Posted on 05/07/2021 10:54:32 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
President Joe Biden’s proposed infrastructure legislation has the political class seemingly locked in a debate about what “infrastructure” means. Biden and Democratic leaders—backed by a majority of the U.S. population—believe that “infrastructure” is more than just roads and bridges and encompasses all the structures that help modern society function. Their new bill reflects that understanding, including improvements to water pipes and the electrical grid, universal broadband access, charging stations for electric vehicles, physical upgrades to schools and universities, and—perhaps most innovatively—home care for the elderly and disabled, support for families with children, and expanded access to health care.
Republican elected officials, on the other hand, are fiercely opposed to a broad definition of the old term. Biden’s plan is a “Trojan horse” (Mitch McConnell) for massive tax hikes and expanded federal authority. It’s a “Socialist agenda” (Steve Scalise)—a “kitchen sink of wasteful progressive demands.” It will set the nation on a “road to hell” (Rachel Campos-Duffy of Fox News).
If all of this sounds a bit histrionic for a simple debate about replacing water pipes, we’ve been here before. Between the 1820s and 1850s Americans hotly debated the merits of public investment in roads, bridges, canals, riverways and, eventually, railroads. At issue was more than whether to tax and spend or the limits of federal authority. These advancements in transportation effected the collapse of physical space between different regions of the country, drawing ordinary people into new market relationships with one another.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
$6,000 bucks??? Just stay with the well and the septic tank.
“physical upgrades to schools”
I pay ad valorem tax for something labeled “School Capital Impr” on my property tax bills. “School Capital Impr” is about 20% of total school taxes in my Florida county.
New home buyers in my Florida county pay impact fees for school construction.
The well water in my part of Florida is sulfur rich.
The folks buying up houses in my neighborhood have lots of money and little tolerance for the old Florida lifestyle.
For two people pulling down $100,000+ per year together, $6,000 is three weeks income. They have money to burn.
My former neighbor Johnny went into roofing. His income was $380,000 in a recent year. He bought a house for his mom on the street and spent over $100,000 renovating it.
Jackson vetoed the Maysiville road bill because it only favored 1 state. He did support funding for Interstate road bulding.
Partisan Media Shill alert.
I may not have been clear in my original post. I wasn't trying to say that this infrastructure money would be well spent -- but that to the extent that it was useless and wasteful, it was useless and wasteful HERE in the U.S.
I don't like to see a penny of public money spent on anything that isn't needed. But building useless roads, bridges and water infrastructure here in the U.S. for exorbitant sums of money is far better for Americans than building all this same sh!t in Iraq, wouldn't you say?
I agree, but building things only to have them fall apart because of a lack of maintenance is still a waste. That is why I would favor an infrastructure maintenance set of expenditures, but not capital expenditures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.