[analogwzrd]

I obviously haven't read all the bills that were passed (ha!), but my impression is that many of the bills are just spending money - which is always popular with both parties. I don't get the sense that there was a lot of policy reform going on.

And an issue with just spending money is that we have to wait a year or two to figure out if the spent money was effective (unlikely?).

[woodruffw]

Spending money is a key "lever" in legislative action. You can't legislate something without allocating money for its implementation and enforcement.

In terms of core policy reform beneath all of the money spending: the current administration seems to place much greater emphasis on capital projects (repairing and building new infrastructure, including energy infrastructure) than the previous one did.

[analogwzrd]

Of course every bill is going to allocate money. But there's a difference between allocating money accompanied by a policy reform and passing a bill with the sole purpose of flooding an industry/market with government money.

The IRA is trying to address climate change, yes. But there's the problem of relying on government to have any idea of where to inject money to make the most difference, trusting the government to not just inject money wherever it benefits the most politically connected, and avoiding massive fraud (see the SBA loans during COVID). Not to mention the insane irony of something called the "Inflation Reduction Act" being a massive spending bill.

Point being: Number of bills passed and billions of dollars spent will be terrible metrics for how effective a politician is because of all those nuances.

[gcanyon]

But they rarely agree about how to spend the money. Trump said "infrastructure week" was coming for four years. Biden got it done in his first year.

[arrosenberg]

There was also the comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform bill that Trump tanked because it would make other people look good.

[newfriend]

Are we calling bills endorsed by a single Republican "bipartisan" now?

Also this so-called immigration bill contained billions for Ukraine, Israel, etc. That along with the fact that most of the bill sought only to facilitate getting more migrants through the system more quickly, and of course the bill was DOA. Saying it was Trump who killed it is just conjecture, and reactions from Senate and House Republicans indicates there was zero support for the bill as written.

Interestingly the House passed an immigration bill in 2023 that the Senate never voted on. Along with the removal of all of Trump's border-related executive orders, it indicates that Democrats are not seriously interested in border security.

[arrosenberg]

> Saying it was Trump who killed it is just conjecture

It all played out in public, just like everything with Trump. There is no need to lie shamelessly on HN, it won’t get you anything.

[newfriend]

By "in public", you mean reported on CNN etc as "people familiar with the situation".

I'd rather listen to the thoughts of the Speaker directly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii0tl8d5G3g

There is no chance Republicans would vote for that bill, they don't need Trump to persuade them.

[hnthrowaway6543]

Trump has not been in office since January 2021; how could he have tanked that bill?

Using Trump as an excuse for not passing any bills on immigration, LGBT rights, abortion, etc when he didn't hold any political position for 4 years is the very definition of ineffective leadership.

[Sabinus]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/gop-senators-angry-t...

"Senior Senate Republicans are furious that Donald Trump may have killed an emerging bipartisan deal over the southern border, depriving them of a key legislative achievement on a pressing national priority and offering a preview of what’s to come with Trump as their likely presidential nominee.

In recent weeks, Trump has been lobbying Republicans both in private conversations and in public statements on social media to oppose the border compromise being delicately hashed out in the Senate, according to GOP sources familiar with the conversations – in part because he wants to campaign on the issue this November and doesn’t want President Joe Biden to score a victory in an area where he is politically vulnerable."

[shortrounddev2]

The Inflation Reduction Act is the most important piece of climate legislation since the 1970s

[babypuncher]

Indeed, it's a shame they gave it such a dumb name.

[rsynnott]

I mean, deciding how to spend money is one of the core functions of a government.

> And an issue with just spending money is that we have to wait a year or two to figure out if the spent money was effective

That’s an issue with practically all legislation.

[dehrmann]

> many of the bills are just spending money

And continuing the trade war. Then people act surprised when inflation is high. Recently, I think Jay Powell has even called out congress and the president for continuing to spend.