Mediaboss Marketing

President Biden campaigned on a proposal for a massive infrastructure plan to transform the economy and on the idea that he could work with Republicans. Trying to bring the infrastructure plan into reality forces a key decision on bipartisanship. Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption

President Biden campaigned on a proposal for a massive infrastructure plan to transform the economy and on the idea that he could work with Republicans. Trying to bring the infrastructure plan into reality forces a key decision on bipartisanship.

President Biden is continuing his victory lap this week after passing the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill, which addressed the most immediate crises Biden has faced coming into office: a pandemic still spreading and an economy still millions of jobs short of where it was a year ago.

But if the relief bill was designed to put out the fire, Biden's next goal is to rebuild the house, with an infrastructure bill fulfilling the president's campaign promise to "build back better."

"The Build Back Better bill is the legacy bill," said Bill Galston, former domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House. "It's the bill that will define the meaning of the Biden presidency."

White House aides are reportedly compiling a $3 trillion plan that would include a wide range of priorities, including social programs and tax changes, though press secretary Jen Psaki said on Monday that nothing was decided: "President Biden and his team are considering a range of potential options for how to invest in working families and reform our tax code so it rewards work, not wealth."

This is going to be an infrastructure bill that goes far beyond roads and bridges. It's designed to be a major investment in manufacturing and the technologies of the future, including 5G, a green electric grid, universal broadband Internet access, semiconductor production and carbon-free transportation.

Galston says it's a bill that could transform the country: "A country that has not invested in itself for a very long time. A country that is on the verge of losing its technological and economic superiority to the rising power at the other side of the Pacific."

That means China. Outcompeting Beijing is something that both parties agree on, and it's at the heart of Biden's sales pitch for the Build Back Better agenda.

"If we don't get moving, they are going to eat our lunch," Biden said at a bipartisan meeting of senators in the Oval Office last month, the day after he spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

But Biden has a number of decisions to make about how to get that plan moving, such as how and whether to pay for what will be a multitrillion-dollar investment, what pieces of the plan should be introduced first and whether it's possible to get Republican votes, something Biden failed to do on the pandemic relief bill.

"The big question is whether the strategy for passing the COVID-19 bill is a template or whether it's an exception," Galston said.

To pass the COVID-19 relief bill, the White House came up with its plan a $1.9 trillion package. Then the Republicans came back with a much smaller offer at $681 billion. There were a few bipartisan discussions, but the gap was too big to bridge, so in the end the bill passed with no Republican support at all.

To pass Build Back Better, the White House is trying a different approach, inviting Republicans in on the ground floor to craft the legislation. There have already been bipartisan meetings at the White House and in the Senate. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has instructed her Democratic committee chairs to work with their Republican counterparts to develop infrastructure legislation.

That would be kind of old-fashioned, but there's no one more enamored of old-fashioned bipartisan buy-in than Joe Biden. That was clear after one of those bipartisan infrastructure meetings at the White House last month.

"It's the best meeting I think we've had so far," the president said. "It was like the old days people are actually on the same page," he added.

President Biden and Vice President Harris meet with a bipartisan group of senators to discuss infrastructure on Feb. 11 Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images hide caption

President Biden and Vice President Harris meet with a bipartisan group of senators to discuss infrastructure on Feb. 11

The latest thinking among Democrats is that there are pieces of an infrastructure agenda that could be broken off and passed as smaller individual bills with GOP votes, including things like universal broadband and anything that confronts China through investments in manufacturing or intellectual property protection.

But Republicans are skeptical after Biden decided to go it alone with Democratic votes only on the coronavirus relief bill.

"The notion is we could get together there because Republicans and Democrats both believe our infrastructure needs help. It's crumbling. It will help the economy if done right," said Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman on Fox News. "My concern is once again they're going to ignore the Republicans as they did this time around."

Democrats hear that and think Republicans will do what they did to President Obama refuse to compromise, then attack the president for failing to get them to compromise. Republicans do not have a lot of political incentives to compromise with Biden, and it's possible that the relationship between the two parties on Capitol Hill is just too broken for bipartisanship. Especially after Jan. 6, when a majority of Republicans voted to overturn the 2020 election, neither side thinks the other is acting in good faith.

