Enjoy your stuff Jeff but I don’t agree this is a good thing for a very simple reason: the incentives are almost nonexistent for government to do anything effectively and efficiently.
Government puts taxpayers money at risk and spends it on other people, which creates all sorts of incentives for cronyism. And there’s no real time system of feedback to whether the program is actually producing the results proponents say it is and no way to starve bad ideas from resources (the war on drugs, war on poverty, IRS, VA, Pentagon etc come to mind as bad ideas/bureaucracy’s that are virtually impossible to stop). There are no rewards or consequences for the spending regardless of what happens. The people spending the money have no skin in the game and really don’t answer to anyone or anything except the possibility of being voted out of office. How well has that worked?
Compare this scenario with the private sector. Everything is the opposite. I’d have to risk my own resources and/or convince a bank/venture capitalist to do the same for an idea. Everyone has skin in the game. Consumers get to vote with their own resources and preferences based what each of them want and not what a politician wants. I’m rewarded if I’m effective and efficient in producing what society wants or I’m quickly put out of business if I don’t.
As most economists say, incentives matter. I’d say they matter more than anything.
Agree with your premise, but challenge the assertion that if the infrastructure bill is all Biden gets done, it will be a let down.
In my view, we need to re-establish responsibility and accountability in our political culture, like pronto.
Is Biden responsible for every Democrat in this "big tent" party that includes factions inside that are rage-tweeting against each other? Nope. That's not a realistic expectation.
What *is* a realistic expectation is that he can create a strong sense of unified purpose that leads his party to pass his legislation. Is Biden doing this well? The jury's is out. He's trying. And maybe the behind-the-scenes trying ends up being less fulfilling than DJT's brazen PR stunts, but if it ends up working, then we should not be seduced by PR vs. what may end up being operational excellence.
I will not be let down if nothing else passes. Biden has already pulled 1/2 of all American children out of poverty for crying out loud (via his first bi-partisan win in COVID relief), and now he's successfully pushed through re-investing in American infrastructure like no other President in recent memory.
Does this make Biden a "great" POTUS? Nah. But it's better than many expected, and I think that should be celebrated PR'd to death DJT-style. But it won't - that's just not the Democratic way.
On the same token, if Biden passed what he initially was shooting for in his BBB proposal (when it was $3.5T), he may have actually sunk himself accidentally by falling over the progressive waterfall with 12% of the electorate. Yes, I think the moderate democrats are actually saving Biden from his left flank, as well as his own newly-found beliefs that the prescription to pull back angry white voters to the Democratic tent is embracing Bernie's platform.
But here's the problem: You can't win with Bernie's platform without Bernie at the helm. That's just not how things work. The brand and personal charisma and the policy need to match.
This is why, in my view, the Infrastructure Bill passed - it had Buttigieg as the primary spokesperson and figurehead of the bill. Mayor Pete has the charisma and the orientation that matches the infrastructure bill perfectly.
We should never be surprised that when the right charisma and the right policy combine, it's a powerful force that no political scientist is equipped to properly measure.
If he adds a pretty-good version of BBB to ARP and infrastructure (and I'd call what I've seen so far "pretty good"), I'll consider that a significantly-positive outcome. Without BBB...not bad, but a bit disappointing. Though I tend to blame failures of things I want on the people who cast the "no" votes, much less so on the people who couldn't convince the people who cast the "no" votes. I've declared myself agnostic on the question of whether Biden could have finagled this thing or that thing if he had played his cards differently (https://bit.ly/3wPZQAx), but those three bills would, IMHO, make me feel like something pretty substantial was won in the 2020 election (besides, obviously, getting rid of Trump).
And, of course, practically everything that's not taxes and spending is off the table because of the filibuster, which is a shame.
I've done a complete about-face on nixing the filibuster. Mostly due to Ezra Klein's arguments, which is doubly-fascinating because he doesn't typically appeal to the logic center of my brain.
But here I am, now believing that each party should own their ideas not just in the abstract campaign promise that will never happen, but in a way that they need to deliver on their promises.
It may lead to some extreme policies, which might be bad, but it also may lead to less proposed extreme policies knowing that they'd have to follow-through on their campaign promises!
Good to know that the bill has absolutely no boondoggles and that it will 💯 deliver every single thing it promises!
Guess I’ve been listening to the wrong people. Possibly even the wrong economists!
Also good to know that it all HAD to be done at absolute once and couldn’t have been split up into several bill bills over time and voted on as needed.
> Good to know that the bill has absolutely no boondoggles and that it will 💯 deliver every single thing it promises!
I don't see where JM's post claimed that.
> Also good to know that it all HAD to be done at absolute once and couldn’t have been split up into several bill bills over time and voted on as needed.
The infrastructure bill was already split off from what's in the reconciliation (Build Back Better) bill, and had been whittled down to a quarter of its original size in dollar terms (https://stephensemler.substack.com/p/the-progressive-caucus-gives-up-its). Why should it have been split even further, and why shouldn't I conclude that whatever remained in the infrastructure bill was necessary (even if insufficient)?
Enjoy your stuff Jeff but I don’t agree this is a good thing for a very simple reason: the incentives are almost nonexistent for government to do anything effectively and efficiently.
