Posturing won’t rebuild infrastructure
The verb “to posture” is not widely used by normal human beings, but it was invoked all the time when I covered the 1ew There was an admirable, if peculiar, honesty to admitting that what was being said wasn’t actually what was meant. Typical off-the record comments ran “We’re taking this posture now to try to get us to ;,” ; being the real goal or “He’s posturing so he looks tough to his caucus before he tells them they have to cave.” The problem with Washington in 202 might be described as posturing without a purpose ± beyond scoring points against the White House. The 5epublican dance around President -oe %iden’s infrastructure proposal almost makes me nostalgic for the sincerity of cynicism. We know several things about the politics surrounding %iden’s big investment plan. )irst, he wants to do far more than congressional 5epublicans will support. 6econd, the *2P doesn’t want to pay for any plan with a corporate ta[ increase. Third, 5epublicans will say that whatever is passed should happen only on a bipartisan basis. Which comes down to this 'o a whole lot less pay for it our way, or not at all and maybe we’ll produce 0 *2P votes in the 6enate to pass the bill in a normal way, rather than through the more cumbersome “reconciliation” process. That would reTuire only the 0 votes 'emocratic senators can deliver on their own, plus 9ice President .amala Harris’ tiebreaker. 1ow, I’d concede that there are a few 5epublican senators, bless them, who really would like to vote for a reasonably substantial infrastructure bill. $ larger group is fully aware that opposing popular and needed proMects in their own states doesn’t make their party look good. %iden certainly has the upside of the issue. $ 1ew %ut the history of the 2bama years has taught 'emocrats that 5epublicans aren’t, well, posturing in good faith. They are not staking out one position today to lay the groundwork for reaching a mutually agreeable compromise tomorrow. 5ather, many 'emocrats figure their opponents will string them along, and then, at the end, 6enate MaMority /eader &harles (. 6chumer, '-1.<., will still have to get the bill done with only 'emocratic votes. The real Tuestion before 6enate 'emocrats is whether it’s worth seeing if enough 5epublicans would allow some significant share of infrastructure spending to pass in a bipartisan way. $ leading advocate of what you might call the %ig Test is 6en. &hristopher $. &oons, '-'el. He says it might be worth dividing %iden’s plan into two, with one winning *2P votes and the other passing through reconciliation. %ut he doesn’t want to give the *2P forever. “2ver the ne[t month, I believe we can and should work on a two-track path to address our nation’s crumbling infrastructure, as well as President %iden’s broader plan to make our economy work for all $mericans,” &oons told me. “If my 5epublican colleagues are serious about a bipartisan bill, we should work with them to see if we can reach a deal by Memorial 'ay,” he continued. “We should at the same time continue work on a larger legislative package so that 'emocrats can pass a bill by -uly if we can’t make bipartisan progress.” The alternative 'emocratic view is that it’s Must not worth breaking up the plan, especially since there is virtually no chance 5epublicans will ever approve of any corporate ta[ increases to finance the package. 6en. 6herrod %rown, '-2hio, calls himself “mostly agnostic on process” Tuestions. %ut he argues that 'emocrats have already passed one big bill, the . trillion relief package, and that getting through one more large piece of legislation could be far easier than offering up bite-size chunks in a Tuest for *2P votes that might never materialize. “I saw how hard the first one was,” he said in an interview. “I know this is going to be hard . . . . Why not get as much in one package as we can so we don’t have to do it a third time"” %rown is right to be skeptical Wagers on *2P goodwill have lately been suckers’ bets. %ut &oons is also right that there are worse things than being caught trying bipartisanship ± with a deadline. %etter to know Tuickly how serious 5epublicans are about infrastructure. /et the burden be on them to show what brand of posturing they’re engaged in.