Infrastructure

New $1.2 Trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Plan To Be Partially Funded By Stepped Up IRS Enforcement

President Joe Biden announced today that he'd reached an agreement on an infrastructure package with a group of 10 moderate senators.

|

Finally, it's infrastructure week.

President Joe Biden and a bipartisan group of 10 senators today announced that they'd reached an agreement to spend $1.2 trillion, including $579 billion in new funds, over eight years on transportation, waterways, and broadband internet.

"We have a deal," said Biden outside the White House. "None of us got all we wanted."

A White House fact sheet says that $312 billion of the new funding would be spent on transportation, including $109 for bridges and roads, $49 billion on public transit, $66 billion on passenger and freight rail, and $25 billion on airports.

Electric vehicle infrastructure will get another $7.5 billion, as will electric buses and public transit. There's also $20 billion for an "infrastructure financing" program that will, per the White House's fact sheet, "leverage billions of dollars into clean transportation and clean energy."

Sen. Mark Warner (D–Va.) said that the $20 billion will be used to attract $180 billion in private financing for infrastructure, reports The New York Times. That sounds similar to President Donald Trump's plan to use $200 billion in federal funding as seed money to spur $1.3 trillion in infrastructure investments from state and local governments and private infrastructure companies.

Ports and waterways would get $16 billion more under the plan. There would also be another $11 billion in spending on safety projects.

Another $266 billion will go toward "other infrastructure," including $65 billion for broadband, $55 billion for water infrastructure, and $73 billion for electrical grids.

How will all this be paid for? That's a good question.

Biden has already committed to not raising taxes on Americans earning under $400,000. His administration has said this rules out a gas tax increase or similar user fees. His initial proposal to pay for infrastructure with a corporate tax hike was a non-starter with Republicans.

The fact sheet his administration put out today lists a number of possible pay-fors that both sides could agree on, without actually attaching numbers to how much money any of these would generate.

They include repurposing unspent COVID-19 relief funds, including unused unemployment insurance dollars; extending expiring customs fees; using 5G spectrum auction proceeds; selling off some of the government's strategic reserve of oil; and public-private partnerships.

Warner, the Times reports, also said that the package would include $40 billion in funding for the IRS, which would then be used to go after unpaid taxes. This, he claims, will bring in $100 billion in new revenue. (The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that $40 billion in new IRS funding would bring in only $60 billion in new revenue.)

The White House also asserts that the infrastructure package will partly pay for itself through the "macroeconomic impact of infrastructure investment." The fact sheet includes no mention of imposing fees on electric vehicles, which Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine) had suggested as a way of funding infrastructure.

Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein tweeted out harder numbers on all these pay-fors:

As more details about the package are firmed up, we'll hopefully get more information on how Congress is supposed to pay for this new spending.

A lot of the spending figures released today will likely change as lawmakers get to work actually drafting a bill. Both the House and Senate are currently working on a five-year surface transportation bill that has to pass by September when the authorizations for most transportation programs expire.

NEXT: Biden's Gun Control Plans Won't Do Much To Address Surging Homicides

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Those greedy motherfuckers have an income – an income – of some $6 trillion dollars per year, and they have the nerve to accuse people who have built up a lifetime’s reserve of mere billions of being greedy? Fuck you, you greedy, greedy bastards and your out-of-control voracious appetites. If I could, I’d hang every one of you evil bastards by your nutsacks and horsewhip the shit out of you. How dare you accuse anyone of greed when you’re the greediest motherfuckers ever seen in the history of the world?

    1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Please help me find a local Korean spa! Any suggestions on finding a reputable one? https://anma4you.kr

      1. I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i’m Working four hour Dailly and make forty dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to glad my circle of relatives..How ?? I’m making this so u can do it Easily
        HERE…… Work202

    3. But they’re selfless public servants who only spend on the common interest (defined by them of course) unlike those greedy private businessmen who spend on producing what consumers actually want (what do those idiots know anyway?)

  2. Well, I suppose that $1.2 trillion, only half of which is new spending, is not as bad as $6 trillion in all new spending that the democrats were going for, or $10 trillion ‘wish list’ that their progressive wing wanted.

