I admit I'm an ******* especially when people are wasting my F'ing time with intellectual dishonesty.
I agree but major bills getting loaded up with non or tangentially related issues is the norm. I never expected an infrastructure bill to be what I thought was a perfect and certainly hope that Progressives don't hold up this bill because it doesn't meet all of their demands. Like most things coming out DC there are flaws but given the problems with current US infrastructure this is a major need.
I think it's a solid play for Republicans. This serves as a palate cleanser to make Republicans a little bit more sane again. They will hammer the much more larger bill with the typical tax n spend deficit busting rhetoric, which will be a nice lead up for mid terms. This year's economy has largely been juiced by stimulus and accommodative monetary policy (through Fed bank reserve notes). Next year's stock gains will be hard to reproduce like this year when the (real) money spigot is turned off, and it's a proving ground on whether reflation/recovery is real or not. If it's not, the bloodbath will be deeper even without gaffes. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/mc...s-trump-criticism-11628672401?mod=popular_AMP ... “When the president ran for office, he said he was a moderate, so I was looking for some evidence of it,” Mr. McConnell said. “And we finally, finally found it.” Mr. McConnell’s willingness to strike an infrastructure deal with Mr. Biden has rankled Mr. Trump, who wanted such a deal when he was president and didn’t get it. Mr. Trump’s latest broadside against Mr. McConnell came in the form of a press release shortly before Tuesday’s vote. “Nobody will ever understand why Mitch McConnell allowed this non-infrastructure bill to be passed,” Mr. Trump said. He complained that Mr. McConnell “is working so hard to give Biden a victory.” Mr. McConnell declined to talk about Mr. Trump on Tuesday, saying he is focused on the future. From the start, Mr. McConnell was kept apprised during the infrastructure talks, according to a person familiar with the matter. He told lead GOP negotiator Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio) and other negotiators to keep at it and see if they could get a good deal that they could sell to other Senate Republicans. Mr. McConnell drew some red lines, however, making it clear that he wouldn’t accept any roll back of the tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017. In the end, the infrastructure bill didn’t alter elements of that legislation. “He’s been pivotal here,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.) of Mr. McConnell. “He’s stayed out of the details and the nitty-gritty,” said Ms. Capito, who led an initial round of talks with the Biden administration on infrastructure this year. “He sort of set the parameters and then he said, ‘Let’s let the process work.’” As the vote approached Tuesday, more than half of Mr. McConnell’s GOP conference remained unconvinced. “I think any Republican support for this process is making a mistake,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) said. Some Republicans who voted against the bill said they are worried about the national debt. Others said they feared that working with Mr. Biden and Democrats on infrastructure will pave the way for a much larger spending bill that Mr. McConnell and Senate Republicans universally oppose—a separate $3.5 trillion package focused on education, antipoverty and climate programs that Democrats can pass by simple majority using a budget process called reconciliation. Mr. McConnell argued the opposite is true. “I think it makes it harder, because infrastructure is popular, and what they’re about to do starting today is not popular,” he said. “So it extricates from the reckless tax and spending spree that one issue that could have appealed to the public.” In a nod to Mr. McConnell’s role, Mr. Portman thanked the Republican leader on the Senate floor Tuesday “for sticking his neck out” to support negotiations, and said he hoped the bill would help fix the Brent Spence Bridge that links their home states. Mr. McConnell’s support for public works spending is more than parochial. In his first year as Senate majority leader in 2015, Mr. McConnell ushered through a $305 billion highway bill. The five-year package spanned the longest time frame for a transportation measure in 17 years. He has also supported must-pass legislation such as the 2018 farm bill, into which he tucked a provision removing hemp from the federal controlled substances list to kick-start the industry in Kentucky. Mr. McConnell said he does take pride in killing off legislation that he views as bad policy—years ago he dubbed himself “the Grim Reaper” of the Senate, a nickname Democrats co-opted to attack him for blocking their bills. But Mr. McConnell said that doesn’t mean he is always going to say “no” to everything. “When they want to try to do something in the middle, we can talk.”
I agree, but I don't know of any sane way to make a government with 100+ million people efficient and selfless. Pork from pre-McCain-Feingold reform helped local politicians fight off getting primaried by outside money interests. So pork serves a rational purpose, though the consequences are evident and apparent.
