Joe Biden is now POTUS

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered


Lets make a few things clear.

Illegal immigrants SHOULD get deported. Because that is the law.

My personal WISH would be that the US would accept all Haitian migrants because of the crisis going on in Haiti and everything that does go on in Haiti during regular times, the same way they accepted all Cubans back in the day (and maybe still do), but unfortunately they havent gotten on board. That being the case, Im not gonna get mad because they return Haitians back to Haiti, that is the law.

The same way Im not gonna shed a tear about pitiful conditions for ANYONE stuck at the border trying to come in. They know the risks, they know the game. Its not on the US to accomodate them.
 

Supersav

Rising Star
Registered
Lets make a few things clear.

Illegal immigrants SHOULD get deported. Because that is the law.

My personal WISH would be that the US would accept all Haitian migrants because of the crisis going on in Haiti and everything that does go on in Haiti during regular times, the same way they accepted all Cubans back in the day (and maybe still do), but unfortunately they havent gotten on board. That being the case, Im not gonna get mad because they return Haitians back to Haiti, that is the law.

The same way Im not gonna shed a tear about pitiful conditions for ANYONE stuck at the border trying to come in. They know the risks, they know the game. Its not on the US to accomodate them.
Crisis caused by the United States
 

xfactor

Rising Star
BGOL Investor

I see Biden do shit everyday that the Bidets blatantly ignore everyday here lol.
Everytime Trump farted there was a thread made about it.
I see what I feared has happened, these negroes have been lured back to sleep. Business as usual huh?
the BLUE hat MAGAs aka pro-whites are just happy that they can go back to cooning in peace. They are fine supporting their own demise as long as it is done with a smile. It is actually shameful.
 

Politic Negro

Rising Star
BGOL Investor

Toward a Conflict-of-Interest-Free West Wing

ELIAS ALSBERGAS MARCH 29, 2021

The Revolving Door Project, a Prospect partner, scrutinizes the executive branch and presidential power. Follow them at therevolvingdoorproject.org.


Last week, the Biden administration finally began releasing financial disclosures for high-level White House appointees, months after those officials took office and much later than the law required. To no one’s great surprise, however, stories about the contents of those disclosures eclipsed concerns about their tardiness. Scrutiny was rightfully focused on a White House rife with corporate conflicts of interests, dizzying wealth, and Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Oil entanglements.


After Donald Trump left our ethics regime in such a sorry state, and with political corruption still at or near the top of many voters’ minds, President Biden needs to make the politically savvy choice to raise the ethical bar for his appointees.

Among the more glaring revelations: Numerous members of the Biden administration stand to profit from the American Rescue Plan. An incomplete analysis of disclosures reveals that senior White House officials, including Jake Sullivan, Daniel Hornung, Jonathan Su, Corina Cortez, Jamison Citron, and Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, among others, own stock in vaccine manufacturers. This comes at a moment when the White House faces the stark decision to either protect drugmakers’ profits for a vaccine whose research, development, and manufacture the public paid for, or to share the patents and thereby save lives around the world. Despite his financial ties to drug manufacturers, Sullivan has been enmeshed in vaccine distribution talks. Nonetheless, the White House has not released to the public the “ethics agreements” that govern in advance how conflicts such as this will be managed.


Just as problematic is the en masse stock ownership or past affiliation with Big Tech by many members of the administration. More than a dozen of Biden’s highest deputies were employed by, consulted for, or currently own stocks in companies like Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, and Apple. Corina Cortez, the special assistant to the president for domestic agency personnel—presumably someone who will have major influence over staffing decisions—owns stock in Facebook, Amazon, Alphabet, and Salesforce, along with other pharmaceutical, defense, and financial companies. While ownership alone does not establish self-dealing, it undeniably can lay the groundwork.


Read more from the Revolving Door Project


The disclosures also reveal that many in the administration may not share the values of the activists and voters who put Biden in office. Susan Rice, the high-profile head of the Domestic Policy Council, whose mandate covers almost every issue important to the public, owns millions of dollars in fossil fuel companies like Enbridge Inc. She is far from the only fossil fuel and pipeline investor among senior White House officials. At least four different officials own stock in ExxonMobil. Elizabeth Washburn, special assistant to the president for Native affairs, has tens of thousands invested in multiple climate polluters, including Laredo Petroleum, an S&P Oil & Gas Exploration ETF, and CorEnergy Infrastructure. Such investments in pipeline companies seem out of step with the Biden administration’s commitment to clean energy and his canceling of the Keystone XL pipeline after pressure from indigenous peoples and climate crisis activists.


