ICYMI: WaPo's Rubin: "Biden's $1 trillion investment is a model for economic growth"

President Biden and Vice President Harris's Investing in America agenda—including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act—have spurred over $1 trillion in announced private sector investments in the United States over the last four years. Today, The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote how the Biden-Harris Administration's government-enabled, private sector-led approach is "a model for economic growth" in red and blue communities across the country.

Read more below:

The Washington Post: Opinion | Biden's $1 trillion investment is a model for economic growth
[Jennifer Rubin, 12/3/2024]

Last week, the Biden administration marked an impressive economic milestone concerning the "landmark pieces of legislation that make up the Investing in America agenda — the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act [IRA]." Designed to work in concert, "this government-enabled, private-sector-led approach contributed to the economy defying economist expectations and is crowding in private capital to critical sectors," Heather Boushey, chief economist for the Investing in America Cabinet, said in a statement issued by the White House. "New data released this week show that since President Joe Biden and Vice President [Kamala] Harris took office, announcements of private sector investments in clean energy and manufacturing in the United States have now surpassed $1 trillion."

Although the infrastructure act was labeled bipartisan, only 13 House Republicans and 19 Senate Republicans voted for it — though many more took credit. On the Chips and Science Act, Republican participation was nearly as meager (24 House, 17 Senate Republicans). And not a single Republican from either chamber voted for the Inflation Reduction Act (which contained subsidies, credits and loans for green energy conversion). Simply put, if it were up to Republicans (and it was for four years during Donald Trump's first term) this achievement never would have come about.

The massive economic plan was not a matter of the federal government picking winners and losers, as some like to characterize industrial policy. The administration set out broad parameters — e.g., chip manufacturing, green energy, high-speed internet — while governors and/or the private sector prioritized projects. And, remember, the $1 trillion was not government spending taxpayer dollars. This was private money recognizing the utility of investment once government got the ball rolling. [...]

Government did make a hefty contribution for infrastructure ($568 billion spread over more than 66,000 projects) and the CHIPS and Science Act (adding $39 billion in "grants and other incentives to semiconductor companies to build fabrication plants and produce cutting-edge technology in the United States," according to a White House statement).

It is stunning, frankly, that the most successful and far-flung private-public collaboration in history — one that is transforming cities, states and regions — has gotten so little coverage from legacy media. It may be the most critical government-driven initiative since the GI Bill following World War II. Several aspects of this achievement stand out.

First, the sheer size of the investment ("$446 billion are for semiconductors and electronics, $91 billion for clean energy manufacturing, $182 billion for electric vehicles and batteries, $54 billion for biomanufacturing, $49 billion for heavy industry, and $188 billion for clean power") means the effects will be felt for years, if not decades.

For years, politicians talked about reviving manufacturing jobs. With this trio of programs, Biden was able to boast, "Over 1.6 million construction and manufacturing jobs have been created over the last four years, and our investments are making America a leader in clean energy and semiconductor technologies that will protect our economic and national security, while expanding opportunities in red states and blue states."

Second, the geographic spread means that modest-income communities (the people President-elect Trump used to identify as the "forgotten people") have benefited immeasurably from the Democratic president's initiative. The White House reported:

"Early indications are that this is working: a recent Department of the Treasury report shows that clean energy investments are largely taking place in counties where median incomes, graduation rates, and employment rates are below the respective national aggregate rates. For instance, 75 percent of Inflation Reduction Act related private investments are in counties whose median household income are below the national level. CEA found that foreign direct investment in clean energy manufacturing is going to areas disproportionately affected by the "China shock," places that experienced larger declines in manufacturing employment due to increased import penetration."

Third, given the number of ongoing projects in red states and the presence of private-sector investment, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to slow down, let alone reverse, the process. The Infrastructure Act funding continues through fiscal 2026; the CHIPS and Science Act through fiscal 2027; and the IRA main funding programs run through September 2026. One cannot imagine that Republicans will pull the plug on the final years of funding for programs that have been so overwhelmingly successful, especially ones that have prompted the private sector to make long-term commitments for years more. Even for a president-elect so hostile to clean energy, short-circuiting a job-creating program that has achieved results throughout the country would be foolhardy.

Finally, the widespread benefits derived from this massive undertaking — for individuals, communities, national security and government itself (through increased tax revenue) — demonstrate how far superior this approach is to trickle-down economics, which slashes taxes for the rich and big corporations. With the latter, the tax savings for corporations go to everything from stock buybacks to increased compensation for CEOs to foreign investment. (Moreover, the cost of the tax cuts runs up the national debt at a much greater rate than a public-private approach.) Republicans deliver temporary stimulus and wind up with more debt and more income inequality.

If you want an economic vision that inures most directly to the benefit of working and middle-class Americans, the Democrats' approach has unquestionably been superior. The proof will come in a few months, when Trump and his MAGA sycophants begin touting the very same economy they now disparage. Just remember that the massive growth, job creation and international advantages — including new infrastructure, manufacturing plants and jobs dotting red America — are the result of an agenda most Republicans — especially the MAGA set — railed against.