Infrastructure Bill Partisanship, Deception And Ethics


Stipulated: the nation really does need to spend a lot of money on infrastructure, and has for decades. The longer the essential repairs and upgrades are kicked down the road, the worse the economy will perform, and the more expensive the eventual bill will be. Yes, during a period of massive inflation caused in great part by an irresponsible Democratic Party spending spree is not the ideal time for trillion buck outlays, but there is no ideal time for trillion buck outlays, and this one is really in that category of things the government has to do.

Only 13 Republicans joined with House Democrats to get the already scaled down bill passed, and those thirteen are being excoriated by conservatives, most Republicans, right-wing blogs and Donald Trump as traitors, dupes and RINO’s. This is because the bill, needed though it is, will supposedly give President Biden a “victory,” and we can’t have that. No, it’s better to have cholera outbreaks and bridges collapsing.

Morons. First, no infrastructure bill in history ever moved a lot of voters to suddenly support the President who signed it. The average American doesn’t know what “infrastructure” means. I bet less than 80% does. Moreover, the impact of such a bill that might have salutary effects the public might notice won’t be realized until after the next Presidential election, in all likelihood.

Sure, the bill has billions in questionable expenditures and pork. Face it: this is unavoidable with mega-bills. This bill also doesn’t include stuff that it should; for example, though a lack of robots at ports is among the major many logistical issues currently disrupting America’s supply chains, the bill explicitly makes automation a non-priority. There is $17 billion earmarked for port infrastructure, with about $2.6 billion is designated for defraying the cost of upgrading equipment at America’s ports, but not to make ports work better, just to reduce air pollution (because climate change is all the matters, after all.) But on page 308 of the 1,600-plus page bill we see: “The term ‘zero-emission port equipment or technology’ means human-operated equipment or human-maintained technology.” Why? Unions! Unions don’t like automation. Democrats like unions.

But I digress. The point being made is that any legitimate infrastructure bill championed by either party will be wasteful and inept, but there is no responsible way to avoid passing one as soon as possible.

The Republicans would have been smart and responsible to really make it a bipartisan bill so they could claim it as their victory too.

To be fair, much of the antipathy over the bill is due to the legitimate distrust the public, and especially conservatives, have over huge projects described in massive documents that nobody can or will read, like Obamacare. It also didn’t help that Biden originally insisted that a massive Leftist wish-list of social programs be passed as a condition of his signing the infrastructure bill, essentially holding the health, welfare and safety of the public hostage to create a nanny state America. Adding to the confusion, and deliberately, was the use of the dishonest term “social infrastructure” to describe progressive goodies that have nothing to do with infrastructure at all. Those are in the other bill.

Now, an ex-President should pay more attention, but still, when Trump called the just-passed bill “a terrible Democrat socialist infrastructure plan,” he showed that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There’s nothing socialist about the government fixing roads, bridges and sewage pipes. But again being fair, the Democrats deliberately muddied the issue, calling the actual infrastructure bill “The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” making it sound like a New Deal-type “Let’s create make-work jobs for everybody!” law—you know, socialism— and called the still languishing social and cultural wish-list bill “Build Back Better,” which sure sounds like an old fashioned infrastructure bill to me—and everyone else.

This is no way to run a country.

4 thoughts on “Infrastructure Bill Partisanship, Deception And Ethics

  1. OK, so I’ve never been really opposed to the BIF bill per se, except when it was held hostage by the House Progressive caucus. I do think it was dishonest (at a minimum) for Biden to boast about negotiating a bipartisan bill and then turn right around and say that he wouldn’t accept it without the uber partisan reconciliation bill (which still has little real definition to it).

    I can accept that only a portion of that money goes to actual infrastructure as long as a significant portion does (which is at least an arguable point).

    What did disturb me was reading a story in the WSJ about what was in the BIF bill — they used figures similar to the chart you posted above. All well and good, except — if you add all those numbers together you get something in the neighborhood of $500 billion.

    So what does the other $700 billion go to support? I’ll take their word for it that they’re going to spend $1,200,000,000,000.00. Congress is always good at spending money. But call me cynical — if no one is saying what the rest of that money is for, I’m going to guess that it’s pretty far afield from being ‘infrastructure’.

    This sort of thing is a big reason for Trump. We’re sick and tired of both parties playing these sorts of dishonest and unethical games with our grandchildren’s money (they’ve already spent ours and our kids’ money, and working on the next generations).


  2. “There’s nothing socialist about the government fixing roads, bridges and sewage pipes.”

    Unless privately owned and run for profit, of course there is. Public works that are not for profit are essentially Socialist, by the GOP definition, if not actually Communist.

    There is nothing more Socialist than a standing army.

    • “There is nothing more Socialist than a standing army.”

      Really? National defense, roads and infrastructure, law enforcement and public utilities are usually the list of what the government must do to govern, and the rest is discretionary. Without a standing army, national defense is impossible. There isn’t time for Paul to gallop off to every Middlesex village and farm, for the country folk to be up and to arm.

Leave a Reply to Jack Marshall Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.