But for all that we’ve learned from these disclosures, there’s more that remains hidden due to deficiencies in our ethics laws that substantially predate this administration. Biden can and should act to ensure these consequential information gaps are filled right away.


He can start by ensuring that financial disclosures actually reveal relevant information. That must include demanding that officials reveal the true source and nature of their income. By relying on closely held companies, like LLCs or S corporations, filers can hide information like the names of clients, the identities of business partners, and debts and assets. While they are as nothing compared to the over 500 LLCs that masked Donald Trump’s business empire in his financial-disclosure forms, opaque corporate vehicles dot many of these latest disclosures, obscuring potential conflicts that these forms are supposedly meant to reveal. While some officials commendably appear to have gone beyond the strict letter of the law by identifying the clients of their closely held companies, Biden should make clear that this is the nonnegotiable standard for his administration.


Even when officials do properly disclose their clients, much about the nature of that work remains opaque.

He must also reaffirm that every appointee, not just those who deign to, must share with the public who their past legal and consulting clients were. At least one official, Deputy Assistant to the President Jonathan Su, has withheld the names of a whopping 32 clients that paid for his services in the last two years. (Given the names that he was willing to disclose, including former Trump associate and convicted pedophile George Nader and the pharmaceutical company Mylan, his reticence to identify those 32 clients is all the more concerning.) Federal disclosure requirements almost certainly preempt the D.C. Bar rule that Su cites to keep his clients confidential. But that preemption only matters if it’s enforced and, in recent years, many notable figures—including former Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl—have gotten away with this evasion without facing any consequences. Biden can and should put a stop to this ongoing erosion of standards.


Unfortunately, adherence to the D.C. Bar rule is not the only troubling precedent that Biden’s appointees have seized upon. Temporary adviser Anita Dunn appears to be following in the footsteps of Trump’s acting comptroller of the currency, Keith Noreika, by taking a salary well below what is standard in order to evade disclosure altogether. Needless to say, even if technically legal, this is a perversion of the law’s intent. Dunn is undoubtedly a very senior administration figure in terms of experience and influence. Biden should make Dunn disclose or Dunn should step down.


Even when officials do properly disclose their clients, much about the nature of that work remains opaque. When asked for a “brief description of [their] duties” for a given role, most list something like “consulting,” “legal,” or “political advisory services,” terms that give little insight into the exact policy matters on which they worked and thus their possible conflicts of interest. In January, the Revolving Door Project, for which we work, led over four dozen groups in calling on Biden to fix this by demanding that his appointees release detailed descriptions of work they performed for corporate clients and foreign governments. That call still stands.


As the litany of troubling conflicts laid out above makes clear, however, merely filling in the holes in our current disclosure regime is not enough. Disclosure did not stop members of the Trump administration from routinely stepping over the line to grow their own fortunes or to help friends. This practice has been similarly ineffective in Congress, where disclosures are routinely incomplete or late, and have done little to stop seemingly improper trading. The public has no reason to believe that White House officials’ claims that their financial holdings in, or past affiliation with, tech, pharmaceutical, or oil and gas companies will not impact their decisions while in office.


To restore governing integrity, this administration can’t simply be content to acknowledge potential problems. It needs to do something about them. That includes strengthening and better resourcing ethics enforcement, as countless good-government groups have advocated. But Biden should also take steps to limit the number of conflicts that ethics officials have to police by not hiring people with conflicts in the first place.


The public should not be asked to take officials at their word that a flimsy ethics pledge will make them discount their personal and financial stake in an issue. Nor should it be asked to put its confidence in current ethics enforcement systems whose weaknesses have just been put on display under Trump.


Unfortunately, that sort of structural fix doesn’t seem likely to come anytime soon, so other steps will be necessary.


Among the most pressing should be a demand that officials divest from single-name stocks and other assets that could pose a conflict in favor of funds that simply follow the market. Rather than forcing ethics officials to monitor the hundreds of potential conflicts of interest that inevitably arise when stockholders in the White House are constantly exposed to market-moving information—and, perhaps even more importantly, asking the public to trust that the ethics cops have caught them all—Biden should tamp down on the very possibility of conflicts. Asking officials to invest their money in index or mutual funds is not a great injustice. Where past employment is the issue, Biden should insist that officials recuse themselves so there is no doubt that policy decisions are made with only the public interest in mind.


Many will decry these demands as impracticable ethical purity tests. They are, in reality, a political necessity. Corruption remains a uniquely salient, bipartisan concern, and wholly hypocritical right-wing media is already stoking the flames over the Biden administration’s corporate ties. Biden cannot count on the force of Trump’s historically awful example to absolve his administration from the political consequences of these conflicts. But with relatively small steps that, at most, merely inconvenience senior appointees, he can quickly starve Fox’s fire of oxygen.


