Biden Infrastructure plan

[mindlight]

As an international observer of American politics married to an American I have been impressed by the recent plans to invest in America's infrastructure. Joe Biden's Build Back Better program initiative proposes to revamp America's decaying infrastructure. It seems like a no-brainer to me but there is a lot of opposition to this brewing. Many of these opponents focus on a hidden agenda of making America a leader in green technologies and cleaning up the environment,

THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM

To illustrate the scale of America's infrastructure problem read the following report:
ASCE’s 2021 American Infrastructure Report Card | GPA: C-

America received a C- score in a recent review of its infrastructure. Highlights included:

1. an estimated 6 billion gallons of treated water lost each day in the U.S., enough to fill over 9,000 swimming pools.
2. 43% of ... public roadways in poor or mediocre condition, a number that has remained stagnant over the past several years.
3. A quarter of all levees (e.g. preventing flood damage from rivers) are not inventoried and are in unknown condition

THE PLAN

Key features include:

• adding 500,000 electric vehicle chargers
• rebuilding conventional transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, rail, and public transportation)
• a carbon-neutral program to transition government vehicles to electric vehicles, along with the possible extension of consumer tax credits for purchasing electric vehicles. (Tesla and General Motors capped out the $7500 income tax credit for the first 200,000 EVs sold)
• light-rail networks and infrastructure for bicycles and pedestrians for the 300 largest U.S. cities
• set a target for a "carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035."

Infrastructure policy of the Joe Biden administration - Wikipedia

THE BENEFITS

An economic analysis from Moody's Analytics found Biden's infrastructure policies would create 18.6 million jobs and increase average American income by $4,800 during his first term

THE COSTS

Business taxes will be raised to pay for this from 21-28% which still remains low by international standards.

QUESTIONS

1) Is America's infrastructure in need of an upgrade on this scale?
2) Is it time to move to Green technologies?
3) Why are people opposed to this?
4) Why the breakneck pace of growth in rival economies like China who invest heavily in infrastructure not impress Republicans?

 

[Fantine]

I think people are opposed to the infrastructure plan because they will be told we can't afford it. The reason we can't afford it is the 2017 Trump tax cuts. If people are told often enough that tax cuts for the 1% and corporations will "trickle down" to the rest of us they believe it.

They have to learn how to think critically. Has this worked in the past for the rest of us? Really? Why has income inequality increased eponentially since the Reagan administration? Why are the rich getting richer and richer while the rest of us are getting poorer? And during the pandemic while small businesses were shuttering "small business" loans last April went to fat cat expense account steak house chains ike Peter Luger's.

Solar energy panels last about 20 years---and pay for themselves completely in 8. Our local VA Hospital has solar panels over its parking lot--not only giving cars shade during our 100 degree summer days but also giving the hospital free electricity for the last twelve years of the solar panels' 20 year lifespan.

I can understand why coal and oil workers are concerned about their futures and trying to convince us that we can't change to better alternatives--but this infrastructure plan will create any jobs that might be lost by energy workers (and without all those pesky earthquakes that fracking caused in states like Oklahoma). I am 100% in favor of this plan, and I believe that these investments will pay for themselves in growth, saved energy costs, and more middle income wages.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I'm in full support of reinvesting in our infrastructure. Bridges, roads, water distribution, electric, pretty much everything we depend on is badly in need of modernization. Anyone know if broadband for rural parts of the country is part of this plan?

 

[Albion]

These plans always look good when the proposal is revealed to the public. They also never turn out to be as advertised.

Does no one remember the "shovel ready" projects of the Obama Era that were supposed to created a sparkling new America but never did anything except give away a huge amount of taxpayers' money to the president's friends and pet projects which, however, never got off the ground? In the end, he admitted that there never were any "shovel ready' projects in the first place.

As for the Harris-Biden plan specifically, only a very small part of the total expenditures is earmarked for roads, bridges, airports, and what most people think of--and have been encouraged by Biden himself to think of--as the purpose of this proposal.

More than twice as much of the cost is designated for welfare payments to the elderly, for example, and that's just one "non-infrastructure" expenditure included in the proposal.

