The bigger thing is that it seems to vindicate Biden’s idea of politics, where you do all the seemingly pointless stuff because it’s not, in fact, pointless.
Also, I’ve got to be honest: “Republicans want this country to continue being a functional country” to me implies that a majority of Republicans believe this. But they don’t: Only 38% of Senate Republicans voted for this bill. “A minority of Republicans want this country to continue being a functional country” isn’t as flashy a statement but it seems more true. (And I’d be incredibly shocked if it picks up more than just a couple of Republican votes in the House, making the statement even less true, unfortunately.)
Satellite internet will not replace fiber-optic broadband; The latency is just too high (>200ms) to play multiplayer games reliably (which realistically can never go above 100ms).
Minor comment. While Starlink can technically provide the bandwidth speeds needed for a few users it is far from certain it will be able to handle the total capacity needed for all rural users needing it. And regardless a physical connection is better. And there is no real reason it should not be possible to provide that (Except for monopolies/franchises, permitting nonsense etc).
I may be more for infrastructure if the average person saw more of it. I was in Italy a while back and the public train system for the entire country was nicer than the BART. And getting around the bay is still one of the worst traffic problems.
The Bay Area has some of the highest taxes in the world don’t you think they could make it a little bit more user friendly. I go to the Bay Area once every five years, singling it out as how we get minimal return for the taxes we pay.
> But on top of those good things, the bipartisan bill has one hugely important new thing — it starts to attack the problem of America’s ruinous infrastructure costs.
Ehhh... go read Strong Towns. Chuck Marohn is all but livid. We're just continuing to subsidize a bad suburban development pattern that signs us on for generations' worth of infrastructure liabilities. The only saving grace is that we *aren't* indulging the ASCE's ritual bleating to their fullest extent.
"we just got Republicans to vote to replace all the lead pipes in the nation. How cool is that??"
Don't you find it a little depressing that Republicans voting to do things that have ridiculously obvious payoffs in pure financial terms, even leaving aside the moral stakes, can be considered a win?
I'm reminded of Jon Stewart trying to get Congress to cover healthcare for 9/11 first responders, which you would've thought would be completely uncontroversial. How is it that our expectations are so low?
Back in the 18th-19th centuries, the Federalists, followed by the Whigs, and then the Republicans supported the "American System" of national economic development. The American System had three prongs -- investment in infrastructure (at first transportation only, then education and research), industrial competitiveness (through tariffs mainly), and a stable fiscal system (through a national bank). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan) Back then, it was the Democrats who were against the American System, including infrastructure investments. Andrew Jackson was a key figure blocking federal infrastructure investments and ending the national bank. The Republicans implemented a number of American System programs, like the Morrill Act, creating USDA and the National Academy of Sciences, and homesteading, during the Civil War, when the Democratic South wasn't in Congress.
The states' rights South lost control of the Democratic Party to the federal activist North in the 1920s, just in time for FDR to advocate for a strong federal government. The states' rights South bolted the Dems and largely took over the prone body of the Republican Party in the 1990s. Their aim was to make the federal government dysfunctional, beginning with giving Congress a lobotomy by drastically cutting staff, and they succeeded to a large degree. The irony is that many people voted for Trump because they suffered the consequences of federal dysfunction. Biden is attempting to reset the table and is seeking to revive, for the first time in a century, the American System for national economic development through infrastructure investment and industrial policy such as https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/08/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-supply-chain-disruptions-task-force-to-address-short-term-supply-chain-discontinuities/
I need the bill to actually get signed into law before I get too excited about what it means for our political and economic paradigms. I get that people are excited about the Senate vote because it doesn’t fit a lot of our priors, but there are still so many ways it can get derailed between now and it getting to Biden’s desk. Pelosi doesn’t seem have the votes to pass it without a reconciliation bill passing at the same time, and I’m not sure whether Schumer really has the votes for a reconciliation bill that will appease progressives in the House enough to give Pelosi those votes. I hope I’m wrong on all counts but I’m not going to adjust my own priors until all that happens, personally.
You're spinning a "hope and change" story out of "half a loaf is better than none" and "better late than never" and "see, my alcoholic spouse had a good day!"
For decades, such optimism was a grave error.
The other perspective is that the planet will still burn up and people's votes won't count.
We'll see from here. I don't think a rational bettor would take the former, unfortunately.
So many words written on the "Bipartisan" bill, and not one mention of the phrase "Public Private Partnership." According to economists such as Mr. "Noah Pinion" here (well, no opinion allowed beyond his ideological horizon), huge gaps in inequality aren't actually a problem. So when rich people, instead of paying taxes to fund such "big spending" bills, simply get to demand, "I want to gain from this." And so, instead of having to pay taxes, the rich to get loan money that gets paid back at a healthy interest, and get to run companies that build and manage these huge programs for their own personal, private gain. Meanwhile the minimum wage stagnates into its third decade, Democrats play chicken with ending emergency assistance programs for main street, such as the eviction moratorium, while the pandemic still rages and expands. And forget about the PRO Act (again), and the Republicans in full light of day making it harder for Democratic-leaning constituents in the states they control to vote (since they can't outright criminalize voting by populations they don't like), and the Democrats decide it's not a priority to respond (why upset the roiling 50/50 divide that keeps the country from doing anything but "Public Private Partnerships," so that "the few" among us gain from literally everything our nation collectively does while everyone else stagnates, at best?)
So just keep shoveling money towards those with wealth and power (there is just no separating those two any more), who will wield it most fiercely to line their own pockets with more wealth and power. This is "optimal," according to economists. Meanwhile the earth burns, and the elite, following their now accustomed pattern, robotically say "I want to gain from this." And because there is no gain to be had from the collapse of the earth's climate, because any change in consumptive lifestyle is a non-starter and any sacrifice whatsoever by the elite has already been ruled out, <a href="https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*hB01z-wz5XvUdDrDDDj7gg.png" target="_blank">nothing happens</a>.
So instead of crowing about Biden's "Public Private Partnership" win, let's think about the economist who has the temerity to sing the triumph of Biden's reinforcement of this diseased status quo, this sinking of the Titanic, and has nothing else to offer to the world as it comes apart at the seams. What good is a profession that does nothing but act as public relations for the world view of extreme wealth? All I can say is if there is anything called justice in the world, in the breadth of outcomes, let's just be optimistic and say economists like "Noah Pinion" will be the first among us to lose their ideological commitments.
Another win for Skowronek’s "Political Time" thesis. Biden is putting an end to Reagan's four-decade long regime and charting a new course. Just wish he had come up with a better slogan than "Build Back Better". *sigh*
The bill isn't yet law; it still has to pass in the House! But let's be generous and assume for now that it's a done deal. How does it bear on my March thesis (https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/biden-is-triangulating-the-left/comments#comment-1496317) that, contra Noah's optimism about Biden "bringing the most transformational progressive agenda since LBJ", Biden's basically going to be an Obama retread?
Noah helpfully identified 4 bills and policies which would demonstrate Biden's progressive bona fides: a permanent and unconditional child allowance, "a big immigration bill with a path to citizenship", minimum wage, and a "green infrastructure bill".
Well, this bill's an infrastructure bill. And...it seems to have a non-trivial amount of green policy in it! Noah mentions "$47 billion for cybersecurity and climate change mitigation". So we might, finally, over 200 days into his term, give Biden partial credit on the "green infrastructure bill" point. Can we give him full credit? Sadly, no. Compare how $47 billion stacks up against obvious benchmarks.
• Most obviously, what's the actual amount of money necessary to mount a credible fight on climate change? The People's Policy Project estimates about $2 trillion a year, of which $680 billion a year could come from the US (https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/06/17/global-green-new-deal-for-the-developing-world/). Against that estimate, a once-in-an-administration shot of $47 billion is woefully inadequate.
• Green spending in the bill itself shrank massively during negotiations. Stephen Semler's figures are arguably too high in absolute terms, but they nonetheless show the bill's climate funding being cut by 75% from March to July (https://stephensemler.substack.com/p/theres-hardly-any-climate-funding). Unless the bill massively over-provisioned climate funding in the first place, it follows that it's under-provisioning it now.
• It turns out that Obama also tucked a bunch of climate funding into a primarily economic bill early in his presidency. The ARRA included $29 billion for energy-efficiency measures, $6 billion for US manufacturing of components for advanced vehicles and fuel technologies, $3 billion for CCS, and $3 billion for green-energy "innovation" and job training (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/cea/factsheets-reports/economic-impact-arra-4th-quarterly-report/section-4). Add the better part of $21 billion for renewable-energy generation (some of it potentially climate-unfriendly, but mostly wind and solar) and the ARRA under Obama put more into mitigating climate change than this Biden bill.
So the Biden-as-Obama-2.0 thesis holds up well, and Biden has some way to go with regard to green legislation.
Ayyyy. I see what you did there.
The bigger thing is that it seems to vindicate Biden’s idea of politics, where you do all the seemingly pointless stuff because it’s not, in fact, pointless.
Also, I’ve got to be honest: “Republicans want this country to continue being a functional country” to me implies that a majority of Republicans believe this. But they don’t: Only 38% of Senate Republicans voted for this bill. “A minority of Republicans want this country to continue being a functional country” isn’t as flashy a statement but it seems more true. (And I’d be incredibly shocked if it picks up more than just a couple of Republican votes in the House, making the statement even less true, unfortunately.)
I'm so excited about the removal of lead pipes!!! Also thanks for writing this Noah, couldn't be bothered to read the Vox article.
Also also, didn't the Dems control congress through the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations?
Manchin and Sinema. I wonder what makes them tick.
Someone has to represent gamers, so allow me:
Satellite internet will not replace fiber-optic broadband; The latency is just too high (>200ms) to play multiplayer games reliably (which realistically can never go above 100ms).
Minor comment. While Starlink can technically provide the bandwidth speeds needed for a few users it is far from certain it will be able to handle the total capacity needed for all rural users needing it. And regardless a physical connection is better. And there is no real reason it should not be possible to provide that (Except for monopolies/franchises, permitting nonsense etc).
I may be more for infrastructure if the average person saw more of it. I was in Italy a while back and the public train system for the entire country was nicer than the BART. And getting around the bay is still one of the worst traffic problems.
The Bay Area has some of the highest taxes in the world don’t you think they could make it a little bit more user friendly. I go to the Bay Area once every five years, singling it out as how we get minimal return for the taxes we pay.
> But on top of those good things, the bipartisan bill has one hugely important new thing — it starts to attack the problem of America’s ruinous infrastructure costs.
Ehhh... go read Strong Towns. Chuck Marohn is all but livid. We're just continuing to subsidize a bad suburban development pattern that signs us on for generations' worth of infrastructure liabilities. The only saving grace is that we *aren't* indulging the ASCE's ritual bleating to their fullest extent.
"we just got Republicans to vote to replace all the lead pipes in the nation. How cool is that??"
Don't you find it a little depressing that Republicans voting to do things that have ridiculously obvious payoffs in pure financial terms, even leaving aside the moral stakes, can be considered a win?
I'm reminded of Jon Stewart trying to get Congress to cover healthcare for 9/11 first responders, which you would've thought would be completely uncontroversial. How is it that our expectations are so low?
https://gothamist.com/news/watch-a-furious-jon-stewart-shame-congress-over-funding-for-911-first-responders
Back in the 18th-19th centuries, the Federalists, followed by the Whigs, and then the Republicans supported the "American System" of national economic development. The American System had three prongs -- investment in infrastructure (at first transportation only, then education and research), industrial competitiveness (through tariffs mainly), and a stable fiscal system (through a national bank). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan) Back then, it was the Democrats who were against the American System, including infrastructure investments. Andrew Jackson was a key figure blocking federal infrastructure investments and ending the national bank. The Republicans implemented a number of American System programs, like the Morrill Act, creating USDA and the National Academy of Sciences, and homesteading, during the Civil War, when the Democratic South wasn't in Congress.
The states' rights South lost control of the Democratic Party to the federal activist North in the 1920s, just in time for FDR to advocate for a strong federal government. The states' rights South bolted the Dems and largely took over the prone body of the Republican Party in the 1990s. Their aim was to make the federal government dysfunctional, beginning with giving Congress a lobotomy by drastically cutting staff, and they succeeded to a large degree. The irony is that many people voted for Trump because they suffered the consequences of federal dysfunction. Biden is attempting to reset the table and is seeking to revive, for the first time in a century, the American System for national economic development through infrastructure investment and industrial policy such as https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/08/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-supply-chain-disruptions-task-force-to-address-short-term-supply-chain-discontinuities/
I need the bill to actually get signed into law before I get too excited about what it means for our political and economic paradigms. I get that people are excited about the Senate vote because it doesn’t fit a lot of our priors, but there are still so many ways it can get derailed between now and it getting to Biden’s desk. Pelosi doesn’t seem have the votes to pass it without a reconciliation bill passing at the same time, and I’m not sure whether Schumer really has the votes for a reconciliation bill that will appease progressives in the House enough to give Pelosi those votes. I hope I’m wrong on all counts but I’m not going to adjust my own priors until all that happens, personally.
I think your numbers might be out of date. Other publications (including the NYT) say that the lead pipe funding was cut to $15 billion. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/10/us/politics/infrastructure-bill-passes.html
You're spinning a "hope and change" story out of "half a loaf is better than none" and "better late than never" and "see, my alcoholic spouse had a good day!"
For decades, such optimism was a grave error.
The other perspective is that the planet will still burn up and people's votes won't count.
We'll see from here. I don't think a rational bettor would take the former, unfortunately.
So many words written on the "Bipartisan" bill, and not one mention of the phrase "Public Private Partnership." According to economists such as Mr. "Noah Pinion" here (well, no opinion allowed beyond his ideological horizon), huge gaps in inequality aren't actually a problem. So when rich people, instead of paying taxes to fund such "big spending" bills, simply get to demand, "I want to gain from this." And so, instead of having to pay taxes, the rich to get loan money that gets paid back at a healthy interest, and get to run companies that build and manage these huge programs for their own personal, private gain. Meanwhile the minimum wage stagnates into its third decade, Democrats play chicken with ending emergency assistance programs for main street, such as the eviction moratorium, while the pandemic still rages and expands. And forget about the PRO Act (again), and the Republicans in full light of day making it harder for Democratic-leaning constituents in the states they control to vote (since they can't outright criminalize voting by populations they don't like), and the Democrats decide it's not a priority to respond (why upset the roiling 50/50 divide that keeps the country from doing anything but "Public Private Partnerships," so that "the few" among us gain from literally everything our nation collectively does while everyone else stagnates, at best?)
So just keep shoveling money towards those with wealth and power (there is just no separating those two any more), who will wield it most fiercely to line their own pockets with more wealth and power. This is "optimal," according to economists. Meanwhile the earth burns, and the elite, following their now accustomed pattern, robotically say "I want to gain from this." And because there is no gain to be had from the collapse of the earth's climate, because any change in consumptive lifestyle is a non-starter and any sacrifice whatsoever by the elite has already been ruled out, <a href="https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*hB01z-wz5XvUdDrDDDj7gg.png" target="_blank">nothing happens</a>.
So instead of crowing about Biden's "Public Private Partnership" win, let's think about the economist who has the temerity to sing the triumph of Biden's reinforcement of this diseased status quo, this sinking of the Titanic, and has nothing else to offer to the world as it comes apart at the seams. What good is a profession that does nothing but act as public relations for the world view of extreme wealth? All I can say is if there is anything called justice in the world, in the breadth of outcomes, let's just be optimistic and say economists like "Noah Pinion" will be the first among us to lose their ideological commitments.
Another win for Skowronek’s "Political Time" thesis. Biden is putting an end to Reagan's four-decade long regime and charting a new course. Just wish he had come up with a better slogan than "Build Back Better". *sigh*
The bill isn't yet law; it still has to pass in the House! But let's be generous and assume for now that it's a done deal. How does it bear on my March thesis (https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/biden-is-triangulating-the-left/comments#comment-1496317) that, contra Noah's optimism about Biden "bringing the most transformational progressive agenda since LBJ", Biden's basically going to be an Obama retread?
Noah helpfully identified 4 bills and policies which would demonstrate Biden's progressive bona fides: a permanent and unconditional child allowance, "a big immigration bill with a path to citizenship", minimum wage, and a "green infrastructure bill".
Well, this bill's an infrastructure bill. And...it seems to have a non-trivial amount of green policy in it! Noah mentions "$47 billion for cybersecurity and climate change mitigation". So we might, finally, over 200 days into his term, give Biden partial credit on the "green infrastructure bill" point. Can we give him full credit? Sadly, no. Compare how $47 billion stacks up against obvious benchmarks.
• Most obviously, what's the actual amount of money necessary to mount a credible fight on climate change? The People's Policy Project estimates about $2 trillion a year, of which $680 billion a year could come from the US (https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/06/17/global-green-new-deal-for-the-developing-world/). Against that estimate, a once-in-an-administration shot of $47 billion is woefully inadequate.
• Green spending in the bill itself shrank massively during negotiations. Stephen Semler's figures are arguably too high in absolute terms, but they nonetheless show the bill's climate funding being cut by 75% from March to July (https://stephensemler.substack.com/p/theres-hardly-any-climate-funding). Unless the bill massively over-provisioned climate funding in the first place, it follows that it's under-provisioning it now.
• Even Trump signed into law December's pandemic/appropriations bill, which included $35 billion in clean-energy investment, a tax-credit extension for wind and solar energy, and a plan to cut emissions of HFCs (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/coronavirus-relief-biggest-climate-bill-history-hydrofluorocarbons-wind-solar.html).
• It turns out that Obama also tucked a bunch of climate funding into a primarily economic bill early in his presidency. The ARRA included $29 billion for energy-efficiency measures, $6 billion for US manufacturing of components for advanced vehicles and fuel technologies, $3 billion for CCS, and $3 billion for green-energy "innovation" and job training (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/cea/factsheets-reports/economic-impact-arra-4th-quarterly-report/section-4). Add the better part of $21 billion for renewable-energy generation (some of it potentially climate-unfriendly, but mostly wind and solar) and the ARRA under Obama put more into mitigating climate change than this Biden bill.
So the Biden-as-Obama-2.0 thesis holds up well, and Biden has some way to go with regard to green legislation.