    1. Total will be 7.2 Trillion with 6.6 Trillion new spending based on Pelosi’s comments after the agreement was announced. No compromise bill unless the other Human Infrastructure bill is passed.

    2. I’m hoping that my sarcasm meter is broken right now. Any dumb fuck that thinks stealing only a little of my money is ok is not ok with me.

      1. Aw, c’mon, man! Can’t you look on the bright side?

        Haha.

        1. The half us who pay federal income tax can look forward to frequent tax audits. What fun!

  3. Guess which RINO senators will be voting for the “bipartisan” bill. You know who.

    1. What’s left of the bill is a whole lot closer, practically identical to, the Republican wish-list and far, far from the original Democratic proposal. Note that it doesn’t even include *any* income tax hikes, at least per this story, and purports not to run up the debt either.

    2. I noticed that the RINO-in-chief Romney was there and appeared proud to stand with Biden. Surprise! Surprise!

    3. Lookit the looters who voted for The Kleptocracy! They got the initiation of force they voted for and now are whining and sputtering in their Depends. Ya cain’t please looters… ya jist caint!

  4. Why do I think “stepped up enforcement” will not be against rich tax cheats, but some poor blue collar slobs that make a mistake on their taxes? Interest and penalties included!

    1. Easy pickings.

    2. Anyone who is being extorted by the IRS for less than it costs to hire a tax attorney is simply doing what makes the most sense. There aren’t that many Americans who can afford to fight the IRS on principle and the ones who can won’t be targets.

      1. I got hit up by the IRS for $8k.

        Talked to three attorneys. Anywhere from $9k to $12k to fight it out.

        So in my best John Malkovich voice; I “pay that man his money, he earned it”

      2. Same principle as civil asset forfeiture. Sure it’s blatant robbery but as long as they only steal less than in costs to fight them in court it’s easier to just pay it.

    3. Why do I think “stepped up enforcement” means lavish partying on a yacht for IRS agents?

      Your thought is probably more on the nose.

    4. The rich guys and big corporations have accountants and lawyers and will be hard for rookie IRS agents to go up against. The blue collar guys don’t earn enough to bother. The new army of tax officers looking for subsistence will be going after small business owners, in case any survived the lockdowns.

      1. I have to agree. As a former small business owner (when I bought my “Hole in the road I poured money into [Big Truck] everybody told me to, “Go for Broke!”. Unfortunately, I made it), I have to note that, at least pre-pandemic, small business’ hired the vast majority of employees in this [Once Free] nation. We all know that, just like the State Trooper/Highway Patrol, there will be a publicly denied, privately enforced “Quota System” for agents and their departments to meet. (Remember, no politician ever saw a pile of money they didn’t want and/or wouldn’t try to get.)

    5. The fact that it is going to cost 40 cents of auditing to find each buck of additional revenue implies either they they expect the vast majority of audits to go nowhere, or that the amount each audit collects will be so low that the cost of the audit itself represents a significant chunk of the amount collected.

      This isn’t going after billionaires who cheat the IRS out of tens of millions. Those folks are already prioritized for auditing. This is all about deploying 100,000+ additional auditors harassing small taxpayers in mass, hoping to collect a few thousand bucks a pop.

      1. Any businesses that made 100 cents by spending 40 cents would be very profitable.

        1. It would. But the IRS won’t achieve that. I doubt they’ll collect enough to cover the $40B. Plans to increase revenue by ‘closing loopholes’ or ending ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ are everywhere and always BS. The point of this isn’t even to raise revenue, it’s to pass the bill (and hire a lot more government employees). After that is achieved, nobody will remember or care if it actually works.

        2. “Any businesses that made 100 cents by spending 40 cents would be very profitable.”

          And it takes gullible lefty shits to assume the government will break even, let alone return that amount.

  5. Does this mean that Lois “Take the Fifth” Lerner will be recalled to active duty for the IRS?

  6. $60 billion worth of “dynamic scoring.” Beautiful.

