them are willing to do so.

The Republicans are having a good time watching the Democrats fight among themselves. They're not going to give Pelosi any favors. They know the bill is going to pass, and most will vote for it regardless of what's in it. They just like the optics of groups of Democrats fighting against her causing the bill to be delayed.

I think we're likely to see far fewer Republican votes in the House than in the Senate because Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the Republican leader in the House, is much more focused on opposing the bill than Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate leader, was. McConnell remained mostly non-committal about the hard bill and ended up voting in favor of it (all of his opposition has been focused on the soft bill).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Plutonic Panda




Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.