McConnell isn't stupid and he knows that Republicans aren't actually supported by a majority of the country. He understands that they can still win elections appealing narrowly and gaming the system. At some point though they have to find ways of swaying the middle and just being in opposition isn't the way to do that. Physical infrastructure is an easy sell as it's very tangible and has widespread support. That several in his own caucus were willing to negotiate it gives him political coverage and it's an easy win for him to take.
Trump would have never been able to get this deal through. I know no one knows the details, but is anyone here in favor of the $3.5T plan?
You know, it is amazing that republicans are never embarrassed by the sheer idiocy of representatives like gohmer...
They are actually called 'streamers'. This seemed to be a bigger deal 2014-2016. Not sure if further work has been done to mitigate the problem.
To be fair, with a name like Gohmer, you're bound to be an idiot, no matter the first name you attach. And they shouldn't breed, lest we have more gomers, goobers, whatever.
Right... but as big as a doofus as Gohmert is, what he said is true (or at least it was a 5 or so years ago)
Thanks for sharing this, I had no idea. Unfortunately, there will always be bumps along the road to human progress.
What else kills birds? https://news.wttw.com/2019/10/10/report-climate-change-threatens-survival-most-north-american-birds Report: Climate Change Threatens Survival of Most North American Birds Alex Ruppenthal | October 10, 2019 4:15 pm Nearly two-thirds of bird species in North America are at risk of extinction from climate change, according to an alarming new report from the National Audubon Society. Scientists with the environmental nonprofit found that 389 of the 604 North American bird species are at risk of dying out as a result of temperature increases linked to global warming. The findings are based on an analysis of 140 million bird records, including observational data from field biologists and bird enthusiasts across the country. The new report follows a study released last month showing there are 3 billion fewer birds in the U.S. and Canada today than there were in 1970, a decline of nearly 30%. “Can you imagine not having the sounds of birds in the spring and the fall?” said David O’Neill, Audubon’s chief conservation officer. “That’s an emotional connection that people have to birds, and losing that [would be] horrible. “From an environmental perspective, birds are absolutely a mirror for the health of the environment,” O’Neill continued. “If birds are doing poorly, the environment is doing poorly. And that means humans are doing poorly.” Audubon’s report estimated the number of bird species that will be at risk under three different scenarios outlined in a 2014 report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which included models for temperature increases of 1.5, 2 and 3 degrees Celsius. In Illinois, 15 bird species would be at “high vulnerability” of dying out should global temperatures rise 3 degrees Celsius or more compared to pre-industrial levels. “That’s because these birds won’t have breeding grounds or summering grounds that are essential to their life cycle,” O’Neill said. The list of species that could go extinct in Illinois includes the red-headed woodpecker, brown thrasher and several types of sparrows and warblers. There is some good news in the report, however. Audubon scientists found that by keeping temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, 76% of North American bird species – or 290 species in total – would face a far lower risk of extinction. In Illinois, just five bird species would be “highly vulnerable” to dying out, compared to 15 species under the 3-degree scenario. “It’s not too late if we act now,” O’Neill said. “And that’s the real message we want to convey. We’re confident that if we step up our efforts around reducing greenhouse gases … we can save a lot of birds.” The 2014 IPCC report cited by Audubon preceded the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement, which set a goal of keeping global average temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. The deal was originally signed by the U.S. and 195 other countries, but President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement in 2017. The U.S. is now the only country on the planet not part of the agreement. “It’s absolutely disappointing that we would walk away from the Paris accord, that we’re not proving to be leaders globally,” O’Neill said. “But on the other hand, what we’re finding is that states and municipalities and lots of governments across the country are taking action to address the issue of climate change, to advance clean energy solutions.” O’Neill said those concerned about the risks facing many bird species can take steps to reduce their own emissions, while also supporting political leaders and policies that address climate change. Another way to help? “[People] can grow their own backyard gardens that attract birds,” O’Neil said. “Those little small steps are meaningful, especially if they are embraced by millions of people.”
Exactly. More birds die per GWh of energy produced from fossil fuels than any other form of energy production. It's such a stupid narrative.
So, the argument from the Senator boils down to this: solar panels killing 100s-1000s birds each year bring down the nation. Yea, ridiculousness is right. If that's the argument you have left against solar panel, you got nothing. To just put thing in perspective, 600 million birds die each year hitting tall buildings. Building Collisions Kill Hundreds of Millions of Birds per Year | Audubon
If we are spending a trillion dollars on infrastructure, I don't know why we are not using it to put solar panels on every building in America.
