By Noah Rothman
Thursday,
September 30, 2021
From the outset of this administration,
Democrats misjudged the scale of the challenges they had set for themselves.
The predictable result has been a series of unmet expectations.
Without outright control of the Senate, a
razor-thin majority in the House, and a president whose national popular vote
margin belied the modesty of his majorities in swing states, Democrats somehow
convinced themselves that they could pass the party’s entire domestic
legislative agenda in one fell swoop. If that wasn’t daunting enough, the first
step involved ushering in a paradigmatic revolution.
Infrastructure, we were told, was not what
you thought of when you think of the word “infrastructure.” We weren’t just
talking about roads, bridges, and airports. Infrastructure was also “social and
civic.” It was “human” and “caregiving.” As ABC News observed, the White House
set out not just to pass a bill but to “redefine the meaning of the word.”
Any semblance of humility before the
awesome might of the English language should have dissuaded Democrats from this
course, and pursuing it was a costly error. Republicans managed to position
themselves as supporters of “hard” or “physical” infrastructure, and Democrats
eventually conceded to their terms by breaking their objectives up into two
parts: one genuine infrastructure bill and another smorgasbord of progressive
aspirations that we no longer even pretend to call infrastructure.
The left lost that messaging fight, and
they learned few lessons from the defeat. Democrats promptly pivoted to another
messaging war. But they sought to prosecute it from indefensible ground, and
they once again find themselves in retreat.
For months, both supporters and opponents
of the supplemental reconciliation bill the progressive left hoped to couple
with the “hard” infrastructure bill have emphasized its price tag. In May, Joe
Biden proposed a $6 trillion budget plan. Biden’s plan would do a lot, but to discern from the
president’s public statements, its most desirable feature was the scale of the
“investments” it would represent.
Intraparty negotiations eventually forced
Joe Biden to pare down his budget and its sundry infrastructure-adjacent
features down $4.5 trillion, frustrating progressives who were still invested in a $6 trillion
moonshot. Even this failed to satisfy Democratic moderates, which contributed
to splitting the bill into its constituent parts. That left us with an infrastructure
bill and a $3.5 trillion progressive dream board. But even that was too much
for some of the party’s moderates, leaving aggravated progressives to wonder
precisely how much spending these Democrats would back. House Rep. Ro Khanna is
indicative of this mindset. Venting his
frustrations over Sen. Joe Manchin’s opposition
to this package, Khanna savaged the senator because he “refuses to even give a
number” to the spending level he would support.
The proposal’s bottom-line costs have been
the most prominent feature of the discussion around it. By contrast, talk about
what the reconciliation bill would actually achieve if it became law has been
far more muted. Indeed, even today, the reconciliation bill is still referred
to as the “$3.5 trillion
reconciliation bill”—a feature its opponents are happy to
accentuate.
Having spent months searing the number
$3.5 trillion into American minds, however, Democrats have suddenly made a
180-degree turn to the idea that this gargantuan spending bill will actually
cost nothing at all.
This week, Joe Biden contended that his agenda actually “costs zero dollars.” House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi picked up the baton: “It’s not about a dollar amount,” she said, “the dollar amount, as the president said, is zero. This bill will be
paid for.” This new tactic is both economically illiterate and strategically
unsound.
The White House’s new contention is that
there is no “cost” to this mammoth proposal because it would add nothing to the
national debt. That is nonsense, of course. No independent analysis supports
the Democratic Party’s largely conjectural claim. It is only feasible insofar
as it relies on
the idea that economic growth will offset its
costs, and a future Congress may turn off the spending spigot this bill would
unleash. If Democrats were so secure in its projections, its members would not
have conspicuously avoided submitting their plan to the Congressional Budget
Office to determine its impact on the debt and deficit before they hope to vote
on it.
The grating innumeracy aside, this tactic
also undermines the months of dedicated labor Democrats have devoted to
popularizing the figure $3.5 trillion. Not unlike the abandonment of their
efforts to reconceptualize infrastructure as a state of mind, Democrats are now
sacrificing the work they’ve done to convince the public that all this spending
is not just vital but a climb down from the exorbitant public-sector
consumption the country really needs. For months, the spending was the point. Suddenly, fiscal profligacy is undesirable, and frugality is the
Democratic Party’s new passion.
This isn’t some carefully considered
strategy. It’s bargaining—a last-ditch effort to see what, if anything, will
stick. Like the lost messaging fight over what constitutes infrastructure, it
is predicated on the idea that Democrats can bamboozle you with their
rhetorical cleverness. And like that lost messaging campaign, it, too, is
doomed.
No comments:
Post a Comment