Biden's expensive campaign for the future

Presented by eBay: How the next wave of technology is upending the global economy and its power structures
May 08, 2024 View in browser
 
POLITICO's Digital Future Daily newsletter logo

By Derek Robertson

Presented by 

eBay

President Joe Biden speaks at a lectern with a blue and white sign behind him.

President Joe Biden speaks at the Wilmington Convention Center, May 2, 2024, in Wilmington, North Carolina. | Alex Brandon/AP

President Joe Biden’s White House is racing to secure its legacy ahead of November’s elections — in large part by doubling down on the future.

In a reporting project published today, a team of POLITICO reporters broke down the massive, trillion-plus-dollar budget commitment made by the Biden administration and Congress to America’s infrastructure — a vast expenditure that could help his presidential campaign, if Americans actually get the money.

That seems to be the hard part.

Looking at the 2021 pandemic recovery and infrastructure bills, 2022’s CHIPS and Science Act and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the reporters found that less than 17 percent of the $1.1 trillion allocated in those laws has actually been spent.

And despite the recent fanfare around a series of announced grants for advanced semiconductor manufacturing, the CHIPS and Science Act was one of the major laggards.

Washington has sent out less than $700 million of the nearly $53 billion that Congress made available in the CHIPS and Science Act, the reporters found.

That contrasts with the much larger sum — $29 billion — announced in tentative awards to semiconductor manufacturers in recent months. That money is still under negotiation.

The law aims at adding American jobs and boosting competition with China, but building up the microchips industry is no small challenge — especially given its high skill demands and how many top jobs have moved offshore.

Re-shoring expertise and manufacturing to America also means merging different countries’ workforces and customs, no simple feat as a recent report from Rest of World demonstrated.

Sorting out spending for the “Science” part of the bill, which commits spending for research on emerging technologies like quantum, artificial intelligence and virtual reality, hasn’t been easy either. The Federation of American Scientists reported in October 2023 that appropriations for research funding fell $7.5 billion below their authorized levels.

While the government might be lagging on assigning the lavish spending laid out by the CHIPS and Science Act, it’s had a noticeable indirect effect on the tech industry itself. A Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company chipmaking project in Arizona that was underway before the bill was signed was expanded and now includes more than 10,000 employees. And as POLITICO’s Jessie Blaeser and Kelsey Tamborinno point out in an explainer accompanying the package, private companies, some of which are angling for the government’s largesse, have announced $866 billion in planned domestic production during the Biden presidency.

One possible effect of the spending gap between what’s authorized and what’s committed is that it might preclude voters from… actually knowing much about what their tax dollars are paying for. Polling conducted by POLITICO and Morning Consult shows not just that Americans largely doubt the Biden administration’s big spending is getting anything done, but that they barely know it’s happening — with the CHIPS and Science Act flying furthest under the radar.

Of the four major bills the POLITICO reporting team examined, polling found the CHIPS and Science Act had the lowest profile with only nine percent of respondents saying they’d heard “a lot” about it and 23 percent said they’d heard “some.” Higher-income and higher-education voters were more likely to say they’d heard about the bill.

As it happens, it’s not much easier for our dogged reporters to find out what’s going on with all this federal money either. The team notes that “The initiatives funded by the four laws are so varied and sprawling — from building bridges and tunnels, to making electric cars more affordable, to bankrolling battery factories and lithium mines, to stringing broadband lines and removing lead drinking water pipes, to removing carbon dioxide from the air — that grasping their full scope can be difficult.”

For CHIPS and Science specifically, the government spending tracking site USA Spending offers little information. POLITICO reporters say they “requested award data via email and Freedom of Information Act requests to the federal agencies in charge of awarding funds,” but “Most have not yet provided comprehensive data.”

 

A message from eBay:

Small businesses rely on trust. That’s why eBay has invested billions into building a trusted online marketplace for everyone. The result? Millions of flourishing businesses and entrepreneurs thrive on eBay. And 43% of sellers are in small towns and rural communities. See how the original find-anything marketplace is America’s go-to small-business platform.

 
the ai safety race

Another round of AI summits is poised to set the tone (or at least try to) for its global governance.

In today’s Digital Bridge newsletter, POLITICO’s Mark Scott previews this month’s two-day conference in Seoul that will try once more to set a global consensus for how governments should tackle powerful AI systems and their use.

Mark argues that despite the united front, global efforts on AI are fraying with different approaches favored by each country: “Like last year, a lot of this is about politicians showing voters that they are in charge of a technology that — for many — barely resonated before OpenAI’s ChatGPT burst onto the scene in late 2022,” he writes. “For the British, that means showing global leadership on fringe use cases of AI — mostly because parts of the U.K. government drank the Kool-Aid on the long-term risks associated with the technology. For the French, it’s about demonstrating Gallic leadership on AI innovation, hence why Macron and others in France have championed Mistral, a local AI startup, as on par with its American counterparts.”

