Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump wants less federal spending and more private investment to fix American infrastructure. This is what he's asking for in his transportation budget. (Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)

The Trump administrationis hoping to use this week to roll out its infrastructure plan, which at the moment is a plan in the same sense that the White House has a health-care plan and a tax plan. That is to say, officials have produced a vague outlinethat wont take up more than a few pages of bullet points.

But whats there is more than disturbing enough.

When President Trump was running for the White House last year, his advocacy of a large investment in infrastructure was often cited as evidence that he wasnt a traditional Republican. After all, would some doctrinaire conservative propose spending a trillion dollars of taxpayer money on government projects to shore up our roads, bridges and water systems?

But there was a bait-and-switch going on, one that becomes more evident as we get closer to seeing the details.

Trump has said many times that he should be able to get Democrats to join with him to pass infrastructure spending, becauseits something they support. And the problem is enormous and getting worse: The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that we need to invest an additional $2 trillion over the next 10 years in order to get our infrastructure to a reasonable level. Leaving these needs unmet imposes a constant stream of costs on businesses, governments and individuals. When roads are in disrepair, cars and trucks wear out more quickly and require more repairs, deliveries are slower, more gas is used, and goods and services cost consumers more. The ASCE says that failing to make the required investments would mean $3.9 trillion in lowered GDP over that decade and 2.5 million fewer jobs. The longer we wait, the worse the problems get and the more it costs to fix them.

The problem with what the Trump administration proposes is that while the number $1 trillion gets mentioned a lot, thats not actually what it wantsto spend. The budget proposal the White House released called for $200 billion in new infrastructure spending, but Democrats noticed that it simultaneously made over $200 billion in cuts to existing spending. For the most part, the administration wants to pass costs on to state and local governments and hope that private investors come up with the rest of the money. As the Associated Pressdescribes it, According to Trumps budget proposal, the funding would come from $200 billion in tax breaks over nine years that would then in theory leverage $1 trillion worth of construction.

Thats the biggest problem of all. Not long ago the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities succinctly described the approach Trump wants to take:

Rather than public investment with the government allocating the money and directing it to where its most needed the Trump plan relies entirely on private projects through which investors (e.g., private contractors) would own the projects, get huge federal tax credits equal to a stunning 82 percent of their equity investment, and make profits from the tolls or fees they would charge to consumers.

That might save some money in the very short run, but it means that consumers keep paying, basically forever. In the traditional approach, government spends the money to build, say, a bridge, and then its built and it belongs to the taxpayers. There are maintenance costs, but thats it. In the Trump approach, the government gives almost as much money in tax breaks as it would have spent building the bridge, but it belongs to the developer, who charges tolls that everyone who uses the bridge has to keep paying.

The other big problem with this method is that which projects get built is determined by where private developers think they can continue to make profits, not where the need is greatest. But there are lots of necessary infrastructure projects that might not be profit centers. (If you want to see how liberal Democrats would handle the infrastructure challenge, the Progressive Caucus has a plan to devote $2 trillion in public spending to it.)

Thats not the only problem with the administrations proposal. Officials havent said how they plan to pay for it by offsetting the tax breaks, which could be a serious bone of contention. And theyre also pushing for broad changes to the air traffic control system, which is an issue that doesnt fall as neatly on partisan lines and so might be able to get some Democratic support.

But the broader infrastructure plan faces the same basic problem in passing Congress that the administration faces when it comes to taxes and health care. There are some Republicans who are uneasy about some parts of it, but anything the administration does to satisfy them makes the prospect of getting any Democratic votes highly unlikely. And if no Democrats join in the effort, it cant overcome a filibuster in the Senate, even if Republicans can hold all their members and pass it through the House.

Democrats dont like the idea of trying to fund infrastructure only through tax breaks, but thats not their only objection. Will there be prevailing wage guarantees that ensure that the people working on these projects are paid adequately? What about environmental protections? Is an infrastructure plan going to be a Trojan horse to attack those protections? It would be more appealing to many Republicans if it were, but it would harden Democrats resolve against it.

