Context
Aside from impeaching corrupt, incompetent MAGA authoritarians like Hegseth, Todd Blanche, and Trump himself, there is vast damage that MAGA policy has left in its wake. For people concerned about the public interest, rule of law, democracy and honest, competent government, the damage is ghastly everywhere one looks. Trump and MAGA elites have severely damaged the environment-global warming-pollution, a major matter of high public interest and source of public political power. That poser has been stripped away from the people and public interest and given to special interests. They can now profit from what now is fairly close to an unregulated sector of the economy.
That is just one slice of Trump/MAGA elite damage among many slices. The slices are huge, not little.
An environmental policy compromise is on the table, take it or leave it?
An article by the NYT Editorial Board, Democrats, Take the Deal, captures what some, maybe most, upcoming internal dem party disagreements will look like. There is a proposed congressional bill that apparently has enough bipartisan congressional support to override Trump’s veto, assuming he vetoes the bill if it passes congress. Some dems oppose it because it isn’t good enough.
The editors argue that Dems should help pass the bipartisan permitting-reform bill now, rather than wait until they control Congress in January to pursue legislation they like better. The central claim is that speeding up construction, especially for clean-energy projects and transmission lines, advances both energy affordability for consumers and climate protections.
One argument for the current bill is that it can be passed now and probably survive becoming actual law. Another argument is that current permitting rules are now counterproductive. They are barriers to doing anything at all unless political opposition and years of lawsuits are overcome. Laws designed to protect the environment now delay infrastructure needed to reduce emissions, lower electricity prices, and improve reliability. The editors argue that blocking construction often protects existing fossil-fuel interests at the cost of the environment.
Clean energy desperately needs new transmission lines and associated infrastructure. Wind and solar projects cannot deliver their full benefits without power lines connecting them to consumers. The Editors cite a Quebec–New England transmission project that took about a decade to complete but supplies roughly one-fifth of Massachusetts’s electricity demand. That is projected to save its consumers about $50 million annually.
A counterargument is that the bill’s its fossil-fuel provisions are too generous to the carbon energy sector. Supporters of the bill argue that overall climate benefits outweigh effects of those provisions. Although the proposed bill eases construction of oil and gas infrastructure, the editors cite modeling analysis that projects reduced power-sector greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 18% by 2040, partly by nearly tripling more energy-efficient high-voltage electricity transmission capacity.
The editors also argue that the bill provides benefits beyond clean energy. First, permitting delays seriously slow road-safety improvements and sewage repairs, both of which have been deferred for decades. Second, the bill includes a provision requiring data-center operators to pay the full electricity costs they impose, rather than shifting those costs to other consumers. Arguably, that is pro-reasonably regulated capitalism, and therefore pro-public interest.
America’s unmet infrastructure investment needs run into the trillions of dollars. Postponing necessary maintenance and repairs can turn manageable problems into much more expensive rehabilitation or replacement projects. That increases the risk of service disruptions, closures, and outright failure.
The chickens want to come home to roost, but can they? Eventually the already overgrown chickens will morph into aggressive, hungry pterodactyls.
Q: Should the dems accept and pass the current bipartisan infrastructure bill, or should they wait and fight, fight fight!?
Some info sources:
2025 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure
2022 CNWS Data: Needs Dashboard — Total needs $630,067,255,205
The Deferred Maintenance Backlog for the Military Services’ Buildings (Aug. 2024) — The four services had about $50 billion in deferred maintenance on their bases; the Army and the Navy accounted for about 70 percent of the backlog. (comment: there’s serious deferred maintenance costs everywhere you look)
IBA Review of the FY 2026-2030 Five-Year Capital Infrastructure Planning Outlook (San Diego) — prolonged financial constraints and limited dedicated funding have resulted in significant underinvestment in that infrastructure, creating a projected $6.51 billion funding shortfall over the next five years, as outlined in the CIP Outlook. Given the City’s capital infrastructure needs far exceed available financial resources, it will be critical to prioritize investments strategically during the annual budget process. Without additional funding, many identified infrastructure needs will remain unaddressed, leading to further asset deterioration, expensive emergency repairs, and inefficient resource allocation. (comment: that is happening all over America, not just San Diego)
