I was struck the other day by Elon Musk’s declaration that Build Back Better shouldn’t pass because it would increase the budget deficit. But even if the deficit did rise, why would that be such a bad thing? Actually, it wouldn’t have a significant deficit impact - the Congressional Budget Office says that the spending is almost completely paid for, and attempts to claim otherwise aren’t credible. While the most important source of opposition to Build Back Better is simply the desire to see Biden fail while keeping the rich as rich as possible, there may be some sincere concern that the bill would increase budget deficits. But we all know that their main objection is simply the fact that it’s a Democratic initiative, which means that it must fail.Īlso, it would tax the rich and help the poor.Īctually, can anyone even remember the last time leading figures in the GOP seriously engaged with real policy concerns? The most recent important example I can think of is the enactment of the Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997. I guess reporting conventions require that journalists pretend to believe that Republicans have good-faith objections to the Biden plan - that they’re worried about deficits, or the effect on incentives, or something. So how can anyone be opposed to making these investments? One recent NASA study suggested that the health gains from climate mitigation policy would not only be worth trillions of dollars but would also materialize fast enough to outweigh any costs of energy transition in a decade or less. And the benefits of reduced pollution would arrive quickly. It would also reduce other forms of pollution, notably nitrogen oxides and sulfur, that have negative effects on death rates, illness and crop yields. It’s important to note, however, that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels wouldn’t just reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Most discussion of such investment focuses on the long-run mitigation of climate change, and rightly so: The prospect of civilizational collapse does tend to focus the mind. The same is true for environmental investment. There’s overwhelming evidence that helping disadvantaged children makes them much healthier and productive when they reach adulthood the benefits are so large that even in a narrowly fiscal sense, aid to children may well pay for itself over the long run. If you include the already enacted infrastructure bill, the Biden agenda is overwhelmingly future-oriented.Īnd there’s every reason to believe that these investments would be highly productive. Another third is spending to help restructure the economy to limit climate change. Roughly one-third of the proposed spending is on children: pre-K, child care and tax credits that would greatly reduce child poverty. What we do know is that to make it through Congress, it will have to weather a perfect storm of bad faith, bad logic and bad arithmetic.įirst things first: Build Back Better is primarily a plan to invest in America’s future. It’s anyone’s guess whether it will become law. Build Back Better - the Biden administration’s effort to create a better future for America - is resting on a political knife edge.