So, what is he waiting for?


The American Prospect depends on reader support


If you are scraping by right now, please don’t give us anything. But if you have the ability to support independent, non-profit journalism, we are so grateful. Your voluntary contribution helps keep this website paywall-free. You can sign up as a subscriber with a range of benefits, including an opt-in to receive the print magazine by mail.

" dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(68, 68, 67); font-family: "Adobe Garamond Pro", Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", "Droid Sans", "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Droid Sans Fallback", "Microsoft YaHei", sans-serif, sans-serif; font-size: 22px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
The Revolving Door Project, a Prospect partner, scrutinizes the executive branch and presidential power. Follow them at therevolvingdoorproject.org.

Last week, the Biden administration finally began releasing financial disclosures for high-level White House appointees, months after those officials took office and much later than the law required. To no one’s great surprise, however, stories about the contents of those disclosures eclipsed concerns about their tardiness. Scrutiny was rightfully focused on a White House rife with corporate conflicts of interests, dizzying wealth, and Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Oil entanglements.

After Donald Trump left our ethics regime in such a sorry state, and with political corruption still at or near the top of many voters’ minds, President Biden needs to make the politically savvy choice to raise the ethical bar for his appointees.

Among the more glaring revelations: Numerous members of the Biden administration stand to profit from the American Rescue Plan. An incomplete analysis of disclosures reveals that senior White House officials, including Jake Sullivan, Daniel Hornung, Jonathan Su, Corina Cortez, Jamison Citron, and Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, among others, own stock in vaccine manufacturers. This comes at a moment when the White House faces the stark decision to either protect drugmakers’ profits for a vaccine whose research, development, and manufacture the public paid for, or to share the patents and thereby save lives around the world. Despite his financial ties to drug manufacturers, Sullivan has been enmeshed in vaccine distribution talks. Nonetheless, the White House has not released to the public the “ethics agreements” that govern in advance how conflicts such as this will be managed.

Just as problematic is the en masse stock ownership or past affiliation with Big Tech by many members of the administration. More than a dozen of Biden’s highest deputies were employed by, consulted for, or currently own stocks in companies like Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, and Apple. Corina Cortez, the special assistant to the president for domestic agency personnel—presumably someone who will have major influence over staffing decisions—owns stock in Facebook, Amazon, Alphabet, and Salesforce, along with other pharmaceutical, defense, and financial companies. While ownership alone does not establish self-dealing, it undeniably can lay the groundwork.

Read more from the Revolving Door Project

The disclosures also reveal that many in the administration may not share the values of the activists and voters who put Biden in office. Susan Rice, the high-profile head of the Domestic Policy Council, whose mandate covers almost every issue important to the public, owns millions of dollars in fossil fuel companies like Enbridge Inc. She is far from the only fossil fuel and pipeline investor among senior White House officials. At least four different officials own stock in ExxonMobil. Elizabeth Washburn, special assistant to the president for Native affairs, has tens of thousands invested in multiple climate polluters, including Laredo Petroleum, an S&P Oil & Gas Exploration ETF, and CorEnergy Infrastructure. Such investments in pipeline companies seem out of step with the Biden administration’s commitment to clean energy and his canceling of the Keystone XL pipeline after pressure from indigenous peoples and climate crisis activists.

But for all that we’ve learned from these disclosures, there’s more that remains hidden due to deficiencies in our ethics laws that substantially predate this administration. Biden can and should act to ensure these consequential information gaps are filled right away.

He can start by ensuring that financial disclosures actually reveal relevant information. That must include demanding that officials reveal the true source and nature of their income. By relying on closely held companies, like LLCs or S corporations, filers can hide information like the names of clients, the identities of business partners, and debts and assets. While they are as nothing compared to the over 500 LLCs that masked Donald Trump’s business empire in his financial-disclosure forms, opaque corporate vehicles dot many of these latest disclosures, obscuring potential conflicts that these forms are supposedly meant to reveal. While some officials commendably appear to have gone beyond the strict letter of the law by identifying the clients of their closely held companies, Biden should make clear that this is the nonnegotiable standard for his administration.

Even when officials do properly disclose their clients, much about the nature of that work remains opaque.
He must also reaffirm that every appointee, not just those who deign to, must share with the public who their past legal and consulting clients were. At least one official, Deputy Assistant to the President Jonathan Su, has withheld the names of a whopping 32 clients that paid for his services in the last two years. (Given the names that he was willing to disclose, including former Trump associate and convicted pedophile George Nader and the pharmaceutical company Mylan, his reticence to identify those 32 clients is all the more concerning.) Federal disclosure requirements almost certainly preempt the D.C. Bar rule that Su cites to keep his clients confidential. But that preemption only matters if it’s enforced and, in recent years, many notable figures—including former Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl—have gotten away with this evasion without facing any consequences. Biden can and should put a stop to this ongoing erosion of standards.