Government puts taxpayers money at risk and spends it on other people, which creates all sorts of incentives for cronyism. And there’s no real time system of feedback to whether the program is actually producing the results proponents say it is and no way to starve bad ideas from resources (the war on drugs, war on poverty, IRS, VA, Pentagon etc come to mind as bad ideas/bureaucracy’s that are virtually impossible to stop). There are no rewards or consequences for the spending regardless of what happens. The people spending the money have no skin in the game and really don’t answer to anyone or anything except the possibility of being voted out of office. How well has that worked?
Compare this scenario with the private sector. Everything is the opposite. I’d have to risk my own resources and/or convince a bank/venture capitalist to do the same for an idea. Everyone has skin in the game. Consumers get to vote with their own resources and preferences based what each of them want and not what a politician wants. I’m rewarded if I’m effective and efficient in producing what society wants or I’m quickly put out of business if I don’t.
As most economists say, incentives matter. I’d say they matter more than anything.
Agree with your premise, but challenge the assertion that if the infrastructure bill is all Biden gets done, it will be a let down.
In my view, we need to re-establish responsibility and accountability in our political culture, like pronto.
Is Biden responsible for every Democrat in this "big tent" party that includes factions inside that are rage-tweeting against each other? Nope. That's not a realistic expectation.
What *is* a realistic expectation is that he can create a strong sense of unified purpose that leads his party to pass his legislation. Is Biden doing this well? The jury's is out. He's trying. And maybe the behind-the-scenes trying ends up being less fulfilling than DJT's brazen PR stunts, but if it ends up working, then we should not be seduced by PR vs. what may end up being operational excellence.
I will not be let down if nothing else passes. Biden has already pulled 1/2 of all American children out of poverty for crying out loud (via his first bi-partisan win in COVID relief), and now he's successfully pushed through re-investing in American infrastructure like no other President in recent memory.
Does this make Biden a "great" POTUS? Nah. But it's better than many expected, and I think that should be celebrated PR'd to death DJT-style. But it won't - that's just not the Democratic way.
On the same token, if Biden passed what he initially was shooting for in his BBB proposal (when it was $3.5T), he may have actually sunk himself accidentally by falling over the progressive waterfall with 12% of the electorate. Yes, I think the moderate democrats are actually saving Biden from his left flank, as well as his own newly-found beliefs that the prescription to pull back angry white voters to the Democratic tent is embracing Bernie's platform.
But here's the problem: You can't win with Bernie's platform without Bernie at the helm. That's just not how things work. The brand and personal charisma and the policy need to match.
This is why, in my view, the Infrastructure Bill passed - it had Buttigieg as the primary spokesperson and figurehead of the bill. Mayor Pete has the charisma and the orientation that matches the infrastructure bill perfectly.
We should never be surprised that when the right charisma and the right policy combine, it's a powerful force that no political scientist is equipped to properly measure.
If he adds a pretty-good version of BBB to ARP and infrastructure (and I'd call what I've seen so far "pretty good"), I'll consider that a significantly-positive outcome. Without BBB...not bad, but a bit disappointing. Though I tend to blame failures of things I want on the people who cast the "no" votes, much less so on the people who couldn't convince the people who cast the "no" votes. I've declared myself agnostic on the question of whether Biden could have finagled this thing or that thing if he had played his cards differently (https://bit.ly/3wPZQAx), but those three bills would, IMHO, make me feel like something pretty substantial was won in the 2020 election (besides, obviously, getting rid of Trump).
And, of course, practically everything that's not taxes and spending is off the table because of the filibuster, which is a shame.
I've done a complete about-face on nixing the filibuster. Mostly due to Ezra Klein's arguments, which is doubly-fascinating because he doesn't typically appeal to the logic center of my brain.
But here I am, now believing that each party should own their ideas not just in the abstract campaign promise that will never happen, but in a way that they need to deliver on their promises.
It may lead to some extreme policies, which might be bad, but it also may lead to less proposed extreme policies knowing that they'd have to follow-through on their campaign promises!
Good to know that the bill has absolutely no boondoggles and that it will 💯 deliver every single thing it promises!
Guess I’ve been listening to the wrong people. Possibly even the wrong economists!
Also good to know that it all HAD to be done at absolute once and couldn’t have been split up into several bill bills over time and voted on as needed.
So assuming all of that is true. I’m with you.
My read on the economic consensus is that the bill will have a mild, positive impact in the long run.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/joe-biden-passes-the-less-contentious-half-of-his-legislative-agenda/21806187
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/11/07/biden-infrastructure-build-back-better-analysis/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/infrastructure-law-seen-having-small-positive-impact-on-growth-11636191000
> Good to know that the bill has absolutely no boondoggles and that it will 💯 deliver every single thing it promises!
I don't see where JM's post claimed that.
> Also good to know that it all HAD to be done at absolute once and couldn’t have been split up into several bill bills over time and voted on as needed.
The infrastructure bill was already split off from what's in the reconciliation (Build Back Better) bill, and had been whittled down to a quarter of its original size in dollar terms (https://stephensemler.substack.com/p/the-progressive-caucus-gives-up-its). Why should it have been split even further, and why shouldn't I conclude that whatever remained in the infrastructure bill was necessary (even if insufficient)?