Why Biden got tripped up on his own infrastructure deal


Before he launched his presidential campaign, Joe Biden was known as a one-man gaffe machine. But verbal flubs didn't become a significant problem during the campaign, and they haven't been an issue since Biden became president — at least until last Thursday. That's when he seemed to threaten to veto the very infrastructure bill he'd just negotiated with a bipartisan group of moderates in the Senate.
By Saturday, he'd walked it back, claiming he'd never intended to imply a veto. Fine — but there's a reason why Biden ended up stepping into this mess: Because the incentives surrounding the infrastructure package are incoherent, necessitating either a veto from the president or the collapse of the process in Congress. Unless one of the factions — moderate senators, progressive Democrats in the House, or the administration — does something highly unlikely and changes its position, we will end up with nothing at all.
Biden and the bipartisan group of senators spoke to the press last Thursday because they were proud of the deal they'd reached, agreeing in principle to move forward on a bill spending nearly $600 billion to fund a wide range of physical infrastructure projects like highways, bridges, and tunnels. But progressive Democrats in the House are far more intent on passing a much bigger bill that Republicans uniformly oppose — one focused on "human infrastructure," including elder and child care, paid family leave, and efforts to curb climate change, along with tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Both of these bills were contained in the administration's original infrastructure proposal. The whole point of dividing that proposal into two bills was to get moderates to support a smaller bill that needs to clear a 60-vote threshold in the Senate while allowing the rest of Biden's original bill to pass without Republican support using the reconciliation process that only requires a party-line vote of 51. But now congressional Democrats are threatening to oppose the smaller bill if the bigger one doesn't also pass. In seeming to promise a veto of the first bill, Biden was merely trying to show he's going along with the demand of his party's progressive wing that the two bills get signed into law or go down to defeat together.
But that puts the party's progressives in the role of hostage takers, with Biden seeming to act as their enablers. Why would the Senate moderates (especially the Republicans among them) vote for a bill that is the necessary condition for the passage of another bill they don't want? That makes precisely as much sense as Biden threatening to veto the bill he just negotiated, which makes no sense at all.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Damon Linker is a senior correspondent at TheWeek.com. He is also a former contributing editor at The New Republic and the author of The Theocons and The Religious Test.
-
Fannie Flagg’s 6 favorite books that sparked her imagination
Feature The author recommends works by Johanna Spyri, John Steinbeck, and more
-
Google: A monopoly past its prime?
Feature Google’s antitrust case ends with a slap on the wrist as courts struggle to keep up with the tech industry’s rapid changes
-
Patrick Hemingway: The Hemingway son who tended to his father’s legacy
Feature He was comfortable in the shadow of his famous father, Ernest Hemingway
-
Graphic videos of Charlie Kirk’s death renew debate over online censorship
Talking Points Social media ‘promises unfiltered access, but without guarantees of truth and without protection from harm’
-
Trump's drug war is now a real shooting war
Talking Points The Venezuela boat strike was 'not a mere law enforcement action'
-
Truck drivers are questioning the Trump administration's English mandate
Talking Points Some have praised the rules, others are concerned they could lead to profiling
-
Gavin Newsom's Trump-style trolling roils critics while thrilling fans
TALKING POINTS The California governor has turned his X account into a cutting parody of Trump's digital cadence, angering Fox News conservatives
-
Costco is at the center of an abortion debate
Talking Points The decision to no longer stock the abortion pill came following a pressure campaign by conservatives
-
What does occupying Gaza accomplish for Israel?
Talking Points Risking a 'strategic dead-end' in the fight against Hamas
-
Ghislaine Maxwell: angling for a Trump pardon
Talking Point Convicted sex trafficker's testimony could shed new light on president's links to Jeffrey Epstein
-
Does depopulation threaten humanity?
Talking Points Falling birth rates could create a 'smaller, sadder, poorer future'