What's more the alleged gains in employment are hopeful guesses and unrealistic. Already 10-20,000 energy workers have been laid off by the dictates of this administration and the proposal we're discussing proposes to add to the number by inducing more of our industries to move offshore, including those which were persuaded to return to the USA by the tax cuts effected during the administration of President Trump. Biden, the longtime friend and client of China, makes the unbelievable claim that we will improve our competitive standing vs. China by doing this.

 

[mindlight]

I think people are opposed to the infrastructure plan because they will be told we can't afford it. The reason we can't afford it is the 2017 Trump tax cuts. If people are told often enough that tax cuts for the 1% and corporations will "trickle down" to the rest of us they believe it.

They have to learn how to think critically. Has this worked in the past for the rest of us? Really? Why has income inequality increased eponentially since the Reagan administration? Why are the rich getting richer and richer while the rest of us are getting poorer? And during the pandemic while small businesses were shuttering "small business" loans last April went to fat cat expense account steak house chains ike Peter Luger's.

Solar energy panels last about 20 years---and pay for themselves completely in 8. Our local VA Hospital has solar panels over its parking lot--not only giving cars shade during our 100 degree summer days but also giving the hospital free electricity for the last twelve years of the solar panels' 20 year lifespan.

I can understand why coal and oil workers are concerned about their futures and trying to convince us that we can't change to better alternatives--but this infrastructure plan will create any jobs that might be lost by energy workers (and without all those pesky earthquakes that fracking caused in states like Oklahoma). I am 100% in favor of this plan, and I believe that these investments will pay for themselves in growth, saved energy costs, and more middle income wages.

Yes, this plan does seem to address these concerns of the massive growth of inequality, decaying infrastructure, and the move from a fossil-fuel-based economy to a more sustainable and environmentally friendly one. I guess rich people pay for the lobbyists and maybe not a few senatorial campaigns but there is a genuine need here and the time to act is well overdue. Getting the rich to pay for public goods like roads, water pipes, bridges, broadband in rural areas and a shift to a green economy is going to evoke some opposition. But I am not sure that the Republicans can afford to stand with fat oil barons against the people and in favor of polluted water tables broken by fracking over a clean energy future.

 

[mindlight]

I'm in full support of reinvesting in our infrastructure. Bridges, roads, water distribution, electric, pretty much everything we depend on is badly in need of modernization. Anyone know if broadband for rural parts of the country is part of this plan?

The Wikipedia article I quoted is blank on the high-speed internet and Telehealth sections. But see here:

Biden promises broadband for all in $2 trillion infrastructure plan

High-speed internet in rural backwaters with nearly bankrupt local economies means that new businesses can move to these locations taking advantage of lower housing and land prices, for instance, providing employment and wealth in rural areas.

 

[mindlight]

These plans always look good when the proposal is revealed to the public. They also never turn out to be as advertised.

Does no one remember the "shovel ready" projects of the Obama Era that were supposed to created a sparkling new America but never did anything except give away a huge amount of taxpayers' money to the president's friends and pet projects which, however, never got off the ground? In the end, he admitted that there never were any "shovel ready' projects in the first place.

There is nothing shovel-ready about a bridge that is just about to fall down. Nor a water infrastructure that is leaking billions of gallons a year, river levees that do not keep the floods out, and a complete absence of high-speed internet in many areas. But all these things need doing. This is still the early days of the Biden presidency when decisions can be made for the good of the country rather than purely party self-interest. Do the Republicans really want to be the ones denying broadband to their own voters in rural areas and repairs to the roads by which they travel to market? It seems like a no-brainer to me and the only objection you raise here is that it is unlikely to turn out as advertised. In this case, the people who should benefit most are the people as these are public goods we are talking about. The biggest objection from the Republicans is that companies are going to pay for it with higher taxes. Since most of their extra revenues over the last years have been going into the pockets of vastly overpaid chief executives and into the wealth funds of billionaires it is hard to see how this is really going to hurt even these fat cats. Indeed the rich will probably find a way to profit from such plans also. The USA had 4 years of extreme selfishness under Trump and it is time to invest in public goods.

 

[Albion]

There is nothing shovel-ready about a bridge that is just about to fall down.