    1. Wtf is dynamic scoring?

      1. Dynamic scoring takes into effect second order effects of taxing and spending decisions.

        To make it easy consider a hypothetical country with a 20% flat income tax that brings in a trillion per year. The proposal is to increase that to 22%. Under static scoring, the analysis is that tax rates increased by 10%, so the tax increase should bring in $100B. Dynamic scoring recognizes that increasing tax rates distorts incentives, so you won’t actually bring in $100B.

        Apparently, whoever did the analysis of this bill believes that the indirect effects of the bill will bring in an additional $60B of government revenue.

  7. The “bipartisan” aspect of this deal may be overselling it. They’re calling it a “bipartisan” bill because Biden broke off negotiations with the Senate Republicans and started negotiating with a hand picked five of them–and five Democrats.

    It’s unclear how deep the support for this bill is in the Republican party beyond those five Republican senators, and it’s unclear whether Democrats will support this bill if it ends up being a replacement for the other gargantuan monstrosities Biden and the Democrats are trying to push through Congress.

    In fact, Biden is getting some pushback on this bill for that reason from progressives who don’t understand why they aren’t pushing through all the spending they want without any Republican support.

    “Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders said that advancing the deal on transportation, water and broadband infrastructure will hinge on the passage of more elements of Mr. Biden’s $4 trillion economic agenda. The two-step process sets up weeks of delicate negotiations between Republicans and Democrats and among Democratic factions.”

    —-WSJ

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-senators-agree-to-roughly-1-trillion-infrastructure-plan-11624553972?

    If passing this deal meant that Biden’s other $4 trillion bills were dead in the water, Senate Republicans might jump on board, but the Senate Democrats won’t want to pass this bill until the Republicans agree to finance the Green New Deal, raise the corporate tax, eat their own shit, etc.

    All we know is that five Republicans said it’s okay to introduce this bill in the Senate. The Democrats could pass it without any Republican support, but if they do, the Democrats will pass a lot more than what’s in this bill. On the other hand, if the Republicans vote to pass this bill in the Senate, the Democrats may choose to pass a bunch of other shit through budget reconciliation without them anyway. It’s a conundrum.

    It’d be great if the choices were between spending or not spending, but it doesn’t look like not spending is one of the options. And if they agree to spend authorize this smaller bill, there’s nothing to guarantee that the Democrats won’t spend a shitload more in the future. I hope all 50 Republican senators stand firm and vote against it, but chances are that these five Republicans might cave.

    Incidentally, it looks like three of the Republicans that negotiated this deal with Biden were Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah–all three of which are about as important to the future of the Republican party as Liz Cheney. They might still vote against the deal when it goes to the Senate floor because if they’re the only Republicans who vote for it, then if and when the Republicans take the Senate in 2022, they’ll find their upside potential for leadership positions, on committees or otherwise, highly limited.

    1. Ken, not to disagree but the USA Today lists 11 Republicans supporting the bill, including Murkowski, Collins, Portman, Cassidy, Romney, Burr, Tillis, Graham, Rounds, Young, and Moran. Why is your list shorter? If true and if Democrats don’t fade, that’s enough to pass it in the Senate.

      1. Biden broke off negotiations with the Republican leadership in the Senate and he started negotiating with a group of Republicans–not including the leadership is my understanding. Out of those Republicans, they chose five Republicans and five Democrats to negotiate directly with Biden. This is what they mean by “bipartisan”.

        Once those five Republicans okayed this deal, the rest of the Republicans that were in that group–without the Republican leadership in the Senate–also okayed taking it to the Senate floor for a vote.

        That doesn’t necessarily mean the larger group of 11 Republicans will vote for it, that the small group of five Republicans will vote for it, or that any Republican will vote for it. Have you seen any announcements from Mitch McConnell as to whether he will vote for it? McConnell himself will sometimes bring something to the floor for a vote and then vote against it.

        Maybe think of it this way: If the Republicans introduced a bill in the Senate that was opposed by the Democrat Speaker in the House, the Democrat majority leader in the Senate, and President Biden–but five to 11 Democrat Senators agreed to bring it to the floor for a vote–would you call that “bipartisan”? I wouldn’t.