But the biggest hurdle is the basic structure of the plan: having taxpayers give a huge amount of money to private developers, so that those developers can then turn around and charge people even more to use the systems that get built. If Trump thinks Democrats are going to go for that, hes fooling himself.

Here is the original post:
Trump will never get help from Democrats in passing his infrastructure plan. Here's why. - Washington Post (blog)

Steven Walters

Monday, June 5, 2017

With their party adrift at both the state and national levels, the four Democrats on the Legislature's budget-writing Joint Finance Committee are trying to tease out issues that mayor may notwork against Republican Gov. Scott Walker in next year's election.

Because Republicans handily control both houses of the Legislature, there are 12 of them and four Democrats on the committee. Within weeks, the committee will forward a proposed 2017-19 budget to the full Legislature. If it's not amended, separate Assembly and Senate votes could put that budget could be on Walker's desk.

The committee's four Democrats come from different regions of Wisconsin: Sen. Lena Taylor, of Milwaukee; Sen. Jon Erpenbach, of the Madison suburb of Middleton; Rep. Gordon Hintz, of Oshkosh, and Rep. Katrina Shankland, of Stevens Point.

Oshkosh, part of the Fox Valley, and Stevens Point are make-or-break areas for Democrats. Four years ago, three Democrats and one Republican represented the Stevens Point area; Shankland is now the only Democrat.

With the Capitol focused on Joint Finance Committee, its Democrats have a chance to offer proposals they know won't pass but still lay down political markers for whoever will be the party's nominee against Walker of what willand won'twork as campaign themes.

More than 10 Democrats have said they won't run against Walker; five or six others are considering running. Whoever the candidate is, he or she has the luxury of embracing or abandoning the changes being floated by the committee's Democrats.

The committee has not yet acted on several budget issuesK-12 and transportation funding, and tax reformbut its Democrats have already showed what they support, and what the 12 Republicans oppose, on some major issues.

Free technical college tuition: Democrats said the state's 16 technical colleges, more than ever, offer a chance to train workers for future jobs. And, Democrats add, technical colleges are more nimble and affordable than the UW System's four-year campuses.

But, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the non-partisan budget office, making all technical colleges tuition-free would cost about $555 million over the next two years. That's cash state government does not have, Republicans say.

Free tuition at two-year UW colleges: Democrats said the two-year campuses offer students a chance to learn whether they like and can succeed in college, while commuting from home and families. Because students at two-year colleges come from middle-class families, they deserve financial breaks, Democrats added.

But, according to the fiscal bureau, making the two-year colleges tuition free would cost about $80 million over the next two years.

Republican Rep. John Nygren, a committee co-chair, dismissed the Democrats' proposals: Free college? News flash for you: Bernie Sanders lost. We don't just get things for free in this country. We work for them.

Student debt: Democrats tried to attach to the budget creation of a state agency to help students refinance their loans, saying Wisconsin residents are deeper in debt than most others nationally. Loan payments keep Wisconsin residents from buying cars and homes, Democrats added.

Republican Rep. Mary Felzkowski rejected that request, suggesting that students and their parents make better financial decisions to avoid going that deep in debt.

High-capacity wells: Led by Shankland, Democrats fought the bill Walker signed into law last week that will allow 13,178 high-capacity wellsmost of which are in the Central Sands region in and around Stevens Pointto be sold, replaced and repaired without a new permit from the Department of Natural Resources. Vegetable and potato growers pushed for that new law.

A former Joint Finance Committee co-chair, Democratic Sen. Mark Miller, offered his party's next candidate for governor a reason to use that against Walker.

Gov. Walker finishes what legislative Republican started, Miller said. He privatized the waters of Wisconsin. Senate Bill 76 gives high capacity well owners a permit forever.