It’s starting to look like the ultimate effect of AI geopolitics devolving into an executive-led game of what amounts to, as Mark calls it, “Whose AI Safety Institute is better?”

 

A message from eBay:

Advertisement Image

 
luther, but for ai

One AI policy wonk has posted his “Ninety-five theses” for the burgeoning technology.

The Foundation for American Innovation’s Samuel Hammond wrote on his Substack yesterday, with no introductory fanfare, a list of his idiosyncratic beliefs about AI development, its revolutionary potential, and how it should or shouldn’t be regulated. A few areas to highlight:

Labs developing AGI deserve oversight: He argues that full scale artificial general intelligence, specifically, merits special caution. “You can be ambivalent about the usefulness of most forms of AI regulation and still favor oversight of the frontier labs”; “Training compute is an imperfect but robust proxy for model capability, and has the immense virtue of simplicity”; “The use of the Defense Production Act to require disclosures from frontier labs is appropriate given the unique affordances available to the Department of Defense, and the bona fide national security risks associated with sufficiently advanced forms of AI.”

Currently proposed AI regulations… not so much: “Regulations codify rules, standards and processes fit for a particular mode of production and industry structure, and are liable to obsolesce in periods of rapid technological change”; “The main regulatory barriers to the commercial adoption of AI are within legacy laws and regulations, mostly not prospective AI-specific laws”; “States should focus on public sector modernization and regulatory sandboxes and avoid creating an incompatible patchwork of AI safety regulations.”

Governments, watch out: “Even under best case scenarios, an intelligence explosion is likely to induce state collapse/regime change and other severe collective action problems that will be hard to adapt to in real time”; “Congress will need to have a degree of legislative productivity not seen since FDR”; “The reference class of prior technological transitions (agricultural revolution, printing press, industrialization) all feature regime changes to varying degrees.”

 

THE GOLD STANDARD OF TECHNOLOGY POLICY REPORTING & INTELLIGENCE: POLITICO has more than 500 journalists delivering unrivaled reporting and illuminating the policy and regulatory landscape for those who need to know what’s next. Throughout the election and the legislative and regulatory pushes that will follow, POLITICO Pro is indispensable to those who need to make informed decisions fast. The Pro platform dives deeper into critical and quickly evolving sectors and industries, like technology, equipping policymakers and those who shape legislation and regulation with essential news and intelligence from the world’s best politics and policy journalists.

Our newsroom is deeper, more experienced, and better sourced than any other. Our technology reporting team—including Brendan Bordelon, Josh Sisco and John Hendel—is embedded with the market-moving legislative committees and agencies in Washington and across states, delivering unparalleled coverage of technology policy and its impact across industries. We bring subscribers inside the conversations that determine policy outcomes and the future of industries, providing insight that cannot be found anywhere else. Get the premier news and policy intelligence service, SUBSCRIBE TO POLITICO PRO TODAY.

 
 
Tweet of the Day

Talked to an electrical engineer in charge of datacenter governance at one of the hyperscalers recently. The whole time he kept emphasizing how insane the supply/demand mismatch is getting, how there's no possible way the utilities get their act together before 2030, etc etc.As I'm listening to him I'm concluding we're hurtling toward some major crisis but at the end he was like, "No we'll figure it out. Couple   things we can do on the demand & supply side to make things work. Anyway have a good day."

The Future in 5 links

Stay in touch with the whole team: Derek Robertson (drobertson@politico.com); Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@politico.com); Steve Heuser (sheuser@politico.com); Nate Robson (nrobson@politico.com); Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@politico.com); and Christine Mui (cmui@politico.com).

If you’ve had this newsletter forwarded to you, you can sign up and read our mission statement at the links provided.

 

A message from eBay:

Why do millions of small businesses and entrepreneurs rely on eBay? We’ve invested billions to create a safe and trusted online marketplace for both buyers and sellers.

With the latest technology and innovation, we’ve built a platform where anyone, anywhere can launch and grow their business. In fact, 43% of eBay sellers live in small towns and rural communities.

By building real connections between consumers and businesses that transcend geography, we’re providing every American a chance to transform their passions into small business success.

See what makes eBay the online home of opportunity. Learn more at eBaysmallbiz.com.

 
 

LISTEN TO POLITICO'S ENERGY PODCAST: Check out our daily five-minute brief on the latest energy and environmental politics and policy news. Don't miss out on the must-know stories, candid insights, and analysis from POLITICO's energy team. Listen today.

 
 
 

Follow us on Twitter

Ben Schreckinger @SchreckReports

Derek Robertson @afternoondelete

Steve Heuser @sfheuser

 

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Instagram Listen on Apple Podcast
 

To change your alert settings, please log in at https://login.politico.com/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com/settings

This email was sent to salenamartine360.news1@blogger.com by: POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, 22209, USA

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post