        This may have five, 11, or only one Republican vote to support it in the Senate, but if the Republican leadership opposes it when it comes to the floor for a vote, and only a handful of Republicans support it, you don’t mean the same thing I mean when you use the word “bipartisan” to describe it.

        TARP was bipartisan. The leadership of both parties supported it. There may be a Republican or a handful who break with the Republican leadership to get this infrastructure deal passed, but if the Republican leadership doesn’t support it, and only a small number of Republicans do, that’s not really bipartisan. Maybe think of it this way: Liz Cheney voted to impeach President Trump. She’s a Republican. In your mind, does that mean there was bipartisan agreement on impeaching Trump?

        I don’t think so. I think it means they broke off some Republican votes.

        Biden cut off negotiations with the Republican leadership because they wouldn’t offer any support at all for his infrastructure deal. If McConnell comes around and votes for it on the floor, that’s one thing. If all but a few Republicans vote against it, including McConnell, I think calling it bipartisan is really pushing it–more like wishful thinking.

        1. There goes Ken again. Attempting to redefine the term ‘bipartisan’ in order to pimp for Team Red.

          Ken, if two Senators, one R and one D, walk into the bathroom and take a shit together, then it’s a bipartisan shit. It doesn’t have to be “party leadership” that decides.

          1. Lol. Please keep making a clown of yourself.

          2. Cutting out republican leadership and only negotiating with the anti trump rinos who barley represent their party in Murkowski, Collins, n delecto sure is bi partisan.

        2. If 11 out of 50 Republican Senators (plus a bunch of Democrats) support something, that’s enough for it to be “bipartisan” in my book. It’s not like it’s just one or two.

          1. Once again, those 11 senators didn’t vote to pass the legislation. The voted to send it to the floor so the Senate can vote on it. Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.

          2. So, I’m watching McConnell on TV, and he just said his understanding is that Biden won’t sign this “bipartisan” infrastructure bill–unless the Republicans sign off on a separate Democrat bill to raise taxes.

            McConnell is saying that the 2017 tax cut bill is the Republicans’ “red line”, and if the Democrats are expecting the Republicans to vote for the Democrats’ tax increases, then he’s “pessimistic” that the Republicans will support the “bipartisan” infrastructure bill.

            If the Democrats pass this infrastructure bill through budget reconciliation without any Republican support, will you still consider this a bipartisan bill–just because some Republicans voted to send it to the Senate floor for a vote? Surely, if no Republicans vote for the bill, it won’t be bipartisan, right?

            1. IF IF IF, as you like to say, ken.

              I hope you’re right.

    2. Someone’s gotta bail out and keep the bankrupt Gotham going, (see the mention of federal funds). Tons of financial MTA articles scrubbed from the Web on the multi billion dollar collapse on this corrupt shit state and city MTA.

    3. That is what makes this all bullshit. Team R is not advancing, and will never vote for the other ‘Biden Wish List’. This infrastructure bill will go nowhere, and once again, Brain-Damaged Biden will be stymied. All it does is take time off the clock with nothing in return except lost time. Suits me fine.

      1. I think it’s true that the only reason Biden and the Democrats want the Republicans to support it is because they don’t want to take all the blame for it in the 2022 midterms–like they took the blame for ObamaCare in 2010. In 2010, the Republicans picked up six seats in the Senate and 63 (sixty-three) seats in the House–largely attributable to ObamaCare.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_elections

        The reason Britschgi, the news media, Joe Biden, and the progressives want us to believe this spending is bipartisan is because they’re afraid we’ll punish the Democrats for it in 2022.

        I repeat, Biden and the Democrats do not need a single Republican vote to pass this or any other spending bill. The reason they’re bending over backwards to get some Republican votes is because they’re afraid of facing the voters come the Midterms of 2022.

        If someone else has another, better explanation for why Biden and the Democrat leadership are working so hard for Republican votes that they don’t need to pass these monstrosities, I’d love to hear it.

        1. The reason Britschgi, the news media, Joe Biden, and the progressives want us to believe this spending is bipartisan is because they’re afraid we’ll punish the Democrats for it in 2022. it corresponds to reality.

          There fixed it for you Ken.

