Much has changed in politics over the last decade. But much has remained the same, such as political hypocrisy and opportunism that goes with it. A current example is the disingenuous opportunism exhibited by Republicans on infrastructure — claiming credit for projects in the recent infrastructure bill that they voted against. Sure, have it both ways; vote against the bill, condemning it as “socialism,” and then sing the praises of that spending in your own district, claiming credit for it while having voted against it.
Civil engineers have long decried the deterioration of the nation’s roads and bridges, not that anybody needed to be reminded by professionals. Water supply and sewerage systems across the nation need to be upgraded. Although this is normally seen as a local responsibility, a good case can be made for federal assistance, especially for poor communities, both urban and rural.
Legislation for infrastructure historically has been bi-partisan with money going to Republican and Democratic districts while benefiting the nation at large. Even during the divisive Trump administration Democrats expressed desire to get on board as Trump consistently talked of a forthcoming bill. Inexplicably, even with Republican leadership in the congress, no such bill came forth.
An infrastructure bill could have been a win/win/win situation; a win for the Trump Administration, a win for Democrats for cooperating with the Trump administration, and a win for the nation. But Republicans had other priorities, the giant 2017 tax-cut bill, the benefits of which went largely to corporations and the nation’s very top wealthiest citizens. That tax-cut bill exacerbated the obscene national mal-distribution of income and wealth.
The self-proclaimed “great deal maker” didn’t get the infrastructure job done.
Enter the Biden administration in 2020. It was essentially a no-brainer that Biden would have an infrastructure bill on his agenda. Sure, $1.2 trillion is a lot of money. But every business person understands that you have to spend money to make money. The federal government doesn’t spend money to make money but it does need to spend money on essentials to enable the economy to function efficiently. That spending enters what economists teach in elementary economics classes as “the circular flow of money,” the truism that those expenditures are received by laborers and suppliers of materials that spend it on other stuff, providing income to others, and so goes the multiplier effect.
As expenditures on items necessary for the economy function, and to make peoples’ lives better, are spread across the nation in Republican and Democratic districts, infrastructure legislation should be a piece of cake, right?
Not so fast. Even though it was fairly routine at one time, some things have changed. For starters, the nation has grown and changed, as has its needs. Roads, bridges, and ports still need to be upgraded. But today’s economy doesn’t function solely on physical transportation; it now includes the internet. Broadband enables commerce even in remote areas, and it needs to be expanded. The nation is now depending more on wind and solar power notwithstanding the insistence of some that climate change is a giant hoax.
A good case can be made that social infrastructure should be included, such as affordable child-care that enables women to get back into the workforce, including to the many essential jobs that are low-paid. As the population ages, increasing elder care is needed.
So problem number one to get legislation through is debate on what items are to be included beyond the traditional roads, bridges, and ports.
Problem number two is the increasing partisanship of today. Especially as a large number of Republicans claim to believe that “the election was stolen,” they were not ready to get on board with anything that could be construed as “a win for Biden.” Complicating it even further was that there were a few recalcitrant Democrats who would not go along with some of what most Democrats wanted.
So began the arduous negotiations for which Biden used his long experience in the Senate. Some items were eliminated, but much was retained in the bill, sufficient changes to garner support of a few Republicans and recalcitrant Democrats. It passed with the support of only thirteen Republicans in the House and nineteen in the Senate, including Minority Leader McConnell. But a majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate voted against it with accusations of waste, and that the bill was too inclusive and smacked of socialism.
So what are some of these opponents now saying about the bill?
South Carolina Congresswoman, Nancy Mace, celebrated the $26 million to Charleston, S.C. for a regional hub for electric buses. She had voted against the bill as “absurd,” a “fiasco,” deriding funding for electric mass transportation as “socialism.”
Senator John Cornyn who voted against the bill boasted about the $3.3 billion that Texas receives for broadband, more than any other state in the nation.
Then there’s former football coach, Tommy Tuberville, now Alabama Senator, a job for which he is ill-equipped, in a tight race with our own Senator Johnson as the Senate’s most ignorant member. After voting against the bill, he now says, “broadband is vital for success of our rural communities…great to see Alabama receive these crucial funds.”
Iowa Congresswoman, Ashley Hinson, complained that the bill “was sacrificed to advance a partisan socialist spending spree.” She now claims credit for the funding to improve the lock and dam system on the upper Mississippi.
The long list of Republicans that voted against the bill but now praise funding in their districts could go on. How can they praise the bill that they vigorously opposed?
The short answer is that many constituents don’t pay much attention. So if you can have it both ways, and get rewarded for it, keep doing it.
When pressed on such duplicity, the typical answer is along the lines that they opposed all this “unnecessary spending,” but not the “good parts” — that benefited their own district.
What these “have it both ways” types refuse to recognize is that in a democracy nobody gets everything they want.
End result: Infrastructure improvement is needed. Trump failed. Biden got it done.
— John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears monthly in the Monroe Times.
