Par for the course.
Exactly what Gandalf said of Gollum.
If some Republicans support the bill, a good guess as to why is that the Democrats offered the right payoffs to their districts…
It used to be common back when the budget process actually functioned for Democrats to come up with a bill in the House, while Republicans screamed that it was too expensive and offer a smaller bill in the Senate. The two bills would then go to reconciliation, and instead of some compromise coming out in the middle, the final bill would be larger than the one Republicans initially complained about.
The problem they had wasn’t that the bill was too big - that was just the excuse they give the suckers. The problem was that it rewarded too many Democratic constituents and not enough Republican ones. So the ‘compromise’ would be to let Republicans wet their beaks too and feed just as much pork to the Republican states. That made everyone happy except taxpayers and people who actually believed that the Republicans stood for smaller government.
That’s likely what happened here. The only way to get moderate Republicans on board is to cut them a slice of the goodies.
Biden’s counting on bipartisanship because it can still work in the Senate, and Joe’s a creature of that chamber. The House may be entirely different.
I could be wrong but my guess is that Biden’s nostalgia for the old ways is going to bite his ass, and spell the end of American democracy.
On the other hand, the few remaining moderate Republicans may have simply accepted the reality that a significant majority of Americans support what’s in the bill, and have realized that opposing it isn’t a good look.
No, you’re right. Republicans don’t accept reality. It’s probably the bribery thing you mentioned.
This “compromise” is actually the way government is supposed to work. No, not necessarily the overspending – about which you correctly note the GOP’s hypocrisy – but the idea that everybody gets something they like in order to accept something they don’t. Ah, the good ol’ days,
The bill text is now out, and it doesn’t seem to include much if anything in the way of traditional earmarks – e.g. “$10 million shall be used to refurbish the Eustace T. Pennywhistle Toll Plaza in Trenton, New Jersey.” It mostly funds grant programs at various agencies. But it’s a big bill and there may be some directed funding tucked away in there.
I thought they eliminated earmarks a few years ago? They were widely criticized, but perhaps they’re a way to get legislation passed?
There was a ban on earmarks for the last decade or so, but both chambers restored earmarks (or “Congressionally-directed spending” as they call it) this session.
There is another good reason as well, as Congresspeople may like the bill overall, but also realize that if they vote for it and it doesn’t seem to directly benefit their district/state the folks there may object by saying what did we get for this $1T bill except paying for every one else’s stuff. A small project in the district/state may alleviate those concerns.
Heck, Congresspeople run on what they’ve brought back to their district/states, which the folks there may consider to be vitally important, but wouldn’t consider vitally important if those same projects were done across the country.
Earmarks give me hope. You can’t buy the loyalty of the opposition… but you can certainly rent it.
Maybe this will help move the infrastructure bill along?
Not thrilled about that, especially the comparison to Elaine Chao, but on the face of it the commission looks like it’s focused on the right things. One hopes there will be robust independent oversight of how that money gets spent.
Oops. Sorry.
Well yeah. This is government we’re talking about.
The Commission is subject to the same oversight requirements as any other federal agency or commission – independent inspector general, audit by the GAO, etc. And while Gayle Manchin is co-chair, the board itself is made up of the governors of 13 Appalachian states who would probably take a dim view of her funneling all $1 billion to West Virginia.
I can’t get too exorcised about this. Yeah, I’m sure that Joe Manchin got this done. But as @gyrate says its a legitimate use of federal dollars, won’t enrich either Manchin personally, and she seems to have the experience to be an effective administrator of the funds.
I was just being silly. 
When is this infrastructure bill finally going to be put forward to be voted on? Surely infrastructure spending is the one thing that shouldn’t be so laborious and partisan. I see Biden talking pretty much most days about what is in the bill and depending on where he is what is relevant to the local community that is hosting him … which sounds great but what’s the point in selling something that is still stuck in congress for some reason. It’s taking too long. They’ve got to try and get as much of the consequential legislation done before 2022.
So-called moderate, bi-partisan Democrats are going to ensure that American democracy dies. They should have taken a no-holds-barred, “We own the government; we’ll shove our bills down your throat” approach, but the Democrats are more of a coalition party whereas the Republicans are a cult.
In the end, the cult will win, because the moderates believe in playing by rules that no longer exist.
Jesus, @asahi. We get it already.
The bill is in Amendment-Palooza, which will go on until a negotiated or forced end. Currently Schumer is vowing to keep the Senate in session forever, forgoing the much desired (by everyone there) August break until the amendment process is over. A way of applying pressure to get on with things. He can also just arbitrarily end it (not sure if that requires a cloture/whatever vote). At that point the process starts to vote on the final product.