It looks like you missed the point. The point was that the administration's huge giveaway proposal, which you have been going on about, has more to do with pet Democratic Party social policies than the infrastructure.

And you are taking it all in as if it were some sort of guarantee. Even the questions you posed and points you highlighted in your earlier post are guesses or about hypothetical results.

Then too, my mention of the Obama-Biden's administration's earlier 'bait and switch' programs was made in order to bring this discussion back from theory to actuality. Governments, and especially ones involving Joe Biden, talk one way in order to gain popular support and to provide talking points for their allies in Congress, but the reality is far different.

The huge expenditure that was just passed in Congress should educate any doubters. It was billed as Covid relief but had only a very small percentage of the designated spending be for Covid-related assistance.

 

[Albion]

These are some of the 45 spending proposals in the bill--

$400 billion for care for elderly relatives and the disabled.

$100 billion for new public schools.

$60 billion to upgrade public housing projects and for tax credits relating to the "Neighborhood Homes Investment Act."

$30 billion for programs to monitor employers in order to be sure that they are providing workplaces free from racial and gender discrimination and to insure that new projects promote racial "equity."

$10 billion for a "Civilian Climate Corps."

 

[mindlight]

These are some of the 45 spending proposals in the bill--

$400 billion for care for elderly relatives and the disabled.

$100 billion for new public schools.

$60 billion to upgrade public housing projects and for tax credits relating to the "Neighborhood Homes Investment Act."

$30 billion for programs to monitor employers in order to be sure that they are providing workplaces free from racial and gender discrimination and to insure that new projects promote racial "equity."

$10 billion for a "Civilian Climate Corps."

I do not get it, what in that list is a problem? These are all things that should be happening anyway. The only one that might be problematic is the idea of thought police in companies monitoring sexism and racism, it is easy to see how that could be abused. But there is nothing wrong with fair hiring practices.

 

[mindlight]

It looks like you missed the point. The point was that the administration's huge giveaway proposal, which you have been going on about, has more to do with pet Democratic Party social policies than the infrastructure.

And you are taking it all in as if it were some sort of guarantee. Even the questions you posed and points you highlighted in your earlier post are guesses or about hypothetical results.

Then too, my mention of the Obama-Biden's administration's earlier 'bait and switch' programs was made in order to bring this discussion back from theory to actuality. Governments, and especially ones involving Joe Biden, talk one way in order to gain popular support and to provide talking points for their allies in Congress, but the reality is far different.

The huge expenditure that was just passed in Congress should educate any doubters. It was billed as Covid relief but had only a very small percentage of the designated spending be for Covid-related assistance.

I think if you reread my OP you will find that the point is the bridges are falling down and it is time to do something about that. Of course, the senate needs to examine any legislative proposals and sift out the non-essential and the partisan but the basic infrastructure requirement is blindingly obvious as is the need for a shift to a green economy. This is probably the last big piece of legislation that Biden is going to get through with some measure of cross-party support - it is the later stuff where you have to worry.

 

[mark46]

I'm in full support of reinvesting in our infrastructure. Bridges, roads, water distribution, electric, pretty much everything we depend on is badly in need of modernization. Anyone know if broadband for rural parts of the country is part of this plan?

yes

 

[Albion]

I do not get it, what in that list is a problem? These are all things that should be happening anyway.

Maybe or maybe not. I wouldn't call all of them essential at this time or deserving of the monies being thrown at them, even if you do.

However, whether or not they "should be happening anyway" wasn't the issue.

 

[mark46]

That's $600B of the $2B - $4B. For me, upgrading public housing is an infrastructure expenditure. But, you are correct. So, is aid to construction of schools. I agree that $400B for the elderly and disabled doesn't belong in an infrastructure bill.

These are some of the 45 spending proposals in the bill--

$400 billion for care for elderly relatives and the disabled.

$100 billion for new public schools.

$60 billion to upgrade public housing projects and for tax credits relating to the "Neighborhood Homes Investment Act."

$30 billion for programs to monitor employers in order to be sure that they are providing workplaces free from racial and gender discrimination and to insure that new projects promote racial "equity."

$10 billion for a "Civilian Climate Corps."

 

[Albion]

I think if you reread my OP you will find that the point is the bridges are falling down and it is time to do something about that.

