Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Biden's infrastructure bill, explained
Infrastructure week, at last.
For 4 years, the Trump administration promised and failed to deliver transformational investments in the nation’s physical infrastructure. Even before 45, Congress’s chronic inability to pass an infrastructure bill despite high levels of public support had become a running joke in Washington.
That ended late last Friday when Congress passed the first of two major fiscal bills President Joe Biden campaigned on. “We did something that’s long overdue, that long has been talked about in Washington, but never actually been done,” Biden said on Saturday.
An accomplishment that eluded Democratic and Republican administrations alike, the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill known as BIF will reauthorize planned surface transportation spending for the next five years as well as new spending on roads, bridges, rail, transit, power grids, water pipes, and broadband.
Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week.
The fact that the bill attracted 13 Republican votes in the House and 19 in the Senate reflects infrastructure’s long-standing bipartisan appeal. The Democratic thumping in Virginia, on top of a near loss in a governor race that shouldn’t have been close in New Jersey, was the final push to ensure most Democrats came together, although intra-party divisions over tactics cost the bill votes from six progressive House members.
What’s in the bill
Only $550 billion of the $1.2 trillion bill is new spending, to be spread out over five years. This money will go toward delivering fixes to the nation’s outdated physical infrastructure while addressing generational challenges like climate change and the digital divide.
The biggest buckets the bill will fund include:
- Transportation. $110 billion for roads and bridges; $66 billion for passenger and freight rail; $39 billion for public transit systems; $25 billion for airports; $17 billion for ports; $11 billion for road safety programs; and $1 billion for reconnecting communities (largely of color) that were previously physically segregated by highways and bridges.
- Clean drinking water. $55 billion for water and wastewater infrastructure, including $15 billion for replacing lead pipes and $10 billion to clean up drinking water for the estimated 10 million households lacking safe drinking water.
- Broadband. $65 billion to provide reliable and affordable access to high-speed internet for every American and close a digital divide that limits opportunities for an estimated 17 million households, most of them from vulnerable or marginalized communities.
- Climate. $65 billion for clean energy transmission and grid-related investments; $47 billion for weatherization and climate resiliency, including protections against fires, droughts, floods, etc.; $21 billion for environmental remediation; $7.5 billion for a nationwide charging network for electric vehicles; and $7.5 billion to electrify buses and ferries.
According to the White House, the new spending is mostly paid for through unused Covid relief funds, the delay of a Medicare expense for a year, more stringent anti-fraud enforcement for unemployment insurance, tighter reporting rules for cryptocurrency investment gains, and other sources of revenue.
The bill will provide Amtrak with the largest federal investment since its creation. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will add $256 billion in projected deficits over ten years. Experts like Moody’s Mark Zandi say that once the bill’s pro-growth impact is taken into account, the addition to the deficit will be more modest.
What’s not in the bill
BIF falls short of funding the full spectrum of America’s most urgent needs. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the US needs to invest about $2.6 trillion in infrastructure over the next decade to meet basic national needs. Several more trillions in spending on clean energy and climate change adaptation and mitigation will be needed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
In other words, while a breakthrough, the bill doesn’t go far enough. Among the things it doesn’t include:
- Any money for caregiving for the aging and disabled ($400 billion requested), workforce development ($100 billion requested), or modernizing Veteran Affairs hospitals ($18 billion requested).
- Enough money to replace lead pipes (estimated at $60 billion) or to seriously prevent and prepare for the worst impacts of climate change (estimated in the trillions).
- As much money as requested in the American Jobs Plan for roads and bridges ($49 billion more) or broadband expansion ($35 billion more).
Alas, the bill is the product of hard-fought compromises made along the way between Democrats and Republicans, and among Democrats, in order to reach a final deal.
I’ll take an insufficient bill that will be signed into law over more substantial legislation that can’t make it through Congress any day. It will make America more inclusive, more competitive, and more resilient than the country is today.
Why it matters
This is the largest federal investment in infrastructure in over a decade, and it is long overdue.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gives US infrastructure a score of C-, while the World Economic Forum ranks it 13th in the world. This is a result of decades of neglect, during which public spending on physical infrastructure persistently failed to keep up with economic growth. Continued underinvestment in infrastructure would cost Americans in terms of foregone productivity, growth, jobs, and living standards.
Train tracks flooded as Hurricane Ida moved through the Northeast. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
“Somewhere along the way, we stopped investing in ourselves, we stopped investing in our people, and we’ve risked losing our edge as a nation,” Biden said on Saturday. “We’re now turning it around in a big way.”
Economists estimate the infrastructure bill will generate benefits the include: increasing productivity growth, wages, and competitiveness, crowding in private sector investment, creating good jobs, boosting growth in the short and medium term, raising long-term growth potential, easing inflationary pressures, and reducing income inequality. Because the topline investment is small relative to the size of the economy, the magnitude of these benefits will be modest, albeit positive.
The bill also includes new measures to combat climate change like money for electric vehicles and modernizing the power grid, as well as significant funding for climate adaptation. While not nearly ambitious enough to address climate change on its own, the bill is arguably a step in the right direction, according to fellow Bulletin writer Andrew Revkin.
Perhaps most importantly, the bill will deliver critical public goods and services that the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide, and its benefits will accrue mostly to lower- and middle-income Americans. "For all you at home who feel left behind and forgotten in an economy that's changing so rapidly -- this bill is for you," Biden said on Saturday. “This is a blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America.”
