Senate Republicans today released their "framework" document on infrastructure, in response to President Joe Biden's $2.3 trillion proposal. To say the GOP's document is lightweight is somewhat of an understatement, in two distinct ways. First, the Republicans had earlier indicated that they were considering a package somewhere between $600 and $800 billion, but their opening bid doesn't even clear the lower end of that range, coming in at only $568 billion. Second, the bill isn't just lightweight on crucial details, they are, in fact, non-existent. Only the vaguest of language addresses how the bill will be paid for, for instance. The entire document is only two pages long, and even that is overstating its heft, because it is really nothing more than a couple of graphics-heavy slides than an actual legislative proposal.

This document was originally supposed to be released a week ago, but the Republicans apparently couldn't agree among themselves over key portions of the package. So they spent an entire week negotiating with each other, and as a result the bill is smaller and incredibly vague on how the revenue would be raised. And as an opening bid for serious negotiations, it's nothing short of a joke. Republicans are starting by offering less than 25 percent of what Biden is asking for -- a smaller percent than they were willing to give him in their COVID-19 relief bill proposal. More on that in a moment.

Let's examine the details (such as they are) in the Republican "framework" document. Page one has their spending levels itemized into just generalized categories. Here they are, in descending order of what they would get (all figures are in billions of dollars):

• $299 -- Roads and bridges
• $65 -- Broadband infrastructure
• $61 -- Public transport systems
• $44 -- Airports
• $35 -- Drinking water and wastewater
• $20 -- Rail
• $17 -- Ports and waterways
• $14 -- Water storage
• $13 -- Safety

For some unfathomable reason, the figure for broadband infrastructure is the only one listed as: "$65 billion (additional spending)." Perhaps this refers in some way to other money already being spent by the federal government on broadband? Like much in this document, this is not clear.

Page two has more actual words, in bullet-point lists, but they don't say a whole lot. There are two sections that even tangentially refer to how this is all supposed to be paid for. The first is federal funding. According to the GOP framework, "Federal FUNDING Should:"

• Be fiscally responsible and based on needs
• Partner with spending from state and local governments
• Encourage private sector investment and the utilization of financing tools
• Flow through existing formula programs and proven discretionary programs

The first one is pretty content-neutral. The second one is suspicious -- how much of the total amount they outline on the first page is actually going to be state and local government funding instead of federal funding? None of it? Some of it? This bullet point certainly seems to point to the latter.

The third bullet point is another suspicious one -- how much of the money they're promising is going to somehow magically appear from "private sector investment"? They don't say, but the inclusion of the issue here is suspect, at best. The final bullet point is also somewhat content-neutral, as it seems to be nothing more than Republican buzzwords inserted to assuage some senator or another.

The final bullet list is supposed to itemize how they're going to pay for it all, but falls far short of that goal. Here is the complete list (such as it is) under: "Federal PAY-FORS Should:"

• Cover the cost of the infrastructure bills to avoid increasing the debt
• Shore up any infrastructure-related trust fund that is facing a revenue shortfall
• Ensure that all users of certain types of infrastructure (ex: electric vehicles) are contributing to the generation of revenue
• Repurpose unused federal spending
• Preserve the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including extending the cap on the state & local tax deduction and protecting against any corporate or international tax increases

The first one is what used to be (unless we're talking about tax cuts, of course, which the GOP never pays for, since they magically "pay for themselves") standard Republican fiscal responsibility. "No deficit spending" would be another way to put it.

The second one could be read as "boost the federal tax on gasoline," but the Republicans have specifically indicated that that is off the table -- even though a week ago it was being discussed by them in the haggling over this document. So no gas tax hikes, but they want to shore up the highway fund? However will they do that?

Which brings us to the next item. They're going to stick it to electric vehicle owners, assumably with some sort of new federal tax on mileage. How this will be administered is anyone's guess. Perhaps if you own an electric vehicle you'll have to report your annual odometer readings on your income tax form somewhere? It doesn't lay this out, but what's notable is the fact that electric vehicle drivers are the only specific group to be newly taxed in the entire document. What a coincidence that most electric vehicle owners are liberals who care about the environment, eh? So they'll just have to come up with a quick $568 billion to cover the Republican bill, I suppose.

The next item is a sneaky one, because Republicans are already eyeing a "borrow from Peter to pay Paul" scenario where they essentially raid money that has already been appropriated for other causes, and just "repurpose" it for this bill. This would allow them to greatly reduce the amount of new taxes necessary, so I guess the electric car owners won't have to pony up the whole amount, in the end.

And the last item is just a line in the sand for what Republicans won't agree to. No corporate tax increases. No overturning the state and local tax cap passed in the Trump tax cuts, because it only really sticks it to liberals who live in blue states, so it is absolutely delicious for Republicans to contemplate.

As you can see, this is not a serious legislative proposal. They won't even admit how they're going to pay for it, for starters. And offering up less than 25 percent of Biden's ask is just insulting, really.

President Biden had given the GOP senators a deadline -- they had to come up with a legislative proposal before the middle of next month. We'll see if this qualifies, or if the White House demands actual details on paper before even beginning to negotiate. Either way, however, what is apparent is that the infrastructure bill seems destined for passage under budget reconciliation rules, which will only require 51 votes.

This is precisely what happened with the pandemic relief bill. Except in that truncated negotiation, the GOP actually offered a full one-third of what Biden asked for. This time, they're down to a measly one-quarter. How this is supposed to be a more-successful bargaining tactic, I have no idea.

What Biden and the White House are going to very quickly conclude is that the Republicans can't even get as high as $800 billion. And Biden wants $2.3 trillion. In the pandemic relief bill, Biden got exactly the number he asked for precisely because the Republicans would not reasonably negotiate. If you have to pass the bill with only Democratic votes, then why bother watering it down?

This initial GOP offer is an exercise in bad-faith negotiation. It's pretty obvious, on the face of it. There is just no way this group of supposedly-moderate Republicans are ever going to get to any sort of figure the White House will be able to accept. I gamed this out last week, and estimated (from what he said about the COVID-19 bill) that Biden would likely accept something in the range of $1.5 trillion as a compromise point. Perhaps he'd go as low as $1.4 trillion, after the GOP lowballed their opening bid. But Biden likely won't go below that -- and that figure is over twice what the GOP's opening bid is.

The only real question in all of this is what Senator Joe Manchin will do. Will he essentially throw in his lot with the Republicans and demand the Senate pass whatever lightweight bill the GOP can round up 10 votes for? Or will he realize that this truly is a bad-faith effort and reluctantly allow the bill to pass through reconciliation? The answer to this question is going to be critical. In fact, the entire effort might just hinge on it.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant