Progressives Wary of GOP Infrastructure Talks

Plus: Senate Republicans will vote on whether to keep their earmarks ban.

By
11

Good morning. There’s a lot going on at the Capitol this week, including a mark-up of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s China competition package scheduled for Wednesday. 

Senators are also continuing to discuss a potential bipartisan infrastructure package, as President Joe Biden prepares to release more details of his proposal in the coming days. 

Infrastructure Talks Proceed

Democrats are weighing the pros and cons of negotiating an infrastructure package with a group of Senate Republicans—with some progressives raising fears it could threaten President Biden’s more ambitious priorities.

Biden has proposed $2 trillion in spending, including money for roads and bridges as well as sweeping social investments. He’s expected to announce another component of the package soon, which will direct funding to universal prekindergarten and free community college, among other priorities. A group of 10 Senate Republicans has shown openness to the idea of a more modest traditional infrastructure package, with a price tag between $600 billion and $800 billion.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
11
By
Comments (11)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Ricardo

    Dejavu all over again (ala stimulus bill). But keep plugging, Mitt

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    The aspect of they proposed bill that is *not* infrastructure--the elderly care Medicare expansion component--is presumably one of the pieces opposed by Republicans based on their rhetoric against the bill initially.

    And that aspect is in fact the least Conservative, most Progressive part of the bill.

    If this were 1988, then that's the conversation we would have. But it's not. It turns out that the elderly care component is the **most popular part of the bill** with 60% approval among *Republicans*.

    And today, there are virtually no Conservatives in the Republican party, only populist politicians who form their opinions based on polls. Heck, Republicans are even making enemies out of corporate America thanks to its rejection of Republican voter suppression. So both Conservatives and business interests aren't driving the GOP like the days of yore, the small donations of non-college-educateds are. And those people like their government handouts.

    So in short, the political "spectrum" (scare quotes intentional) in the USA has completely discombobulated itself and anybody making assumptions based on that spectrum will proven wrong by the present-day reality of the electorate.

    In this context, Senate Republicans are simply being bad politicians who are out of touch with their own voters *and* donor base. (And since they are mostly insurrectionists, they cannot possibly point to "principles" these days either). Democrats would be stupid to give them an out: let them learn the hard way at the ballot box that this isn't 1988 anymore.



    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      JohnM.

      "..there are virtually no Conservatives in the Republican party.."
      "..Republican voter suppression." "And since they are mostly insurrectionists.."
      Do you really expect to be taken seriously here when you post falsehoods and/or exaggerations like this? Not by me anyway.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Point to a true Conservative in the GOP and I'll give you a list of 10 who aren't.

        Republicans are passing voter suppression bills across the USA--that's why they are now in a war with corporate America.

        Almost all Republicans in the House voted to support Trump in his attempt to override the Constitution and overturn the election. As did many GOP state governors. As did many GOP-controlled state legislatures. The "stop the steal" movement is the *basis* of the justification for the current crop of voter suppression laws being passed.

        The few anti-insurrectionist Republicans are being promised primary challenges and are under constant attack by the party's leader. I would say that such an organization can be characterized, therefore, as pro-insurrectionist.

        This isn't 1988 anymore. Sorry.

        Collapse
  3. CatoTheElder

    Maxine Waters more frequently makes things worse rather than better.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Murrayprof

      I don't understand how what she said is grounds for a mistrial. I'm not an attorney by any stretch, but I always thought a mistrial had to do with some kind of misconduct from the the jury or some officer of the court, or a "hung jury". If Biden is invoking the intervention of the Almighty to convict Chauvin, is that grounds for a mistrial?

      Collapse
      1. CatoTheElder

        I’m not sure on that count. My comment was more in the “general impression” category. That said, I’m now confused by the “guilty on all counts” verdicts. How can they convict on each of three different levels of murder/manslaughter? Did he kill the guy three times?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Chris L

          I was confused by this as well, but apparently the idea is that the jury must consider each charge independently of the other, essentially as if the other charge doesn't exist.

          Collapse
          1. CatoTheElder

            Ah, thanks. I suppose that makes sense in some kind of administratively awkward way.

            Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    Sen. Murphy pain is brought on by Sandy Hook and his inability to pass a law, any law that would have prevented it. That law, which I am not aware of him actually promoting it, would require either trigger locks or gun safes preventing somebody mentally disabled in this case a 16 yr old from taking his mothers gun and killing children. Obviously, determining who is mentally disabled and following up with the gun owner to make sure they have safety systems in place is a difficult problem. That is the Law we need, it is law that might, I say might, prevent one or two mass shootings. Putting mentally disabled people on a government list is fraught with issues....but that is the only honest discussion we should be having. Otherwise you are pretending the issue is with gun show sales with is dishonest.

    Collapse
  5. Timothy Knight

    Earmarks and bridges! 2000's era legislating called and I love to hear the sound of its voice.

    Collapse