🔔 And if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to my free newsletter, GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer, to get new posts delivered to your inbox.
Progress on infrastructure bill despite Senate vote against it
Get insights on the latest news in US politics from Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi barred two Republican members from serving on the Jan. 6 commission. What's going on?
Well, the Jan. 6 commission was designed to be a bipartisan commission, taking input from members from Democrats and Republicans. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy had the opportunity to make recommendations but the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, could always veto those recommendations. In this case, she did, saying no to two members, Jim Banks and Jim Jordan, both of whom are strongly aligned with President Trump and who voted against certifying the election results in 2020. The Republicans for the most part see the Jan. 6 commission as an opportunity to score political points against them, and the Democrats say this is going to be a fair, non-biased, and nonpartisan investigation into what happened on Jan. 6, starting with a hearing next week with some of the police officers who were involved in the battle with the protesters inside the Capitol.
Both sides are probably correct on this. So the Democrats can use this as an opportunity to keep the Jan. 6 in the media and to keep Republicans connected to the riot at the Capitol. The Republicans, in turn, are going to use this to try to expand the scope and talk about all kinds of things that are really beyond strictly focusing on Jan. 6. So, it seems unlikely there's going to be a lot of real value that comes out of this commission, but you do have members like Liz Cheney who will be participating, who say they want to get to the bottom of what happened beyond President Trump's involvement.
Progress on a bipartisan infrastructure bill, is that really possible?
So this week, the Senate actually voted down, moving to proceed to a bipartisan infrastructure bill. And strangely, that may be the first sign that the bipartisan infrastructure bill could actually happen. Republicans voted against moving to the bill, opening debate on it, because they didn't have the text yet and they say it wasn't ready. The vote lost; it didn't get the 60 votes needed to proceed. But the 22 members, Republicans and Democrats, who are working on a bipartisan compromise, since the vote happened, have said they've made significant progress and are planning to try again early next week.
They need to try to cut a deal over the weekend and produce legislative text, and in the legislative text is where you're going to find a lot of things that could potentially trip up this bill. Because no other members have seen what's in this yet, there could be policy riders that people don't like, and the scores that come out of the Congressional scorekeepers telling everybody how much money to spend and how much revenue it raises may not add up. So there's still a lot that can go wrong between now and next week, but strangely, this negative vote was the first step towards actually getting something done this year on infrastructure.- Biden's big bet on Big Government - GZERO Media ›
- Joe Biden's plan to remake America - GZERO Media ›
- Texas grid shows need to fix infrastructure in US; RIP Rush ... ›
- Senate's bipartisan $1T infrastructure bill could double US spending - GZERO Media ›
- How the Democrats plan to tax the rich; Newsom wins CA recall - GZERO Media ›
- Biden's legacy rests on pandemic leadership (not Afghanistan mistakes) - GZERO Media ›
- Moderate Democrats will determine the infrastructure bill's fate - GZERO Media ›
- What's next for infrastructure and Biden's Build Back Better plan? - GZERO Media ›
Democrats need to be united to pass $3.5 trillion budget plan
Get insights on the latest news in US politics from Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington:
What are the details of the Democrats' proposed $3.5 trillion budget blueprint?
Well, the Democrats this week in the Senate Budget Committee agreed to move forward with the plan to spend $3.5 trillion spread out over about 10 years on a huge portion of President Biden's Build Back Better Plan. This comes on top of a bipartisan agreement, at least in principle, on another $600 billion in physical infrastructure, which is roads, bridges, tunnels, repair, broadband deployment and a whole bunch of other physical infrastructure spending that Republicans and Democrats agree they want to do but aren't clear on how they want to pay for. But on the $3.5 trillion in spending, this is a lot of new social services, it's extending a number of tax subsidies that are going to low-income families and families with kids as part of the American Rescue Plan, which was the Biden stimulus bill that passed earlier in the year. It also includes money for two years of community college, universal preschool, and expands Medicare to cover things like dental benefits and other things that Medicare currently doesn't pay for.
So, this is a really big, ambitious plan. Democrats are excited about it because they think it's going to reshape, eliminate poverty for millions of Americans and reshape the role of the federal government and a lot of people's lives. However, the road to get there is long and challenging. And this next, in this part of the process is just one baby step forward. The next part of the process will be to pass a budget. And the budget process requires only 50 votes in the Senate and the simple majority in the House. But with Democrats slim margins in both, they can't really afford to lose even a single member. So, Democrats have to be totally unified to get this thing through. They can't expect a lot of support from Republicans. And the tension in the party is between progressives who want to spend a lot of money, Senator Bernie Sanders said he was looking to do over $6 trillion, and more moderate members, which is a sizable but silent group led by the very vocal senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, who says, this whole thing has to be paid for, there can be no deficit financing. Which means the Democrats can really only afford to spend the money they can raise. And while Biden has put forward $3.6 trillion in tax increases, a lot of those tax increases are politically untenable. And most analysts see there's a realistic range of about one to two trillion dollars in tax increases that are possible. If you combine that with some budget gimmicks and some fake spending cuts that have been floated in the bipartisan framework, plus, you give yourself a longer time frame for how you count the revenues that will finance some of the short-term spending, you can probably get there. But the Senate and the House are probably months away from resolution of this process. And the challenging part right now is going to be keeping everybody on board until the very end.