Unfortunately, adherence to the D.C. Bar rule is not the only troubling precedent that Biden’s appointees have seized upon. Temporary adviser Anita Dunn appears to be following in the footsteps of Trump’s acting comptroller of the currency, Keith Noreika, by taking a salary well below what is standard in order to evade disclosure altogether. Needless to say, even if technically legal, this is a perversion of the law’s intent. Dunn is undoubtedly a very senior administration figure in terms of experience and influence. Biden should make Dunn disclose or Dunn should step down.

Even when officials do properly disclose their clients, much about the nature of that work remains opaque. When asked for a “brief description of [their] duties” for a given role, most list something like “consulting,” “legal,” or “political advisory services,” terms that give little insight into the exact policy matters on which they worked and thus their possible conflicts of interest. In January, the Revolving Door Project, for which we work, led over four dozen groups in calling on Biden to fix this by demanding that his appointees release detailed descriptions of work they performed for corporate clients and foreign governments. That call still stands.

As the litany of troubling conflicts laid out above makes clear, however, merely filling in the holes in our current disclosure regime is not enough. Disclosure did not stop members of the Trump administration from routinely stepping over the line to grow their own fortunes or to help friends. This practice has been similarly ineffective in Congress, where disclosures are routinely incomplete or late, and have done little to stop seemingly improper trading. The public has no reason to believe that White House officials’ claims that their financial holdings in, or past affiliation with, tech, pharmaceutical, or oil and gas companies will not impact their decisions while in office.

To restore governing integrity, this administration can’t simply be content to acknowledge potential problems. It needs to do something about them. That includes strengthening and better resourcing ethics enforcement, as countless good-government groups have advocated. But Biden should also take steps to limit the number of conflicts that ethics officials have to police by not hiring people with conflicts in the first place.

The public should not be asked to take officials at their word that a flimsy ethics pledge will make them discount their personal and financial stake in an issue. Nor should it be asked to put its confidence in current ethics enforcement systems whose weaknesses have just been put on display under Trump.

Unfortunately, that sort of structural fix doesn’t seem likely to come anytime soon, so other steps will be necessary.

Among the most pressing should be a demand that officials divest from single-name stocks and other assets that could pose a conflict in favor of funds that simply follow the market. Rather than forcing ethics officials to monitor the hundreds of potential conflicts of interest that inevitably arise when stockholders in the White House are constantly exposed to market-moving information—and, perhaps even more importantly, asking the public to trust that the ethics cops have caught them all—Biden should tamp down on the very possibility of conflicts. Asking officials to invest their money in index or mutual funds is not a great injustice. Where past employment is the issue, Biden should insist that officials recuse themselves so there is no doubt that policy decisions are made with only the public interest in mind.

Many will decry these demands as impracticable ethical purity tests. They are, in reality, a political necessity. Corruption remains a uniquely salient, bipartisan concern, and wholly hypocritical right-wing media is already stoking the flames over the Biden administration’s corporate ties. Biden cannot count on the force of Trump’s historically awful example to absolve his administration from the political consequences of these conflicts. But with relatively small steps that, at most, merely inconvenience senior appointees, he can quickly starve Fox’s fire of oxygen.

So, what is he waiting for?

The American Prospect depends on reader support

If you are scraping by right now, please don’t give us anything. But if you have the ability to support independent, non-profit journalism, we are so grateful. Your voluntary contribution helps keep this website paywall-free. You can sign up as a subscriber with a range of benefits, including an opt-in to receive the print magazine by mail.
 

Politic Negro

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
It’s been over two months since Donald Trump left office, yet his impact lingers. Thanks to a surge in regulatory action as the last administration was packing its things, measures that facilitate discrimination in health care and greenlight pollution (among many others) are on the books. And due to the cumbersome realities of administrative procedure, it could be months or years more before they’re gone. In the meantime, the country could be forced to endure many of these rules’ damaging effects while the Biden administration will be obligated to dedicate scarce resources to administrative procedures like notice and comment — resources that would be better spent developing new initiatives to use the executive branch’s vast powers for good.