There is one issuetransportation fundingwhere Democrats have been so far silent. The state transportation fund is hundreds of millions of dollars short of being able to keep current projects on schedule, but Walker has vowed to veto any tax or fee increase and wants to borrow $500 million to keep some major projects on track.

When the committee takes up transportation funding, the four Democrats will have to lead, follow or get out of Republicans' way.

Steven Walters is a senior producer for the nonprofit public affairs channel WisconsinEye. Contact him at stevenscwalters@gmail.com.

This column has been corrected to show making the two-year colleges tuition free would cost about $80 million over the next two years.

2017 GazetteXtra, a division of Bliss Communications, Inc.

View original post here:
Walters: Democrats explore themes to shape governor's race - Janesville Gazette

Ad will collapse in seconds CLOSE June 5, 2017 06/05/2017 12:10 pm By Ed Kilgore Share Nancy Pelosi has put Republicans on notice that they should not rely on Democrats to help them get a debt-limit increase through Congress no matter what comes next. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images

It was probably inevitable: After years of acting as the adults in the room by supporting responsible Republicans seeking to fight back conservative efforts to use the threat of a debt default to extract policy concessions from a Democratic president, congressional Democrats are now thinking about playing some games themselves. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi served notice late last week that her caucus might modify its past support for a clean debt-limit increase and instead issue some demands of their own, such as a public commitment from the Trump administration and their congressional allies that they will not follow up a debt-limit increase with a budget-busting top-end tax cut.

More specifically, the talk in Democratic circles in the Senate as well as the House is to hold Republicans to earlier pledges of deficit-neutrality in whatever they decide to do on the tax front. That would have the practical effect of significantly scaling back the GOPs original plans for massive corporate and individual tax cuts, since Republicans are hopelessly divided on the kind of revenue-raisers that would be necessary to pay for them. And more generally, it would deter the administration and the congressional GOP leadership from even considering concessions to House Freedom Caucus types who have eternally demanded deep spending cuts and/or big conservative policy riders as the minimum price for a debt-limit increase. Without monolithic Democratic support, a debt-limit increase is not likely to survive such demands in the House.

The opportunity for a little Democratic hostage-taking on the debt limit is a product of the GOPs messed-up 2017 congressional schedule. Originally, Congress was supposed to be done with the Obamacare repeal-and-replace legislation by now, and well into the tax-cut phase of its agenda, with a debt-limit increase not considered necessary until early fall. But now the Trump administration is publicly admitting that it wont have its own tax-cut proposal written until after Congresss long August recess, even as Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin and budget director Mick* Mulvaney jointly signal that Congress needs to extend the debt limit before that recess. The linkage between the two issues is now all but unavoidable, particularly as the White House continues to make it clear that it wont let its alleged concern about budget deficits get in the way of a tax cut.

No one knows at this point how far congressional Democrats will carry the threat to make support for a debt-limit increase contingent on GOP resistance to both deep spending cuts and non-revenue-neutral tax cuts. But for the moment, it probably feels liberating to have something to say on the debt-limit issue other than: Of course we will do the right thing.

This post has been updated with the correct spelling of Mick Mulvaneys first name.

Harvard Retracts 10 Offers to Students Who Posted Offensive Memes in Harvard Memes for Horny Bourgeois Teens Group Chat

Trump Chooses Most Ironic Location in the Entire World for Anti-France Rally

Kendall Jenner Doesnt Mince Words While Venting About Caitlyn Jenners Memoir

Ballet Dancer Rescues Man Shoved Onto Subway Tracks

Exclusive: Behind The Scenes of the Leftovers Finale

Wonder Woman Is a Star Turn for Gal Gadot, But the Rest Is Pretty Clunky

Norm Macdonald on Why Hes Tired of Trump Satire and the Joke Hell Never Tell Again

Trumps Attack on the Mayor of London May Be the Worst Tweet of His Presidency

Scott Pruitt Is As Insanely Wrong About Coal Jobs As He Is About Climate Change

Lets Discuss the Revelation in The Leftovers Finale

Most Popular Video On Daily Intelligencer

Democrats are unenthused.