          1. You fixed nothing except your consumption of twinkies fat-ass.

        2. The filibuster is still a thing right? Isn’t that why Dems need some Rep votes to pass their legislation?

          1. It is, but there is still one reconciliation opportunity left that allows the Senate to tax and spend with just 51 votes (including VP).

            The Dems are completely stymied on voting “reform” and the like, but they could have slipped this spending into the mega bill they are going to put together for reconciliation.

        3. What I can’t figure out about this strategy is: why allow Republicans to vote for a bill that has stuff that moderates like, if you are going to then force your swing state senators to vote for the progressives’ wet dream bill? Put it all together and the attack ads are that the Rs are intransigent and even voted against roads and bridges. With the two track, you have set things up so that Murcowski can claim she built roads and bridges, while Manchin and Sinema are forced to vote for a blowout tax and spend bill with limited moderate appeal. The two track only makes sense if you have a healthy majority and can give your swing state senators something to do, but also let them off the crazy train. I’m really not sure how this current approach is politically helpful to the Democrats.

          1. Thinking about it, I wonder if the real goal is to try to yank the progressives’ leverage in the negotiations on the big bill. Manchin and Sinema already got what they want, so progressives shouldn’t ask for the moon. Not sure whether this strategy works though given that the speaker of the house refuses to bring the infrastructure bill up before the big bill gets passed.

            Effectively, they are one and the same. This still feels like a free pass to moderate Republican senators without doing anything for your vulnerable senators.

  8. More government employees equals more money into the coffers of government employee unions which means more money into the coffers of the Democratic Party.

    1. This is half of it. The lazy ass worthless labor unions are the dems biggest campaign contributors and they’re all dieing or begining to support America first candidates like trump. And the dems cant afford to lose them.

  9. “The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that $40 billion in new IRS funding would bring in only $60 billion in new revenue”

    Still sounds like good return on investment. Better than most stock funds.

  10. And “sending forth an army of tax officers to prey on the citizenry” was pretty much just paraphrasing one of the specific complaints in the Declaration of Independence.

    1. ^^^ THIS

  11. $109 won’t build many bridges.

    1. I mean, the fact sheet does say “$109”, but it also says “Amount (billions)” above that.

    2. Lol. Costs $30k just to put up a sign.

  12. Pelosi already said she won’t introduce this bill until the Senate passes the other 6 Trillion “Human Infrastructure” bill first so they can force it through reconciliation.

  13. New $1.2 Trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Plan To Be Partially Funded By Stepped Up IRS Enforcement Unicorn Farts

  14. Public private partnerships, private activity bonds. We’re back to Puerto Rico now. My guess is that Wall Street invests public pensions in PAB. When the boondoggle collapses, the poor old union bond holders get a bailout. Seems about right for Woke Wall Street/DNC partnership.

  15. Is anyone else interested in the confessions 1/6 rioters/protesters/insurrectionists are giving out for sentence leniency?

    Your Honor, I watched “Schlidler’s List” and I am now redeemed.

    A trillion bucks here or there is irrelevant compared to this.

    The US is not like East Germany. No, not at all.

  16. Biden ready broke his compromise deal stating he won’t sign the legislation unless it arrives at his desk along with the other 6 trillion dollar “Humand Infrastducture” bill.

    “We need physical infrastructure, but we also need the human infrastructure as well,” Biden said, adding that, “We’re going to have to do that through the budget process and we need a fair tax system to pay for it all.”

    1. it’s just like Biden to slip that “Humand Infrastducture” shit on us.

  17. including unused unemployment insurance dollars
    lol…. Remember when Clinton payed off the budget with S.S.

    1. Unused? You mean the scammers didn’t get it all? Haha.

      1. Nope; The Nazi’s intercepted it.

  18. Fuck you, cut spending.

  19. I noticed the sleepy senile Joey decided to push his VP to the back until he needed the brown girl to remind him about a terrible tragedy. They both laughed.

  20. Just by way of an update, Biden has specifically linked support for the $1.2 trillion “bipartisan” deal Britschgi is talking about with the rest of Biden’s separate $ trillion plan–which he says the Democrats will pass through budget reconciliation without any Republican support.