But, at least for the time being, there’s a faster, easier path to address some of these damaging, last ditch efforts to exert lasting Trumpian control on the government. For just a short while longer, Congress can use the Congressional Review Act to strike last-minute Trump rules from the books by a simple majority vote. This could skyrocket the Biden administration months or years forward on critical issues, such as air pollution, labor and civil rights. That’s obviously good policy, but it also makes for good politics in a world in which congressional Democrats’ political prospects are entwined with the president’s ability to deliver major improvements quickly and keep his approval ratings high. Whether out of moral commitment or cold political calculation, Democratic lawmakers should move quickly and aggressively to repeal eligible Trump rules.

Whereas reversing regulations via administrative procedure is a months-long process (effectively writing a new rule to replace the old one) by using the CRA, lawmakers can strike rules from the books in the space of just a few weeks. CRA resolutions also are not subject to the Senate filibuster. This power is limited in several ways — it only applies to rules that are finalized within a set time period and only lasts for a short window — but, provided those conditions are met, it’s a formidable tool. Indeed, in 2017, Republicans used it to target 34 Obama-era regulations and successfully eliminated 14.

The window to act in 2021 closes this week. Lawmakers who wish to make use of the CRA to strike Trump’s rules have until April 4 to introduce their resolutions of disapproval, after which point they’ll have five to seven weeks more in which to consider and vote on them. So far, members have only taken this perfunctory step for five rules.

Needless to say, this is not for a shortage of eligible regulations. The Trump administration took an estimated 1,490 regulatory actions that are subject to the CRA, of which the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards has identified 28 rules that challenge key Democratic priorities.
 
Last edited:

Sango

Rising Star
Platinum Member
What the hell do they think infrastructure is?

I get that this is how it is, but I really wish that everything didn't have to be about how unsatisfied one side is. If they had said just roads and bridges, they'd be saying, "Why just roads and bridges?" Or whatever. I mean, damn.
They're just there for the spectacle. Contrarian-isms. And unfortunately, when there are legit criticisms, they offer no real solutions.
 

Politic Negro

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
DOT halts Texas highway project in test of Biden’s promises on race
The department’s use of civil rights laws has buoyed activists on the ground and surprised even seasoned regulators in Washington.

President Joe Biden's Department of Transportation is invoking the Civil Rights Act to pause a highway project near Houston, a rare move that offers an early test of the administration's willingness to wield federal power to address a long history of government-driven racial inequities.

DOT's intervention follows complaints from local activists that the state's proposed widening of Interstate 45 would displace an overwhelmingly Black and Hispanic community, including schools, places of worship and more than 1,000 homes and businesses.

It also comes as Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has identified racial equity as a major priority for his department — after decades in which federal highway money has paid for projects that leveled minority and low-income communities.


"I think this project is the poster child for [the administration's] policies," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat representing the Houston area, who has joined local officials in challenging the project.
In a March 8 letter to the state, the Federal Highway Administration, citing complaints from local activists and Jackson Lee, requested that the Texas Department of Transportation hold off on its expansion of I-45, including initiating more contract solicitations, until the federal DOT has time to review civil rights and environmental justice concerns.
Federal officials could ultimately allow the project to proceed, but the action to freeze it at all, and in particular DOT's use of civil rights laws to underpin that decision, has buoyed activists on the ground and surprised even seasoned regulators in Washington.
“This is a big deal,” said Fred Wagner, an attorney who served as general counsel at FHWA for three years during the Obama administration. "It just doesn’t happen very often."

Known as the North Houston Highway Improvement Project, the proposal would widen I-45 in three sections. TxDOT’s environmental review of the project, completed in February, found it would have a massive impact on the communities it would roll through, displacing more than 1,000 homes and housing units, 344 businesses, five places of worship and two schools.

Local activists say the communities that would be harmed are disproportionately home to Black and Hispanic residents. And the impacts go beyond the direct displacements: Twenty-six schools would be brought within 500 feet of the highway, increasing children's exposure to pollution in a metropolitan area that's already rife with car exhaust.

“How can we accept a project like that? It stays with us for a generation at least,” said Lina Hidalgo, the elected county judge for Harris County, which primarily contains the Houston metro area and its exurbs, in an interview.

Opponents of the project have proposed an alternative that Hidalgo said has a narrower footprint and allows for transit. The county recently sued TxDOT, saying it failed to take the environmental impacts into consideration during its planning and review.

“I can’t tell you the number of conversations we had with the state on this,” she said, adding that she has received “nothing but lip service.”

“You can imagine the frustration,” she said. “It’s been so much time, effort, and heartache by the community as well.”

DOT’s intervention was a welcome surprise, Hidalgo said, adding that it gives opponents of the project a “more realistic opportunity” to get redress.

