Coming Into Focus: Biden's "Human," INFRASTRUCTURE BILL

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ohionewstime.com/what-is-included-and-what-is-not-included-in-bidens-1-75-trillion-plan/277230/?amp

While it has not yet come to a vote, what things are in or out of the awaited Infrastructure reconciliation bill, are taking clearer shape, with the President announcing today that he has reached an agreement with all parties. The final total of expenditures, in the plan, is only half of the originally projected $3.5 trillion. Paid family leave has been removed. Giving Medicare the ability to negotiate lower drug prices, has also gotten he ax. Though numerous of the previous ways the plan was to be financed (i.e., tax changes) have been nixed, the plan is still being touted as paid for, that is, not contributing at all, to our national debt.

The Administration is crowing about its historic $555 billion invested towards projects to reduce the effects of Climate Change, though this is far less than originally desired. Though drug costs are not addressed, there is an increase in medical benefits, for those on Medicare, notably a new, hearing aid benefit. The article I linked (which is not great, so I'll look for another) also talks about, "free kindergartens," which is, already, free, so I assume that it is referring to pre-K., which I know that progressives had singled-out, as one of their top priorities. There is also $100 billion for increased border security.

<SNIP>

There are also COVID-19 bailouts, new childcare subsidies, and a one-year extension of childcare tax credits implemented between $ 100 billion to strengthen legitimate immigration and border processing systems...

Biden’s proposal is in line with his plan to impose an additional 5% tax on income above $ 10 million annually and no new tax on income below $ 400,000 annually, with a new 15% tax. It will be paid by imposing a minimum corporate tax on the company, officials said. ...

Revenues to support package payments will also come from rolling back some of the Trump administration’s 2017 tax cuts, along with the enhanced enforcement of the Dodgers by the IRS. Biden vowed to bear the full cost of the plan so that it did not overlap with the debt burden.
<End Snip>

To add my own 2¢, I have recently felt that it had been a mistake to have tried to put all of this into one omnibus bill. I believe that the Democrats still had the reconciliation process open to them three more times, this year, and once more, next year. It would have been wiser, it now seems, for them to have broken up these priorities further, perhaps putting those meeting the least resistance, all together in one package, then dividing the rest into thematic categories, which advocates could have better focused their arguments on, so that the press would be able to better characterize the bills, & detail their contents. (But hindsight, of course, is 20/20).

Here is another link:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/28/biden-framework-for-build-back-better-social-climate-bill.html

<SNIP>

officials said early Thursday morning that Biden was “confident this framework will win the vote of every Democratic senator.”

But that confidence was shaken when none of the three senators in whose hands the fate of the plan lies -- progressive standard bearer Bernie Sanders of Vermont and centrists Joe Manchin, W.Va. and Kyrsten Sinema, Ariz. -- publicly committed to voting for the current framework.

On the contrary, they all appeared to view the framework as an evolving proposal, not a final, ironclad deal...

Still, the package contains a wide-ranging set of programs that, if enacted, will profoundly impact the lives of families with children, low-income Americans and the renewable energy economy.

They include:

• Universal preschool for all 3- and 4-year olds, which is funded for at least 6 years.
• Subsidized child care that caps what parents pay at 7% of their income, which is funded for 6 years.
• A one-year extension of the current expanded Child Tax Credit, which impacts approximately 35 million households nationwide.
• Expanded tax credits for 10 years for utility and residential clean energy, including electric vehicles.
• Extend the current, pandemic-related Affordable Care Act subsidies for 4 years.
• Allow Medicare to cover the cost of hearing.

The White House says the total cost of the programs will come to $1.75 trillion. There is also an additional $100 billion earmarked to reduce immigration backlogs and speed up asylum processing. But that money would require approval by the Senate’s nonpartisan rule maker, known as the Senate Parliamentarian, who has twice rejected attempts by Democrats to include immigration language in what is technically a budget bill.

 

Though I can't attest to the accuracy and though it is biased (though reasonably so -- I have no problem with bias per se) I commend you on a journalistic sounding post with good to know facts and information.

This despite every single one of hundreds of studies, except the very first rigged assessment back in the 60s (which my brother-in0law helped do), have shown pre-K education to have no effect

There are strict legal limits on what can go in a reconciliation bill. I don't know if what you suggest is legal or not but they sound funny.

 

Thank you, Rod. I do appreciate that, and value your taking the trouble to say so.

Rod, EVERY PART of the current reconciliation bill, must meet the criterion to which you refer (namely, that it has a BUDGETARY impact) to be in that bill. Therefore, any piece would also pass muster to be in a different reconciliation bill.

There are strict limits on how many of these are allowed: I believe it is two per budget. However, because no budget was passed at the end of the last Congress, this Congress must pass 2 budget bills, giving them 4 shots with reconciliation bills. So far, I think they have only used one.

