Home | About | Donate

The New "Infrastructure Deal" Is a Political Disaster

The New "Infrastructure Deal" Is a Political Disaster

Jeffrey C. Isaac

In the past 24 hours four things of direct political importance to the ongoing saga of the Trump Maladministration have occurred:

(1) the Barr Justice Department, and the Trump administration more generally, has escalated its battle of wills with the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, refusing to comply with requests for information and for interviews, in clear violation of the law;

(2) Trump and his family members have filed a civil suit trying to block Deutschebank from disclosing financial information that has been duly requested by House Committees;

3 Likes

Very true except for conflating representative democracy and the idea of democracy itself.

Yes, the united states uses voting to select representatives who represent capital. Representative democracy is a partial form of democracy used within capitalism to manage the population.

3 Likes

Mr Isaac is rather over the top with this. I am definitely most concerned with this, yet I’m not ready to assume that Pelosi and Schumer are idiots, because I don’t think they are. The right kind of infrastructure spending would be a great thing for us.

Well now, how is all the lobby money in construction and related infrastructure doing these days?
DARK MONEY

We really do need an infrastructure program. What will the oversight system between federal and state be?

4 Likes

My heart is where the article’s author is at, but I’ve seen a less pessimistic take too: The Democrats in the House will be writing a bill, crafting key details. Infrastructure can include renewable energy development and a host of other things less than palatable to Trump. If he does something, as he says at the bottom of the Hill article on the meeting, that is “not typically Republican,” it will create rifts with the Republican Senate. It goes nowhere and Pelosi and Schumer say they tried. If not for Trump’s incompetence, something could have passed. Pelosi gives Democrats in tough districts an “I attempted to do infrastructure” talking point for re-election.

Is this cynical? Sure. Is it smart? Maybe, maybe not. But it isn’t an insensible interpretation of events, assuming they are more than what they look like.

1 Like

“Also according to the Times, Schumer was very happy that there was “good will” at the meeting…”

Of COURSE there was! They are on the same paid-for team!!!

5 Likes

A very SMALL part. How often do you feel “represented” by your selected reps, Garrett?!

1 Like

May 1st, 2019 " House Democrats are readying subpoenas ". Mr. Isaac.
July 1st, 2019 " House Democrats are readying subpoenas. " Mr. Isaac.
Nov.1st, 2019 " House Democrats are readying subpoenas. " Mr. Isaac.
Iowa Caucuses 2020. " House Democrats are readying subpoenas ". Joe Biden
New Hampshire Primary 2020 " House Democrats are readying subpoenas ". Elizebeth Warren
" She put me in a real trick bag " Johnny Winters, 1970

3 Likes

Yeah, let’s get pedantic.

He’s not saying they’re idiots. He’s stating they don’t care what kind of government we have, or who is in control, so long as they can still do the work of their corporate masters.

2 Likes

Which is why PeLousy and the sCHmUCK are all in.

2 Likes

Look, all politicians want power. That’s the only way to get your agenda in play. Pelosi and Schumer would be idiots if they give Trump and republicans what they want. Trump’s public/private infrastructure plan will not happen unless it is only a tiny part of the overall plan. Pelosi and Schumer will not fund this on the backs of the poor. Thus, if Trump wants a deal, he will have to bend over backwards. I doubt if much of anything will come of any of it.

Trump doesn’t want “a deal”. Trump wants corporate welfare disguised as infrastructure spending.

5 Likes

Some 2 trillion dollars , give or take, is to find its way into Corporate coffers in the way of profits , the revenue source being the US Government.

Why would a Schumer and a Pelosi NOT be happy that this process if it can be expedited by working with the President? I am sure there a whole lot of Politicians buying shares in these infrastructure companies in anticipation. There is money to be made and these same firms will plow some of those profits into the Pelosi and Schumer campaigns so as to ensure they re-elected.

3 Likes

McConnell (not my hero) resisted working with the Democrats. It makes sense in reverse. If we do infrastructure on Trump’s watch he will do the minimum but still have bragging rights for every nail that gets put in our rickety structures. Attack him, don’t give him a free campaign commercial.

1 Like

Whatever they do, it will involve cutting SS and Medicare to pay for it. It will involve giving a ton of money to private companies, who will then own the infrastructure. Trump has already said he would like to pay for part of this with a new .25/gallon federal tax on gas, which would not only cost everyone at the pump, but raise the prices dramatically on groceries and everything else that gets shipped across the US.

Once you hear “bipartisanship”, check to see if your wallet is still in your pocket, or if they are starting a new war for no reason somewhere, or if they are getting ready to take away more programs that help regular people. It’s always one of those things.

2 Likes

The very same team! Any differences have been carefully created for the purpose of misleading us.

1 Like

I suspect the Democratic Party establishment wants the very same thing.

2 Likes

You mean an infrastructure plan that moves us away from a fossil-fuel-fed infrastructure of the automobile and truck and the white-elephant deteriorating interstate highway system which is impoverishing state budgets with its ever more costly repair requirements (the deterioration itself a consequence of over-reliance on fossil-fuel intensive long-haul trucking)?

We won’t be getting the “right kind” if infrastructure spending.

2 Likes