"I think [Buttigieg] was engaged, interested and fair," said Jackson Lee, who said she spoke to the DOT head recently about the project. "And I think he was chagrined at federal dollars being used with such disregard of community views."

The Houston project, with its promises of displacement and disenfranchisement echoing the destructive historic highway building that Buttigieg has repeatedly cited, is a test case for Buttigieg, Wagner said.

“It’s going to be the first kind of test of the new administration to demonstrate how it’s going to apply its standards for more equitable transportation on a megaproject like this,” the former FHWA counsel said.

The project has been in the works for years. So "for DOT to step in, potentially, and say 'We don’t think it’s an appropriate solution,' would be a really huge deal,” he said.

Part of the reason the situation is so unique is that Texas is a so-called “assignment state," one of seven designated as able to serve as a proxy for the federal government when it comes to administering the National Environmental Policy Act.

In most states, the federal government could raise issues with disproportionate impacts through the normal federal environmental review process. But Texas, as an assignment state, already completed that process which resulted in the Record of Decision finalized in February.

So the federal DOT has turned to Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act to justify its pause, which states: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

"Clearly the TXDOT blatantly violated that, recklessly violated it," Jackson Lee said.

Next steps could include DOT ordering Texas to redo its analysis of the project, or more drastically, fully reject it under civil rights laws.

“They didn’t necessarily play their hand when they said we’re going to take a pause,” said Wagner.

Neither FHWA or TxDOT responded to specific questions.

“FHWA and USDOT officials are evaluating several Title VI concerns raised by Houston-area community groups regarding the project,” a spokesperson for the federal agency said.

And TxDOT spokesperson Adam Hammons said that the agency is “in contact with FHWA seeking clarity around what a pause might mean as far as timing is concerned for future contract solicitation efforts.” He would not comment on specifics, citing the pending legislation.
 

MCP

International
International Member



Will Biden’s budget emphasize domestic investment and allies over military hardware?

paul-weaver-uqMjRCBzMk-unsplash-feature-photo-1024x683.jpg.webp


The Biden administration has made clear that its chief focus in the coming days and months will be, in some ways, to reverse the status quo that has defined the past 30 years of US engagement with the world. The administration has pledged to “build back better,” and create a “foreign policy for the middle class,” which means joining with others to address America’s “growing debt, rising poverty, deteriorating food security, and worsening gender-based violence,” and elevating diplomacy “as (a) tool of first resort.” But with near-record high levels of military spending, the administration’s topline budget, expected in the coming days, looks like more of the same.

Biden’s stated agenda is sweeping and necessary, but it won’t happen in a vacuum. The US Congress is deeply concerned about China and sees little solution to counter the threat beyond military force. If the administration hopes to sell Congress the type of structural change that will be necessary to follow through on its vision, it will first need to sell a new national narrative—one in which the type of “winning” it envisions is valued over brute measures.

Narratives are stories. For a nation, a viable narrative is crucial for reflecting the shared identity of a people and its institutions. At the grand strategic level, a useful narrative should capture the priorities, threat environment, and strategic pathways that are relevant as the nation seeks to navigate the international system. Most importantly, a grand strategic narrative should tell us who we are as a nation and what we want to be in the world. Some aspects of America’s grand strategic narrative are relatively fixed (“democracy,” “free markets”), while others change over time (“global policeman,” “no entangling alliances”). As America pivots from the global war on terror to one of great power competition, a purposeful narrative needs to be shaped. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) this cannot be accomplished by some “planning cell” in the Defense or State Departments. It will need to be an emergent property of changed policies, new debates, and messaging. The administration and various departments will need to shape and amplify this emerging narrative, but it needs to be real to be become reality.

Moving away from an outdated focus on military primacy—especially a military primacy built on legacy systems—to make room for a more balanced narrative that emphasizes allies and domestic investment as critical components of national security is a key part of this effort. Though the Biden administration already seems to be charting a course in this direction, it has struggled to define a narrative that truly breaks free from the nation’s status quo. Defining a clear path forward will be necessary not only to overcome partisan resistance to proposed policy, but to provide a shared understanding—from Main Street to Wall Street to Silicon Valley—of what the United States aspires to be.

America’s new narrative. America’s new grand strategic narrative will require three specific components: a reduced emphasis on military primacy, a nuanced approach toward allies, and an elevated domestic investment in human and physical capital in the realm of national security. Rebalancing this narrative will help the average citizen realize that America is powerful when it is healthy and productive—not only when it is amassing military hardware.

