Today In Biden Land

[Kirkland Laing]

I love graphs.

Amazing that as many as 11 percent of people polled said the government spends too much money on infrastructure.

I'd love to hear their "reasoning."

I was thinking when I read this there's no way even eighty nine percent of Americans (or any other country's population) know what infrastructure means so I looked up the actual poll and the question actually explains what infrastructure is. Amazing these days that ninety percent of Americans can agree on anything. I wonder what would happen to this number of conservative media went on an anti infrastructure jihad for a month or two.

[TitoFan]

I love graphs.

Amazing that as many as 11 percent of people polled said the government spends too much money on infrastructure.

I'd love to hear their "reasoning."

I was thinking when I read this there's no way even eighty nine percent of Americans (or any other country's population) know what infrastructure means so I looked up the actual poll and the question actually explains what infrastructure is. Amazing these days that ninety percent of Americans can agree on anything. I wonder what would happen to this number of conservative media went on an anti infrastructure jihad for a month or two.

You've touched upon a very important point, and that is the definition of infrastructure itself.

Republicans seem to favor the more narrow definition, which encompasses mostly what is known as "hard infrastructure" (roads, bridges, utilities, communication systems, etc).

Democrats seem to want a more broad definition, including much of what is known as "soft infrastructure" (healthcare, law enforcement, education, etc).

Me... I tend to lean toward the Republican view for two reasons.

1. I'm of a technical background... so the word "infrastructure" means certain things to me.

2. By limiting the scope of the term, I feel we're freer to discuss things like healthcare, law enforcement, and education separately.

All are needed for a productive society... but that's just my personal taste.



But yeah... I can fully imagine some people saying "Hell yeah. We spend way too much on infrastructure." Without having even a remote idea of what infrastructure actually means.

[Kirkland Laing]

I love graphs.

Amazing that as many as 11 percent of people polled said the government spends too much money on infrastructure.

I'd love to hear their "reasoning."

I was thinking when I read this there's no way even eighty nine percent of Americans (or any other country's population) know what infrastructure means so I looked up the actual poll and the question actually explains what infrastructure is. Amazing these days that ninety percent of Americans can agree on anything. I wonder what would happen to this number of conservative media went on an anti infrastructure jihad for a month or two.

You've touched upon a very important point, and that is the definition of infrastructure itself.

Republicans seem to favor the more narrow definition, which encompasses mostly what is known as "hard infrastructure" (roads, bridges, utilities, communication systems, etc).

Democrats seem to want a more broad definition, including much of what is known as "soft infrastructure" (healthcare, law enforcement, education, etc).

Me... I tend to lean toward the Republican view for two reasons.

1. I'm of a technical background... so the word "infrastructure" means certain things to me.

2. By limiting the scope of the term, I feel we're freer to discuss things like healthcare, law enforcement, and education separately.

All are needed for a productive society... but that's just my personal taste.



But yeah... I can fully imagine some people saying "Hell yeah. We spend way too much on infrastructure." Without having even a remote idea of what infrastructure actually means.

I think a lot of it was during the writing of the infrastructure bill various Democrats were trying to get money allocated for their pet issues so they were claiming that they were infrastructure:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...-spending-bill

It's a shame they didn't manage to pass a bill like this back in the Obama years. It would have helped drag the economy out of the 2008 meltdown recession much faster and it would all exist now.

[palmerq]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...id=hp_opinions

[Kirkland Laing]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...id=hp_opinions

I had read about this but it's amazing to see the pictures.

[Master]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...id=hp_opinions

I had read about this but it's amazing to see the pictures.

So much for going paperless in the future.

[NoSavingByTheBell]

[palmerq]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...id=hp_opinions

I had read about this but it's amazing to see the pictures.

So much for going paperless in the future.

You might think the answer to this problem would be to give this odd organization some more funding and modernize the place but you'd be completely wrong, it's better infact to give them less funding! Who would have thought

[Kirkland Laing]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...id=hp_opinions

I had read about this but it's amazing to see the pictures.

So much for going paperless in the future.

You might think the answer to this problem would be to give this odd organization some more funding and modernize the place but you'd be completely wrong, it's better infact to give them less funding! Who would have thought

It's not like there's rampant tax evasion going on in America, almost all by top one percenters. The deputy head of the IRS estimates it's only about a trillion dollars a year. It's not like the country is running a trillion dollar deficit or anything.

[walrus]

I love graphs.

Amazing that as many as 11 percent of people polled said the government spends too much money on infrastructure.

I'd love to hear their "reasoning."

I was thinking when I read this there's no way even eighty nine percent of Americans (or any other country's population) know what infrastructure means so I looked up the actual poll and the question actually explains what infrastructure is. Amazing these days that ninety percent of Americans can agree on anything. I wonder what would happen to this number of conservative media went on an anti infrastructure jihad for a month or two.

Of course you know more than most Americans but most infrastructure bills go into union pockets.

[Kirkland Laing]

I love graphs.