In the White House, bipartisanship is seen as something to strive for it's part of Biden's political DNA. But in the end, as long as voters see that Biden tried hard to work across the aisle, achieving bipartisan success is not seen as a political necessity.

"The only thing that bipartisanship really buys you is some protection against the inevitable screw-ups," said Elaine Kamarck, a former Clinton White House aide and author of Why Presidents Fail. "The process of implementation, particularly on big big projects like this, there are hiccups in it. Obviously, if it's bipartisan you weather those hiccups better than you do if you've only passed it with one party. In the end, it doesn't really matter that much as long as it gets implemented."

In other words, the process isn't as important to voters as the product. Whether it's vaccines, school openings or infrastructure jobs, the idea is that voters just want Biden to deliver.

But that might be a misread of the politics, according to Galston, who thinks getting Republican votes is a political necessity for Biden because of his promises in the campaign: "That he could work harder than his predecessors did to restore the ability of the two parties, not only to talk to each other civilly, but also to work together."

Galston thinks that promise really mattered to swing voters in the suburbs who made the difference between victory and defeat for Biden. In other words, those voters took the president's promise of bipartisanship seriously and literally.

Biden was asked about his prediction that Republicans would see the light after the election during an interview with ABC News last week.

"They haven't had that epiphany you said you were going to see in the campaign," said anchor George Stephanopoulos.

"No, no, well I've only been here six weeks, pal, OK? Gimme a break," Biden said before going on to talk about how popular the relief bill was with ordinary Republicans, if not GOP members of Congress.

Then Biden revealed how important those voters are to him, eventually landing on a declaration: "I won those Republican voters in suburbia."

The president won't be on the ballot in 2022, but his agenda will be. Democrats need to do better with those Republican voters in suburbia if they are to hang on to their tiny majorities in both houses of Congress. How Biden goes about passing his next big proposal may determine whether his party wins them or not.

See original here:
Biden Infrastructure Plan To Test His Bipartisan Promises - NPR

House Science, Space and Technology Committee Ranking Member Frank Lucas, R-Okla., is reintroducing legislation proposing the U.S. double its investments in research funding across several Federal agencies and create a national science and technology strategy.

The Securing American Leadership in Science and Technology Act (SALSTA) carries the same name as similar legislation that Rep. Lucas introduced in the last Congress, but the current bill reflects a greater need for intellectual property protection and critical materials supply chain security. The current bill would also double funding for basic research over 10 years.

Doubling our investment in basic and early-stage research is unquestionably whats needed for a clean economy that stays ahead of foreign competition, Lucas said in a statement. SALSTA creates a national strategy for American research and development that focuses on advanced technologies and clean energy solutions.

In addition to doubling the funding for research over 10 years, the proposed legislation would do the following:

We need to protect U.S. research from theft while also maintaining the transparent and cooperative environment that generates scientific discoveries, Lucas said.

Lucas is joined by 15 other House Republicans on the legislation.

More:
House Republicans Introduce Bill to Double Science and Tech Funding - MeriTalk

In their first appearance before Congress since the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, the chief executives of Facebook, Googleand Twitter faced frustrated lawmakers in a hearing on the role of social media in the spread of disinformation and extremism.

Lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee spent much of the Thursday hearing attempting to push Google and Alphabets Sundar Pichai, Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg, and Twitters Jack Dorsey into answering yes or no questions around whether the platforms had any responsibility in the attack on the Capitol, whether the individual CEOs believe the COVID-19 vaccines work, and why platforms still allow harmful hashtags associating Asian people with the coronavirus.

The CEOs endeavored for a diplomatic posture by shrouding their views under the cover of nuance. Partway through her questioning, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., likened the inability to answer the yes or no questions to the filibuster.

We dont do filibuster in the House, she said.

While what to do about disinformation is not a simple binary, the conversation between lawmakers and Big Tech continues to appear as a triangle-shaped stalemate, with Big Tech, Republicansand Democrats at each point. Dorsey dryly summed up the impasse during his opening remarks.