I was very afraid because I had a secret about the biggest celebrity in the world at that time.

It makes sense for Republicans to try to mobilize their pro-Trump base with attacks on the press. But they may be tempted to take it too far.

The venues master tenant and creative director have each been charged with 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter.

Trump took Sadiq Khans words out of context, so as to portray Londons first Muslim mayor as blithely indifferent to terrorism.

Of the two men, one was known to British police and intelligence.

Whatever Kellyanne Conway might try to argue.

Trumps EPA Director: Weve had over 50,000 jobs since last quarter coal jobs, mining jobs created in this country. Uh, no.

After years of supporting unconditional increases, they are now considering making the GOP abandon a budget-busting tax cut.

The suspect, who was fired in April, is also dead after turning the gun on himself.

Trump says the Justice Department never should have watered down his original travel ban, which included a preference for non-Muslim refugees.

One of the memes referred to hanging a Mexican child as piata time.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen stopped air and sea travel to and from Qatar, accusing the nation of supporting terrorism.

The groups level of involvement remains unclear, but Prime Minister Theresa May said theres been far too much tolerance for extremism in Britain.

He denies having Trump kompromat, though his admitting that would have been a great way to start Kellys NBC show.

All those lifts, leading up to this moment.

Primary voting in the contest to replace Chris Christie takes place on Tuesday not that its getting much notice.

For criminal-justice advocates, bail reform has been a long sought victory; but for people like Ron Olszowy, it means the loss of a way of life.

For some reason or another, this issue of climate change has emerged as a paramount issue, says Mike Pence.

After days of White House officials avoiding the question of whether the president thinks that climate change is real.

See more here:
Democrats Toy With Some Debt Limit Hostage-Taking Of Their Own - New York Magazine

House Democrats sent a letter to the inspector general at the Office of Personnel and Management today asking for clarification and answers about a new White House policy to not respond to their oversight requests unless the queries come through House committee or subcommittee chairs.

According to Democratic Reps. Kathleen Rice of New York and Derek Kilmer of Washington, who penned today's letter, a senior official from the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) called Rice's office in May to inform her and Kilmer that a letter they wrote asking about the federal government's guidelines for hiring new cybersecurity experts would not be answered unless a chair or subcommittee chair joined the inquiry.

All committees and subcommittees in the House as well as the Senate are run by Republicans, as they hold the majority in both chambers.

Two sources have confirmed to ABC News that the White House counsels office instructed legislative affairs departments to follow a new protocol to ignore requests for information from Democrats unless a Republican had signed on as well.

However, the OPM wrote in a statement to ABC News saying that the office planned to respond to letters from individual members on a "case-by-case" basis.

"It represents a practice followed for many years, regardless of which party is in the majority," a spokesperson from the office said in an email. The spokesperson said the office plans to respond to Democrat's letter about the policy, but did not make clear if the office would provide the information sought in the initial request.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and several other top Democrats on the Hill say by and large oversight letters from members of their party have been ignored. Pelosi has argued that to her, it seems like a policy shift. In total, House Democrats say about 275 of their inquiries since the Jan. 20 inauguration have gone unanswered.

The White Houses attempted gag order is the latest and most egregious attempt by the president to hide the truth from the American people," Pelosi said in a statement. "From firing FBI Director James Comey in an effort to quash the Bureaus investigation into Trump-Russia ties to refusing to release his tax returns, President Trump continues to wage an unprecedented campaign of dishonesty and secrecy."

The House minority leader continued, With this order, President Trump is making his disregard for transparency and his lack of respect for Congresss oversight role crystal clear. Since day one, the administration has refused to respond to hundreds of requests from Democrats on a range of issues critical to the health and security of the American people.