    “The second measure would be passed through a Senate maneuver called reconciliation, which would allow it to take effect without Republican votes . . . . “I expect that in the coming months this summer, before the fiscal year is over, that we will have voted on this (bipartisan) bill – the infrastructure bill – as well as voted on the budget resolution,” he said. “But if only one comes to me, I’m not signing it. It’s in tandem.” . . . .

    Lindsey Graham, one of the 21 senators who had negotiated the bipartisan deal, said in a tweet: “If reports are accurate that President Biden is refusing to sign a bipartisan deal unless reconciliation is also passed, that would be the ultimate deal breaker for me.”

    —-Reuters

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-meet-with-bipartisan-senators-discuss-infrastructure-plan-2021-06-24/

    1. So, to recap, for those of you who are confused about this–and you should be confused if you read Britschgi’s half-baked piece–here’s where we stand:

      1) Biden stopped negotiating an infrastructure deal with the Republican leadership in the Senate because he couldn’t win their support.

      2) A select committee of 21 Senators, 11 of which were Republicans, were to negotiate an infrastructure deal with Biden–none of which included the Republican leadership in the Senate.

      3) This select committee of Senators chose five Democrats and Five Republicans from among themselves to negotiate an infrastructure deal with Biden, and they reached a deal. The Democrats are now bringing that deal to the Senate floor so it can be voted on by the entire Senate.

      4) After announcing that that the deal would be introduced on the Senate floor for a vote, Biden announced that the Democrats are also pushing through another spending bill through budget reconciliation, which is expected to cost another $3 trillion or so in additional spending. This bill will contain all the spending that the select committee with five Republicans would accept–because the budget reconciliation bill doesn’t require any Republican support to pass.

      5) When Lindsey Graham, one of the Republicans on the select committee that negotiated the infrastructure deal, heard that the infrastructure deal he negotiated was contingent on a second $3 trillion Democrat bill passing through budget reconciliation, he announced that he won’t vote for the infrastructure deal that he just negotiated.

      6) Mitch McConnell, likewise, said that he is pessimistic that Republicans will support the infrastructure plan now that Biden has made signing the infrastructure bill contingent on the Senate passing that separate $3 trillion bill through reconciliation.

    2. Conclusion: It appears to be the case that Biden has as much to worry about from the progressives in the House and the Senate as he does from the Republicans in the Senate. The reason he’s threatening not to sign the infrastructure deal if he doesn’t get the the second $3 trillion bill through reconciliation is because a lot of progressives are threatening to vote against these bills for being too small.

      My crystal ball at this point is telling me that Biden ultimately won’t get the Republicans to agree to sign onto the $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal knowing that another $3 trillion bill is being spent on pure social spending that they refused to support. McConnell and Graham are pessimistic, and I don’t see a good reason to be optimistic about that.

      Likewise, progressives in the House and Senate won’t support the $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal if they think it’s an alternative to the $3 trillion social spending bill that they already don’t like for being too small. They want to push through $3 trillion in social spending at the same time as the infrastructure deal, which should scare all the Senate Republicans off. In the end, expect the Democrats to push a $4 trillion bill through budget reconciliation that encompasses both bills under consideration–and expect the Democrats to pass it through budget reconciliation without any significant support from Republicans.

      1. Like I said, Ken. This accomplished a goal of taking time off the clock, with nothing to show for it. It stymies BDB.

        Now, rinse and repeat for his judicial picks.

      2. I admit this is hard to follow at times (which doesn’t mean you’re wrong necessarily). If the Dems can pass these bills through reconciliation then I agree the only reason they’d be negotiating with Reps is to share responsibility for them. But I think you’re also saying progressive Dems are threatening not to support these bills because they’re too small? So you’re envisioning scenario where the bills are passed by coalition of moderate Dems and Reps with radicals on both sides voting against?

        1. “But I think you’re also saying progressive Dems are threatening not to support these bills because they’re too small? So you’re envisioning scenario where the bills are passed by coalition of moderate Dems and Reps with radicals on both sides voting against?”