Some of you will say were doing too much in removing free speech rights. Some of you will say were not doing enough and then end up causing more harm, Dorsey said. Both are reasonable and worth exploring.

Despite the willingness of the CEOs to elaborate on the actions they have taken, such as setting up fact-checking programs, promoting reliable COVID-19 information, and taking down content that violates company policies, they were less forthcoming when asked about specific areas where those efforts have failed to do enough to address the problem of misinformation.

The hearing came less than a week after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released an assessment that found domestic violent extremists exploit a variety of popular social media platforms, smaller websites with targeted audiences, and encrypted chat applications to recruit new adherents, plan and rally support for in-person actions, and disseminate materials that contribute to radicalization and mobilization to violence.

Left unacknowledged is how the lobbying power of these tech companies influences the debate. The non-profit consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen published a report Wednesday showing that Facebook is now the top individual corporate lobbying spender. The same report found 94% of lawmakers with jurisdiction over large tech firms received financial contributions from political action committees or lobbyists associated with those companies.

Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee received nearly $620,000, while Republicans on the committee received more than $420,000, from big tech PACs or lobbyists, according to the report.

Importantly, the mere fact of a corporate contribution does not automatically compromise a legislator, the Public Citizen report reads. Some legislators and committees who have received Big Tech PAC and lobbyist funds have conducted the most thorough investigations and hearings on Big Tech in decades, and have introduced the boldest legislation to stifle the corporations unfettered growth to date. At the same time, there is no doubt companies direct their campaign funds in order to gain access and influence.

Vectors for lawmaker questions varied and included the recent mass shooting outside of Atlanta that killed eightpeople, six of whom were Asian American, in addition to other issues such as the COVID-19 vaccine, bullying and sex trafficking. But the primary policy issue at hand is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. A policy reviled by former President Donald Trump and some Democrats, the 26-word provision protects free speech online by providing liability protection for platforms that host or re-publish the speech of others, according to an explanation from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Zuckerberg in his prepared testimony proposed several changes to Section 230. Rather than granting platforms immunity, Section 230 should require demonstrations that platforms have systems in place for identifying and removing unlawful content, Zuckerberg said. But those platforms should still not be held liable if a particular piece of content evades detection.

According to civil society organizations such as EFF and Fight for the Future, Zuckerbergs proposal is problematic on several points.

Of courseFacebook wants to see changes to Section 230, Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, said during a livestream ahead of the hearing. Because they know it will simply serve to solidify their monopoly power and crush competition from smaller and more decentralized platforms.

Instead, Greer said, lawmakers should pass federal data privacy legislation and enforce antitrust laws, particularly those that target practices like the nontransparent manipulation of algorithms. Zuckerberg said during the hearing he believes Congress should establish national privacy legislation.

In a post on its website, EFF called Zuckerbergs proposal an explicit plea to create a legal regime that only Facebook, and perhaps a few other dominant online services, could meet. Ultimately, the proposal would lead to increased censorship while still failing to address problems with online misinformation because of the narrow definition of what content is actually illegal, according to EFF.

During the hearing, Zuckerberg clarified that he doesnt want the Section 230 reforms he is proposing to impact startups and small companies right away.

I want to be clear that the recommendations that I'm making for Section 230 I would only have applied to larger platforms, Zuckerberg told Rep. John Curtis, R-Utah. I think it's really critical that a small platform, you know the next student in a dorm room or garage needs to have a relatively low as possible regulatory burden in order to be able to innovate and then get to the scale where they can afford to put those kinds of systems in place.

Dorsey said the real issue is algorithms. He called for more algorithmic choice in his testimony. Fixing issues with algorithms and the need to give individual users more power over them would be a tough change, Dorsey said, but its the most impactful.

More:
Democrats and Republicans United in Big Tech Frustration - Nextgov

Republicans feel conservatives face more discrimination than Black people do in America, according to a recent poll.

In a The Economist/YouGov poll, respondents were presented with several groups and asked: "How much discrimination do the following people face in America today?"