Current US foreign policy is rooted in military competition, and US national identity has followed suit. Conversations about grand strategy carry either an implicit or explicit assumption that the US capability to conduct unilateral military interventions anywhere around the globe is absolutely critical. These conversations ignore the fact that the US military primacy of the last three decades is purely by accident: Unipolarity was a dividend of the Cold War after all. But that “accident” has now turned into a mindset where the United States thinks it has a God-given right to remain on top, but one that is steadily slipping away under its feet. US failure to adapt to a world in which it is not the sole military superpower has left it struggling as warfare has moved away from the type of conventional operations in which US forces excel. Furthermore, confusing the quest to maintain military primacy with having a viable grand strategy plays right into US rivals’ hands. China probably breaks open a champagne bottle every time the United States announces a new aircraft carrier.

This narrative feeds—and is fed by—a failed defense acquisition system that prioritizes a handful of large defense firms that thrive on legacy platforms. Plowing more defense dollars into building and maintaining a force structure that looks very similar to those fielded in World War II (i.e., carrier groups, manned aircraft, tanks) will not serve and strengthen America’s defense preparedness for the coming decades. China isn’t interested in competing with the United States in matching legacy platforms. Instead, China has built a military ecosystem aimed at offsetting and crippling these cumbersome platforms. We need to free up the people, money, and energy to compete in this new era of warfare, rather than double down on 20th-century forces. In an era of rapidly changing technology, such investments constitute a hedge against rapid obsolescence of military weapons and platforms and represent a prudent grand strategic investment in the human and physical capital that will pay dividends for decades. And narrative can serve as a powerful tool to shift the emphasis off of these archaic symbols of power.


The second component of this narrative must offer an updated vision of our allies and partners—replacing a characterization as “burdens” and “free riders” with one that affirms US allies are valuable assets and reliable partners in a shared mission of maintaining the international system. This would involve the collective task of sorting through the fracturing liberal order and salvaging those aspects that are practicable and enjoy widespread support. It would also involve looking at ways to bolster technology transfer and defense preparedness of key partners as the United States seeks to reduce its military commitments overseas. Lastly, it would mean working to treat allies as true partners, rather than proxies or client states or simple “access and placement” for American military activity. If America’s allies clearly don’t want to participate in something, it is probably a sign it should reconsider the mission.

The transnational nature of today’s challenges makes it abundantly clear that America alone cannot be the world’s sole problem-solver, and that global military reach isn’t always helpful when trying to address modern problems. There is also an ongoing debate on whether America’s role as a global policeman—where it has a moral responsibility to uphold freedom and democracy around the world, maintain free shipping lanes and free trade agreements, sustain military coalitions, etc.—helps to maintain global peace and stability or is destabilizing and deeply entrenches America in a vicious cycle of endless conflict. What seems certain is that America’s security and national interests are better served when it leans on its partners. At the Munich Security Conference, President Joe Biden stated that the United States will be working in lockstep with allies and partners to meet a range of shared challenges, a move that is long overdue.

Finally, a US focus on over-militarization abroad has, to a great extent, contributed to neglect at home. The fractures in American society witnessed during the last several years demonstrate that American military primacy does not resolve domestic challenges and instead makes America weak and hollow from within. Professor Ganesh Sitaraman argues that in the coming decades, countries will face major disruptions in the form of global health crises, climate shocks, cyberattacks, and geoeconomic competition among great powers. An overt focus on the idea of military primacy subtracts from addressing fragilities and weaknesses that undermine America’s democratic and societal fabric from within—and its ability to tackle modern challenges.

How to create a new American narrative. In its Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, the Biden administration attaches high priority to the threat of climate change and directly links the climate change challenge to the health and economic security of the planet. To adapt and mitigate the risks of climate change, the document points to the need to build climate-friendly infrastructure, increase federal procurement of critical clean energy technologies, and modernize the energy grid. Strengthening the health care system in America and around the world in order to hedge and prevent against future pandemics also features prominently. And the administration has already issued an Executive Order providing a roadmap to build and ensure that American supply chains are diverse, secure, and resilient in an effort to help rebuild American domestic manufacturing capacity, create well-paying jobs, support small businesses, and foster cooperative economic prosperity with allies.

Equally investing in these pillars enables America’s “winning” in a manner consistent with a newly balanced American self-conceptualization. But beyond simply stating that “America is back,” the Biden administration needs a comprehensive plan to present this new national narrative. Pitching smart investment in human and physical capital as a national security priority may help to ease some partisan tensions that divide the left and the right. De-linking obsolete metrics (such as relative numbers of military platforms) from discussions of security, and instead investing in a newly conceived method of “net assessment” can shape debates around force structure. Explaining to the public precisely how alliances and international institutions contribute to (rather than hinder) American interests is equally critical. Finally, encouraging civil discourse in all fora around what America is, and aspires to be, will be critical.

