At Roll Call David Winston wonders whether Joe Biden will choose progressives or bipartisanship, noting that there’s some evidence that Democrats are miscalculating in taking the temperature of the American people:
The White House and congressional Democrats thought they could bring voters along by simply calling social spending programs they’ve wanted for years “infrastructure†on the front end. It is clear that there is buy-in from the electorate for reasonable government spending on true infrastructure. But contrary to what Democrats are arguing, they haven’t won over voters for their record-setting “human infrastructure†proposals offered in the name of economic growth.
The key point is that most Americans don’t believe that increased infrastructure spending will spur economic growth:
However, when the concept of traditional infrastructure spending is introduced, voter support went from only 36 percent believing in government spending to 50 percent believing that increased government spending on infrastructure like roads and bridges would generate economic growth.
On this statement, Republicans are neutral (39 percent to 40 percent). Independents tend to believe this more than not (45 percent to 32 percent). Not surprisingly, Democrats’ belief in the connection between infrastructure spending and growth is even stronger (65 percent to 16 percent).
That’s an odd diction. I don’t believe that increased government spending on infrastructure will increase economic growth (for reasons I called out yesterday). I do believe that improved infrastructure will increase economic growth. The difference between the two is a short term vs. long term one.
IMO Mr. Biden will choose the progressives or, said another way he will choose party unity over national unity. That’s implicit in his political history which, as I have previously noted, is that he is a centrist in the sense that he determines where the center of the Democratic Party is and heads there. Since the party is being pushed left by the its progressives faster than the country as a whole, the consequences of that could prove interesting.
There are a lot of incentives for legislators not to show their cards, so a lot of this is speculation, but its certainly not clear that Democrats have enough votes in the House:
“Oregon Rep. Kurt Schrader, a member of the fiscally conscious Blue Dog Coalition, said in an interview that he’s planning to vote against a budget resolution that would include reconciliation instructions for trillions of dollars in additional spending. Another moderate House Democrat, who requested anonymity to speak freely about a position that would upset party leaders, said the same.”
Democrats have to hold four votes in the House to produce a majority.
“Since the party is being pushed left by the its progressives faster than the country as a whole, the consequences of that could prove interesting.â€
It’s good to see that you are drifting from your position that “real†Democrats are still moderate while just a few renegade progressives are squeaky-wheeling their will on the party. Some of us would say that true colors are simply coming out. Free beer for all always sells with the electorate. Politicians are all too willing to buy those votes.
As for the actual bill, infrastructure is probably one of the few legitimate functions of government, necessary, and required for long term growth, even though I’m resigned to paying $3 for every $1 in infrastructure I get. It’s a shame to see the issue get bogged down in transparently obvious plain old transfer payments.
I agree that roads, bridges, and sewers are legitimate functions of government but anarcho-capitalists would disagree, pointing to private toll roads and bridges and privately maintained sewer systems as preferable. Their grounds, I presume, would be that they are excludable.
Broadband Internet connectivity is an interesting case. A decade ago I would have said that it was a legitimate function of government, particularly in rural areas, but now I’m not so sure considering Elon Musk’s venture.
However, many of the things that the Biden Administration is trying to promote as “infrastructure” are both rivalrous and excludable. They’re personal consumption.