          Biden is threatening not to sign the $3 trillion+ budget reconciliation bill–which doesn’t require any Republican support in the Senate–unless the Democrats in the house pass the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. The progressive Democrats were already balking at passing Biden’s $3 trillion reconciliation bill–because they want $6 trillion.

          Here’s the gist of it: There is no reason for Biden to threaten not to sign a $3 trillion reconciliation bill–that will pass without any Republican support–unless he’s making the threat against Democrats.

          Republicans are not afraid of Biden refusing to sign a $3 trillion reconciliation bill that the Democrats will already pass without any Republican support whatsoever.

          The threat not to sign that $3 trillion reconciliation bill is a threat against the progressive wing of the party–in the House–who are reluctant to vote for the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, because they’re afraid it’s a substitute for the $6 trillion reconciliation bill they want, and who are reluctant to vote for the $3 trillion reconciliation bill because they think the $3 trillion reconciliation bill Biden wants is too small.

          We tend to focus on the Senate because there’s only a one seat difference between the parties, but there is only a nine seat difference between the parties in the House, too. If more than nine Democrats vote against the $3 trillion reconciliation bill or the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, it won’t pass.

          1. I screwed up the bold tag.

            Sorry ’bout that.

          2. Ok thanks I think I get it now

  21. Find fine ladies for sexy chat contacts in UK and enjoy on our web platform Sexadvertenties in Noord-Holland

  22. Costs $30k just to put up a sign and big amount. hope you are right travel blogger

  23. Avoiding a colossally terrible bill by agreeing to an incredibly terrible bill.

    Just like the Neil Armstrong quote “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”, except for some minor edits. Change the “small step” to 1.2 trillion dollars, “man” to taxpayers and instead of mankind change this to insolvency. Otherwise it’s all good, we should be proud of our politicians and their strong grasp of economics. 😉

    1. Oh looky there! Il Partido Fascista Republicano is now tasting the meaning of its lesser of two altruist looter policies. How droll!

  24. Looks like the greedy blood-sucking parasites realized they were going to kill the host so backed of a bit to keep it going a little while longer.

  25. The White House also asserts that the infrastructure package will partly pay for itself through the “macroeconomic impact of infrastructure investment.”

    That’s another way of saying that the costs outweigh the benefits.

  26. Jeez Guys. So ya ever update your stories? Biden has said he definitely will NOT sign off on the infrastructure bill without a companion bill that restores all the bullshit social program spending that the negotiators eliminated.
    Apparently Schumer and Pelosi are on board. Have the democrats all caught whatever infects How Biden.

  27. https://www.axios.com/americas-continued-move-toward-socialism-84a0dda7-4b8d-483a-8c4e-0c2e562c4e67.html

    Why is it that the more problems government creates the more people love the solutions it offers? It is an eternal mystery.

  28. In April 1944 the God-fearing Invisible Empire of the KKKonservative Klan disbanded its corporation after the feds handed it an income tax bill for $685,000. That would buy over 20,000 ounces of gold then, which today cost $35 million. Hopefully Nixon Republicans and their corporate shills will now get their chance to REALLY fund Kleptocracy party political campaign teevee ads. Schadenfreude city!

  29. So as Americans we can all agree that the IRS needs more power?

    Who are these assholes, and who elected them?

  30. “…- $100B public private partnerships…”

    Moonbeam pitched this as part of the funding for his choo-choo. The private sector took one look at that boondoggle and immediately bought in for $0.00.
    Since then, it’s proven so popular that the total private investment now stands at $0.00.

  31. Thanks for updating us with useful information – shayarihd

  32. Biden committed to not raising taxes on Americans earning under $400,000, but increased enforcement by the IRS will affect more Americans earning under $400,000 than Americans earning over $400,000. The wealthy can afford to to hire lawyers, but working class and the poor can’t.

    When corporate tax rates are raised, the consumer pays the bill not the corporation. The wealthy can absorb the higher cost of goods and if necessary delay purchasing their wants, but the working class and poor feel the impact and their ability to pay for their needs.

    The problem is that government spends way too much and their spending habits affect the working class and poor and severely hamper their ability to improve their standard of life. Biden and his cohorts are obstructing the ability of the working class and poor achieve better for themselves and families.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.