The Biden administration can chart a new course for the future—it can “build back better.” But it will not do that by sticking to the status quo.
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor


Biden has a major victory as the Senate 'parliamentarian' ruled the 'infrastructure bill' could go thru "Budget Reconciliation" meaning 50 votes not 60 and no filibuster?

How many trillions will the Democrats put thru this last chance opportunity?

Some day we may look back at this arcane Senate ‘parliamentarian’ ruling to allow the Biden infrastructure bill to get passed via ‘budget reconciliation’ and avoid the 60 vote / filibuster as one of the most significant events in US 21st century history to date.


President Joe, looking to the future, learning from the past, transforming America for the 21st century
If the parliamentarian had ruled against Biden and said no more bites of the cherry, you are done or infrastructure doesn’t match the criteria which is fairly narrow as it must be only on certain kinds of federal spending not for instance and on the $15 minimum wage which had to be dropped to get the $1.9 Trillion stimulus passed.

But she ruled in Biden and the Democrats favor.

So where are we?

Republicans are now completely and officially irrelevant. Biden can do whatever he wants as long as he has all of his 50 Democrat Senators including of course Manchin and Sinema and other ‘moderates’. But that is not such a big deal as everyone loves infrastructure and one way or the other Manchin is not going to vote against an infrastructure bill though you can bet he will tweak it to make it look like he has done something and been fiscally prudent if there is such a thing at this point in Washington.

What happens now is the House gets busy and the Senate does too. There is a lot on their agendas including approving federal judges which is all that McConnell did for the last 2 years and there is racial justice/police reform and lots of other areas like HR1 which I predict is where the Republicans will draw the line. As that will clearly need 60 votes, no way is it getting support from Republicans so they can show their constituencies they did something, stopped the Democrats and minorities from voting en masse and obliterating any chances for the Republicans. So they will focus on that and other ‘cancel culture’ wars while the Democrats fundamentally alter the US for the next generation.

HOW MUCH WILL THE DEMOCRATS PUSH ON TO ‘INFRASTRUCTURE’(Build Back Better) + THE AMERICAN FAMILY PLAN which I predict will be combined together.

Hold on to your seats folks, yes we are looking at, least at $5 Trillion maybe more.

$5 Trillion and the Democrats will do it as this is the last and only chance and they don’t want to go back to the Senate parliamentarian again nor do they want to touch the filibuster.

Joe Biden is turning out to be the the most astute politician in a generation, already wiping out Trump and anything he did. And before that Obama who was finished after the ACA and a relatively small stimulus and spent the next 6 years of ‘I have a pen’ which Trump quickly undid and Biden has redid.

Bush? Nothing other than a tax cut and less regulation but no big transformative legislation. Clinton, nope, Bush the elder, nope, Reagan, no way just more for the military and tax cuts. Carter, impossible, Ford zero. Nixon, the EPA and some other solid stuff in a big mess of a presidency including ‘opening’ to China.

ALL THE WAY BACK TO LBJ AND MAYBE FDR COMBINED

All the way, back at least to LBJ.
I did this explanation to make sure we get it how transformative this is by Biden and how big this little arcane maneuver which Biden was counting on, but hadn’t yet got, is now in the bag. With it done, Biden is ready to roll one last big roll of the dice.

Watch for some of the greatest whinging, crying, end of the world, America will never be the same, Socialism, you name it, Republicans will try it all. And I predict they will fail.

By July this $5 Trillion “Build Back Better + American Family Plan’ will have been passed without a single Republican vote. It may be tweaked a bit but it will change America and the fortunes and opportunities of the middle class, the working class and minorities for a generation. It will include a tax hike on corporations and the rich and maybe a wealth tax too. It will begin the transformation to the end of fossil fuels in the USA and a greener approach to climate change. It will bring back key security related industries, make some, though not enough new roads and yes, broadband.
It will power the US economy for at least the next 2 - 4 years, flush with cash the US economy, consumers, building of infrastructure, science spending and money passed to hundreds of millions will be the envy of the world.

Within 2 years after the Democrats will retain both the House and the Senate in an upset of the century, the US will cruise into 2024. At that point, Biden will need to make the only real decision currently on his agenda, to run again and enjoy the fruits of the greatest moves in recent US legislative history, or sail off into the sunset.

Endless amounts will be written about what he will do, but if you think he already did it with the $1.9 trillion stimulus and the vaccine rollout, well, you ain’t seen nuthin yet.

It will even include AI and other science based research to put the USA back ahead of China to lead the world which is Biden’s ultimate goal, to beat China.
And most importantly of all, we now know it will get done.
 
Top