Conservatives was one of those and overall 22 percent polled said a great deal, 27 percent a fair amount, 30 percent not much and 20 percent none at all.

Among Republican respondents, more felt conservatives faced higher levels of discrimination.

Of those, 40 percent said a great deal, 35 percent a fair amount, 17 percent not much and 9 percent none at all.

The poll posed the same question in regard to Black people.

To this, overall 39 percent said a great deal, 29 percent a fair amount, 24 percent not much and 8 percent none at all.

Among Republicans, the numbers were lowerand fell below conservatives in terms of how much discrimination they felt they faced.

Just more than 1 in 10, 14 percent, said a great deal, and 35 percent a fair amount.

Nearly 2 in 5, 39 percent, said not much and 13 percent said none at all.

Republicans also said Asian people, 14 percent a great deal and 36 percent a fair amount, and immigrants, 16 percent a great deal and 33 percent a fair amount, faced lower levels of discrimination than conservatives.

Muslim people, 14 percent a great deal and 44 percent a fair amount, and Jewish people, 16 percent a great deal and 39 percent a fair amount, were also ranked lower in terms of the amount of discrimination Republicans believe they face compared to conservatives.

The polling was conducted among 1,500 U.S. adults, from March 20 to 23.

For the full sample size, the margin of error was plus or minus 2.9 percent.

The results come with issues over racial equity, discrimination and systemic racism continuing to be a focal point in the U.S.

Protests across the nation last year sparked by the killing of George Floyd provoked widespread discussions.

The recent shootings of Asian women in Atlanta also started further conversations over hate crimes.

Discussions have also come to the fore over the issue of white supremacists in the nation.

President Joe Biden has put "advancing racial equity" as one of his priorities since coming into power, signing several executive orders on this matter.

While these issues have been raised, the subject of "cancel culture" has become a familiar talking point for many conservative voices.

In a poll in January, most Republicans said they saw cancel culture as a threat to freedom.

Conservatives have bemoaned this as suppressing their voices in the public realm.

Republican lawmakers have also rallied against this.

Original post:
Republicans Think Conservatives Face More Discrimination Than Black People: Poll - Newsweek

As Peters notes,

Those include laws that would require identification for voters and limit the availability of absentee ballots, as well as other policies that Heritage said would secure and strengthen state election systems.

The other side of this effort to restrict the vote is a full-court press against the For the People Act, which would pre-empt most Republican voter-suppression bills. It kind of feels like an all-hands-on-deck moment for the conservative movement, when the movement writ large realizes the sanctity of our elections is paramount and voter distrust is at an all-time high, Jessica Anderson of Heritage Action for America told The Associated Press.

And in a recording of an address to Republican state legislators obtained by the A.P., Senator Ted Cruz of Texas warned that a voter-protection bill would spell the end of the Republican Party as a viable national party. H.R. 1s only objective is to ensure that Democrats can never again lose another election, that they will win and maintain control of the House of Representatives and the Senate and of the state legislatures for the next century, he said.

Some of this is undoubtedly cynical, a brazen attempt to capitalize on the conspiratorial rhetoric of the former president. But some of it is sincere, a genuine belief that the Republican Party will cease to exist if it cannot secure election integrity.

Whats striking about all this is that, far from evidence of Republican decline, the 2020 election is proof of Republican resilience, even strength. Trump won more than 74 million votes last year. He made substantial gains with Hispanic voters reversing more than a decade of Republican decline and improved with Black voters too. He lost, yes, but he left his party in better-than-expected shape in both the House and the Senate.

If Republicans could break themselves of Trump and look at last November with clear eyes, they would see that their fears of demographic eclipse are overblown and that they can compete even thrive in the kinds of high-turnout elections envisioned by voting rights activists.

Indeed, the great irony of the Republican Partys drive to restrict the vote in the name of Trump is that it burdens the exact voters he brought to the polls. Under Trump, the Republican Party swapped some of the most likely voters white college-educated moderates for some of the least likely blue-collar men.

In other words, by killing measures that make voting more open to everyone, Republicans might make their fears of terminal decline a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

View original post here:
Opinion | What Are Republicans So Afraid Of? - The New York Times