Very well, then let's repair the bridges. Didn't you get the message that the bill is misleading as advertised and full of unrelated pork?

 

[mark46]

Maybe or maybe not. I wouldn't call all of them essential at this time or deserving of the monies being thrown at them, even if you do.

However, whether or not they "should be happening anyway" wasn't the issue.

No every one of the expenditures are not essential at this time. If this were the standard, no legislation would ever become law.

 

[Albion]

No every one of the expenditures are not essential at this time. If this were the standard, no legislation would ever become law.

We, as a nation, are already the most debt-ridden country on Earth. Massive amounts of tax money goes to pay just the interest on our debt. Is it not the case that this casual expenditure of TRILLIONS of dollars which will , in addition, damage our economy deserves to be limited to what IS essential?

The Democrats screamed long and loud when 1 Trillion or so was added to the national debt under Trump, although ten times that amount had just previously been added under Obama, with serious harm to the economy from which we still have not entirely recovered. And now the new administration wants to explode the debt as it begins implementing the "Green New Deal."

 

[mark46]

We, as a nation, are already the most debt-ridden country on Earth. Massive amounts of tax money goes to pay just the interest on our debt. Is it not the case that this casual expenditure of TRILLIONS of dollars which will , in addition, damage our economy deserves to be limited to what IS essential?

The Democrats screamed long and loud when 1 Trillion or so was added to the national debt under Trump, although ten times that amount had just previously been added under Obama, with serious harm to the economy from which we still have not entirely recovered. And now the new administration wants to explode the debt as it begins implementing the "Green New Deal."

The debt is an issue whenever the Democrats are in power.

How much did Trump spend on COVID laws. Was everything for COVID?

How much did Trump increase the debt by corporate tax decreases? by decreases the taxes to those who earn over $400K per year?

let's NOT increase to historic highs, just to the levels before Trump. Instead of giving the corporations and the very rich and continuing gift. Let's just stop giving that gift. Trump gave enough.

 

[Hank77]

That's $600B of the $2B - $4B. For me, upgrading public housing is an infrastructure expenditure. But, you are correct. So, is aid to construction of schools. I agree that $400B for the elderly and disabled doesn't belong in an infrastructure bill.

I understand this is to fund many more jobs in this industry. More of the elderly and disabled will be able to be cared for in their own homes or family homes by qualified healthcare workers. Where I live and in many rural communities these two groups of people have to live in "old folks homes" many miles from their families. e.g. The closest "home" to where I live is over 60 miles away and there's not always room there and the next closest is 130 miles away.

Sapna Bagaria
Thu, April 1, 2021, 6:36 AM·6 min read
President Joe Biden has proposed to spend $400 billion on expanding the Medicaid beneficiaries' access-to-home and community-based care for seniors and the disabled. This spending is part of the $2-trillion infrastructure package, which is called the “the American Jobs Plan”.
....
The HCBS expansion under Medicaid can sustain well-paying caregiving jobs that include benefits and the ability to collectively bargain as well as create a state infrastructure to improve the quality of services and support workers. This will raise wages and better the quality of life for essential home health workers and yield significant economic benefits for low-income communities and the colored race.
Biden Chips in $400B for Home Healthcare: Stocks to Watch

 

[grasping the after wind]

1) Is America's infrastructure in need of an upgrade on this scale?
No

2) Is it time to move to Green technologies?
Define Green technologies.

3) Why are people opposed to this?
Numerous reasons. One being that the last "infrastructure/ stimulus bill" passed in the Obama administration seemed to end up profiting only Democratic Party supporters and special interests ( much like the recently passed "Covid/ stimulus bill.") that had nothing whatsoever to do with infrastructure "Not as shovel ready as we expected" . Another being that the US is approaching a debt amount that so exceeds its ability to pay that Greece's problems will look miniscule in comparison.

4) Why the breakneck pace of growth in rival economies like China who invest heavily in infrastructure not impress Republicans?
Not being a Republican, I can't say. Perhaps the fact that China does not prioritize investment in Green technologies but remains firmly committed to fossil fuels despite the vast harm it is doing to their environment and the health of their populace is the reason for the pace of their economic growth ?