Amazing that as many as 11 percent of people polled said the government spends too much money on infrastructure.

I'd love to hear their "reasoning."

I was thinking when I read this there's no way even eighty nine percent of Americans (or any other country's population) know what infrastructure means so I looked up the actual poll and the question actually explains what infrastructure is. Amazing these days that ninety percent of Americans can agree on anything. I wonder what would happen to this number of conservative media went on an anti infrastructure jihad for a month or two.

Of course you know more than most Americans but most infrastructure bills go into union pockets.

Yes, union bosses have famously made huge generational wealth fortunes from American government infrastructure spending. It's the one thing people think of when the subject of infrastructure spending comes up.

[Master]

I love graphs.

Amazing that as many as 11 percent of people polled said the government spends too much money on infrastructure.

I'd love to hear their "reasoning."

I was thinking when I read this there's no way even eighty nine percent of Americans (or any other country's population) know what infrastructure means so I looked up the actual poll and the question actually explains what infrastructure is. Amazing these days that ninety percent of Americans can agree on anything. I wonder what would happen to this number of conservative media went on an anti infrastructure jihad for a month or two.

Of course you know more than most Americans but most infrastructure bills go into union pockets.

Yes, union bosses have famously made huge generational wealth fortunes from American government infrastructure spending. It's the one thing people think of when the subject of infrastructure spending comes up.

Do they? I thought most go to private businesses who win contracts.

[Kirkland Laing]

I love graphs.

Amazing that as many as 11 percent of people polled said the government spends too much money on infrastructure.

I'd love to hear their "reasoning."

I was thinking when I read this there's no way even eighty nine percent of Americans (or any other country's population) know what infrastructure means so I looked up the actual poll and the question actually explains what infrastructure is. Amazing these days that ninety percent of Americans can agree on anything. I wonder what would happen to this number of conservative media went on an anti infrastructure jihad for a month or two.

Of course you know more than most Americans but most infrastructure bills go into union pockets.

Yes, union bosses have famously made huge generational wealth fortunes from American government infrastructure spending. It's the one thing people think of when the subject of infrastructure spending comes up.

Do they? I thought most go to private businesses who win contracts.

I was joking.

[Kirkland Laing]

The party of the workers:

One of the most distinctive and important features of the American political economy is the power differential between business and labor. Not only is the former vastly larger and wealthier, it also commands respect and attention from the political system that the latter could never dream of. A small window into the differential can be seen in comments made by Mitt Romney the other day at the hearings for Julie Su, the Biden administration’s nominee for Labor secretary.



Romney complained that Su has met frequently with unions, but only recently with business. This means, he complained, she is not “an unbiased, neutral arbiter”:

It is hard to believe that Julie Su—whose public calendar shows standing meetings with unions and only very recent engagements with businesses—would be an unbiased, neutral arbiter when negotiating agreements. Her lack of experience and competency makes her unfit to lead @USDOL. pic.twitter.com/98yZzR4nbN
— Senator Mitt Romney (@SenatorRomney) April 20, 2023

The “unbiased, neutral arbiter” standard is an interesting one. It is not a demand that is normally made of other Cabinet secretaries. The Commerce secretary is understood as a representative of business. The Treasury secretary is supposed to have at least the respect of Wall Street. They are not generally pressed to demonstrate a record of cooperation with labor. So should all Cabinet secretaries be neutral between business and labor, or just the Labor secretary?
And if this expectation of neutrality applies to just the Labor secretary, should it apply to all of them, or just Democratic ones? Because Republican Labor secretaries generally adopt uncompromising pro-management positions.




Donald Trump’s last Labor secretary, Eugene Scalia*, came from a corporate law firm, where he bitterly fought unions over workplace-safety protections. The AFL-CIO called him a “lifelong union-buster” who “has yet to find a worker protection he supports or a corporate loophole he opposes.” Romney votes for his nomination.
Trump’s first pick to run the department, fast-food executive and right-wing ideologue Andrew Puzder, was equally loathed by unions. (His nominations ultimately failed in the face of credible domestic-abuse allegations.) But even after other Republicans abandoned Puzder, Romney — at the time just a concerned private citizen — stuck his neck out to write a Facebook post endorsing the embattled nominee.
Romney’s concept of neutrality means, in practice, “What’s mine is mine, and what’s your is ours.”Labor is a special interest, and management is just “the economy.”



* Yes, his son.

[Kirkland Laing]

American debt changes by president:

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/sta...47983910240256

and

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/sta...50051924320256


After Clarence Thomas we now get:

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/stat...29176616767496

good job Supreme Court justices don't have any ethics requirements at all or that would be two of them having to resign in two weeks. Any other federal level judge would be out.





And:

Justice Clarence Thomas said he was advised he didn’t have to disclose private jet flights and luxury vacations paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow because, although a close friend, Crow “did not have business before the court.”
But in at least one case, Crow did.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...&sref=yaJhKSOh



And John Roberts has just declined to testify to the Senate judiciary committee about all this.