 

Progressives are holding it up because 3.5 trillion was a little more than 1/2 of what they wanted.

 

You are really not following this issue very closely. First off, Progressives did not "hold up," a $3.5 trillion package-- that is the one they wanted to approve! This was a little over half of their originally projected, $6 trillion plan. But the 3.5 number has been held up, primarily by 2 Democratic Senators, Manchin & Sinema. In Manchin's case, we all have known, for quite some time, that the total price tag was one of his major red-lines. A few weeks back, we found out that he had been involved in a pre-negotiation w/ Leader Schumer, over the overall concept of this package, at which time Manchin had signed a paper, saying that he was open to some spending on these Dem priorities, but not beyond his absolute cap, of $1.5 trillion.

So, since then, no one has expected the final total to be any more than $2.5 trillion. As negotiations dragged on, even President Biden offered a proposal, of $2.1 trillion (40% more than Manchin's 1.5, and 40% less than the Progressives' 3.5). That feels like about two weeks ago. So anyone who was keeping track, was expecting, if there were any deal, that it would be in the $2 trillion range. This proposed $1.75 trillion, over 10 years, is actually only half of the 3.5 trillion, which was only a little more than half of what Senator Sanders, at least (& probably some others), had thought was called for.

What is now holding up the bill, I do not know, and do not think anyone, outside of those directly involved, does. But, if it is any resistance from a progressive, because of what has been removed from the plan-- though there is great disappointment-- that resistance is slight, and over only ancillary details. They have long come to accept that this scaled-back version, was the best they could do. Any progressive hesitation, I believe, was still due to the SINGLE condition, they have held, from the initial announcing that there would be 2 plans: a bipartisan, hard infrastructure plan, and a Reconciliation bill, including more Climate Change and Human Infrastructure (Child care, health care, education, etc.) measures. This one condition, in case you have not heard of that, either, has been that the two bills move through the Congress together, so they don't get the rug pulled out from under them, after voting for the hard infrastructure package, which has numerous provisions in it that many progressives found problematic.


Even on this, in fact, Progressives have compromised, and accepted Pres. Biden's word, that he has received the assurances of Manchin & Sinema, that they would support the Reconciliation Bill. So it had actually been expected that it all might pass this week (I am a couple of days behind in the news, myself), so if it hasn't, it would seem that early next week would be a reasonable expectation.

Your post, therefore, was wholely false. The VAST, OVERWHELMING, number of Democrats have been ready to move on this, for a long while. And it has not been Progressives "holding up," this legislation, but primarily just two Conservative Democratic Senators. If there are any further delays, I suggest that would be the best place to look, for an explanation.

 

LOL. Progressives just held up the 1.7 T bill Manchin agreed to. They are pissed we aren’t spending your grandchildren into the poorhouse.

 

I'd be more impressed if Medicare covered the cost of DENTAL, the red-headed bastard stepchild of insurance plans!

 

I'd be more impressed if we knew what is in it that they DON'T want us to know....

 

Would you be kind enough to supply the details, as well as, perhaps, a link to where you are getting your information?

 

That was part of Biden's proposal! I am not sure if it has survived all of the cuts, but possibly.

 

What makes you assume there are things that "THEY," want to remain secret? Are you aware that both Nancy Pelosi & Bernie Sanders, among other Dems, have been trying to push the Media for just the opposite, that is, have been citing the MSM's focus on the personal, political dynamics of this bill, and its ignoring of the plan's details (which its Congressional supporters want to get more coverage)?

 

More Authoritarian crap.

"START BY CLOSING 95% OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES": University leaders call for ‘Great Transition’ of society for ‘planetary health.’

"The crises are always changing, but the solutions are always the same."

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/482224/

There would be broader support for carbon taxes is the proceeds were rebated directly to the American People on a per capita basis rather than used to fund various 'progressive' groups and goals.

The only thing holding this up is Dems inability to negotiate successfully with Dems and the GOP's unusual refusal to cave and cash out, so far.

 

There is always pork. You can't deny this. And they try and keep that pork as silent as possible. Not secret. But silent. And they only want the MSM focusing on the main points. The points that they know people will like.

 

If this is a given, with ALL spending bills, as you say, then it seems your comment is not specific to this bill. Is this correct? That you are merely choosing this moment to say, what you could just as well say about any future spending bill (even one passed by Republicans)?

 

Yes, this can be said of any bill. And yes, doesn't matter which party writes the bill. They ALL have pork. I have advocated before that anything written by Congress should be limited to one item only. If an item can't pass based on its merits alone then it should not be passed at all. In the case of "funding the government" they could simply pass a bill which renews a previous spending bill or makes adjustments to that previous spending bill. If anything new needs money spent on it then pass a bill based on that new thing alone and can have a clause that adds it as part of the previous spending bill.