Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Infrastructure bill takes rare bipartisan step forward, but still faces loud opposition

Senators talk infrastructure

Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema talks about the bipartisan infrastructure package alongside (from left) GOP Sens. Kevin Cramer, Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Rob Portman.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Senate Democrats and Republicans took a significant step this week to advance a bipartisan infrastructure package. However, the deal is far from done.

The Senate's 67-32 vote Wednesday cleared the first procedural hurdle and put lawmakers on track to begin debate on the $1 trillion proposal soon. This development was a big win for congressional bipartisanship at a time when cooperation between the two parties is rare.

But despite being negotiated by a bipartisan group of 22 senators, the infrastructure deal still received harsh criticism from both the right and the left. And some lawmakers were also hesitant to support the deal because the legislation has yet to be written.


Sen. John Cornyn of Texas was one of the Republicans concerned with the lack of drafted legislation. "I'm encouraged that our colleagues have gotten us this far, but the bill's not ready, and we need to see the text and be given adequate time to read it," he said on the Senate floor Wednesday.

Because the bill has yet to be drafted, the exact investments and cost off-sets are not set in stone. Those details are likely to determine how many Republicans ultimately support the package, promising a rocky path forward as debate on the legislation begins.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

While former President Donald Trump has already attempted to throw a wrench into negotiations by urging GOP lawmakers not to support the deal, lawmakers on the left aren't fully on board either.

Along with the infrastructure bill, Democrats are pushing a second $3.5 trillion package that includes other priorities for the Biden administration, such as expanding Medicare, support for families and children, and combating climate change. Democrats have said they want to move both packages in tandem.

However, on Wednesday, Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, one of the lead architects of the infrastructure deal, said she would not support the $3.5 trillion price tag for the second package. Democrats plan to use the reconciliation process for the second bill because such a maneuver cannot be blocked by a filibuster — but would likely require every Democrat to vote for it.

In response, progressive lawmakers pushed back, saying they would not support an infrastructure deal without the reconciliation package.

"The votes of the Congressional Progressive Caucus members are not guaranteed on any bipartisan package until we examine the details, and until the reconciliation bill is agreed to and passed with our priorities sufficiently funded," the caucus chair, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, wrote in a statement.

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York more pointedly criticized Sinema for her stance.

While bipartisan agreement on infrastructure has proved difficult to achieve in Congress, recent polls have repeatedly shown a majority of Americans support such an investment in the country's roads, bridges, railways and broadband.

Read More

Donald Trump
James Devaney/GC Images

Project 2025: A cross-partisan approach, round 2

Earlier this year, The Fulcrum ran a 32-part series on Project 2025. It was the most read of any series we’ve ever published, perhaps due to the questions and concerns about what portions of Project 2025 might be enacted should Donald Trump get elected to a second term as president of the United States.

Project 2025 is a playbook created by the Heritage Foundation to guide Trump’s first 180 days in office. Our series began June 4 with “Project 2025 is a threat to democracy,” written by Northern Iowa professor emeritus Steve Corbin. He wrote:

Keep ReadingShow less
Senior older, depressed woman sitting alone in bedroom at home
Kiwis/Getty Images

Older adults need protection from financial abuse by family members

A mentor once told me that we take better care of our pets than we do older victims of mistreatment. As a researcher, I have sat across from people, including grown men, crying while recounting harrowing experiences of discovering and confronting elder financial exploitation within their families — by siblings, sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, girlfriends and neighbors. Intervening and helping victimized older people comes at a tremendous cost to caring family members. Currently, no caregiving or other policy rewards them for the time, labor, or emotional and relationship toll that results from helping to unravel financial abuse.
Keep ReadingShow less
Woman's hand showing red thumbs up and blue thumbs down on illustrated green background
PM Images/Getty Images

Why a loyal opposition is essential to democracy

When I was the U.S. ambassador to Equatorial Guinea, a small, African nation, the long-serving dictator there routinely praised members of the “loyal opposition.” Serving in the two houses of parliament, they belonged to pseudo-opposition parties that voted in lock-step with the ruling party. Their only “loyalty” was to the country’s brutal dictator, who remains in power. He and his cronies rig elections, so these “opposition” politicians never have to fear being voted out of office.

In contrast, the only truly independent party in the country is regularly denounced by the dictator and his ruling party as the “radical opposition.” Its leaders and members are harassed, often imprisoned on false charges and barred from government employment. This genuine opposition party has no representatives at either the national or local level despite considerable popular support. In dictatorships, there can be no loyal opposition.

Keep ReadingShow less
Migrants sits on the ground facing Border Patrol agents

U.S. Border Patrol agents detain migrants who camped in the border area near Jacumba, Calif.

Katie McTiernan/Anadolu via Getty Images

Do mass deportations cause job losses for American citizens?

This fact brief was originally published by EconoFact. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Do mass deportations cause job losses for American citizens?

Yes.

History shows mass deportations cause job losses for American citizens.

The anti-immigrant efforts of the Kennedy, Johnson, Roosevelt and Coolidge administrations either “generated no new jobs or earnings” or “harmed U.S. workers’ employment and earnings,” according to PIIE.

More recently, an analysis of President Obama’s deportation efforts found that deporting 500,000 immigrants causes around 44,000 job losses for U.S.-born workers.

Keep ReadingShow less