Kilmer told ABC News in an interview that such a directive to not engage with members of a political party really "flies in the face of government by the people and for the people."

"What is shocking here is that the Trump administration is making even a nonpartisan request for information and oversight partisan. I think that is really a new low for American democracy," he said.

Rice was insistent that her and Kilmer's original letter was apolitical and aimed only to get information about whether the House could help facilitate any federal efforts to recruit and retain top cybersecurity talent.

The New York congresswoman said she hopes the White House will reconsider its policy on House inquiries.

"It is completely undemocratic," she said in an interview with ABC News. "This is a political move to stymie the proper role of Congress, which is oversight over agencies."

She said she is talking about the issue with her Republican colleagues and she disputes any notion that the Democrats' inquiries are all fishing expeditions designed to sink Trump.

"The Constitution created the House of Representatives as part of a co-equal branch of government, made up of directly elected representatives of the people," says the letter that she and Kilmer today sent to the inspector general. "Every representative, regardless of political party, has a responsibility to serve his or her constituents, just as the administration has the responsibility to serve every American, regardless of who they voted for."

Read more from the original source:
Trump administration has failed to answer 275 inquiries: Democrats - ABC News

WASHINGTON The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is investing in South Carolina's special election to succeed congressman-turned-White House budget director Mick Mulvaney but just a fraction of what the national party has spent on the special election in neighboring Georgia.

The DCCC is putting $275,000 towards boosting South Carolina Democratic candidate Archie Parnell.

That's far less than the nearly $5 million being spent in support of Democrat Jon Ossoff in the highly competitive 6th District race in Georgia.

The difference shows that while the DCCC may be serious about party-building in traditionally red states ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, it doesn't necessarily see a clear pathway for victory in Parnell's bid against Republican Ralph Norman later this month.

"This investment will help turn out and provide key lessons on crucial voters for South Carolinas 5th Congressional District and the 2018 midterms more broadly," DCCC regional press secretary Cole Leiter said in a statement announcing the investment, provided to The Post and Courier.

"Were proud to make this investment in organizing staff, African-American radio, mail, digital and other targeted voter outreach in the final weeks of this campaign," Leiter continued, "and support a candidate like Archie Parnell who will stand up and fight for the smart, responsible kind of leadership this community needs."

The DCCC's investment will place a special focus on faith communities during the next two Sundays leading up to the June 20 special election finale.

The national party is also paying the salaries of three full-time field organizers for the Parnell campaign between now and Election Day.

The announcement of increased national party spending in the 5th District comes on the heels of this past weekend's visit from Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and former S.C. Democratic Party Chairman Jaime Harrison, who is now a DNC associate chairman and focusing largely on state party building.

The attention on a special election in a conservative state and district is notable and could represent a new sensitivity towards investing in areas of the country that have been overlooked by Democrats in the past. But others warn that capitalizing on anti-Donald Trump sentiment may not be as viable in South Carolina as in Georgia.

S.C.'s 5th District stretches from Sumter to the Rock Hill region of the state.

Maddie Anderson, a National Republican Congressional Committee's regional press secretary, said in a statement to The Post and Courier that the DCCC's investment made it "clear they see no path to victory in South Carolina's fifth District.

"Just like in Kansas and in Montana, the DCCC is leaving their candidate high and dry and is underinvesting in a special election," she added, referencing to two other special elections this year that have been won by Republicans.

Anderson could not, however, offer a figure for how much the NRCC had spent in support of Norman so far. She said it is not the organization's policy to publicize its incremental investments in Congressional races, and that a sum total would be revealed closer to the time of the election.

Emma Dumain is The Post and Courier's Washington correspondent. Reach her at 843-834-0419 and follow her @emma_dumain.

Read more:
National Democrats making modest investment in South Carolina race to succeed Mick Mulvaney - Charleston Post Courier