As you might notice from my handle, we are now in my “turf” when it comes to policy—but it also overlaps with social justice issues that I have been tracking in my writing in Good News Roundup Annexes. This is an infrastructure package unlike anything that has ever
been proposed before. Want proof? that’s easy: more than half of the proposed $2 trillion spending is for activities that would not have been considered infrastructure in the past.
I will get back to those, and some of them are pretty exciting and impressive. But, I will start with my bottom line as a municipal policy analyst: Less than $1 trillion for traditional infrastructure over 8 years doesn’t come close to being enough to fill the really severe gaps that have occurred over the past 14 years, since the early stages of The Great Recession. Over the past 5 years, governmental borrowing for traditional infrastructure projects has grown at less that 1% a year, compounded. And of course, under Trump, state and local governments didn’t get a plugged nickel worth of help on key projects—highways/roads/bridges, mass transit/rail, water/wastewater/sewerage treatment, or the quasi-infrastructure of the electric power grid and school buildings. I do not know how they are going to get back to that, but imo, at some point they will have to. This is especially true in the era of climate change, where vast sums will be needed for sustainability, resilience, and the transition over to much-lower-carbon facilities for energy production and energy distribution activities like charging stations. I will note that I think AOC got over her head in terms of potential spending, but here key points were not far off when she told Rachel Maddow that we actually need $10 trillion over 10 years.
So, where is a lot of the proposed cash going the makes this proposal more progressive than anything in the past? Let’s take a quick look:
1) The entire corporate tax overhaul, which is where most of the budget is intended to come from, with a tax rate of 28% and aggressive provisions to prevent corporate tax “leaking,” such as a 21% global minimum tax. 28% is about where many experts expected the Trump bill to go before he swooped inand insisted on 21%. Will any of this get through? We’ll have to see what reconciliation leaves on the table, with all of the Republicans voting “no.”
2) There is huge proposed spending on activities that overlap strongly with social justice issues that had been vastly underserved: elimination of lead in water, gutting of big polluters, especially in underdeveloped communities, R and D for a modernized America, electric cars, retaining of workers and restructuring of businesses for a modernized environment, and a strong start on green issues. And so on.
3) The bill begins the process of a “greening” America, on issues of sustainability, resilience, and reduction of our carbon footprint.
4) The bill proposes vast amounts spent on affordable housing—never considered infrastructure in the past.
5) As EJ Dionne notes in the Post:
The president is transforming the nation’s political assumptions by insisting that active government can foster economic growth, spread wealth to those now left out, and underwrite research and investment to produce a cleaner environment and a more competitive tech sector.
6) The pandemic provided part of the “blueprint” for what is being considered. People of color were vastly more vulnerable to the ravages of Covid, and we need to fix that, including by reducing the poisoning of underdeveloped communities.
7) I note that many progressives don’t like all of what they see. Free pre-k and community colleges are relegated to a proposed second bill. As The Hill notes:
“Among progressive activists, there are growing questions about whether Biden’s infrastructure plan will do enough to tackle economic inequality in historically marginalized communities.”
But, that’s the whole point, here, I think: $2 ¼ trillion over eight years cannot possibly pay for the entire progressive agenda—and doesn’t even do nearly enough to fix and modernize existing infrastructure.
So, imo, AOC has at least part of this right: $10 trillion over 10 years is spectacularly unlikely, but the re-focus of what is defined as infrastructure to include a huge number of social justice issues is an important and expensive start, that will identify higher budget needs in the midst of a serious re-thinking. There is a great deal to still discuss and ultimately enact, especially when starting with an infrastructure bill that has turned to the left.
Thoughts and comments on this complex new topic appreciated.