Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What the “Infrastructure” Fight Is Really About
Politico Magazine ^ | May 1, 2021 | Joshua Zeitz

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Chit/Chat; Conspiracy; Education; Food; Health/Medicine; History; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: abortion; abrahamlincoln; agriculture; americansystem; banglist; banking; biden; bridges; canals; consitution; construction; deathpanels; definitions; democrats; dystopias; economy; electricgrid; electricvehicles; environment; genderdysphoria; globalwarminghoax; greennewdeal; gunconfiscation; henryclay; highways; history; homecare; homosexualagenda; industrialization; infrastructure; joshuazeitz; mediawingofthednc; mitchmcconnell; obamacare; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; politico; pollutico; rachelcamposduffy; railroads; republicans; roads; stevescalise; tariffs; theleft; transportation; usa; utopias; whigs; wordsmeanthings
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 05/07/2021 10:54:32 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“Democratic leaders—backed by a majority of the U.S. population”

Baloney!


2 posted on 05/07/2021 10:55:43 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion, or satire. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

What a crock! Once they get “Infrastructure” to mean “Your House”, it’s over. CWII is nigh!


3 posted on 05/07/2021 10:56:23 AM PDT by gr8eman (The "R" next to Snake Plisken's name stands for "Retired")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL; sphinx; GreenLanternCorps; oldvirginian; Haiku Guy; napscoordinator; ConservativeInPA; ...

PING!


4 posted on 05/07/2021 10:58:26 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (GOP-free since 10/9/20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“Biden and Democratic leaders—backed by a majority of the U.S. population”

Citation needed, and not some slanted poll where Democrats are oversampled by 30% like normal.


5 posted on 05/07/2021 11:00:01 AM PDT by cdcdawg (You can point out the Left's hypocrisy without accepting their moral premises. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

One of the reasons I can’t swallow the argument about infrastructure has to do with Obama’s “shovel ready jobs.” He actually laughed when that was brought up in an interview, saying something along the line of, “Yeah, it turns out some of them weren’t as ready as we thought.” One of those jobs was to completely raze a very good road, Highway 20, that ran near my house. They resurfaced it with about the same surface it had before. That road had already been recently resurfaced and was in tip top condition. But, the work was done anyway. A total waste. It reminded me of the FDR administration slaughtering millions of meat animals and burying them to raise meat prices. They also burned millions of acres of wheat and corn to raise grain prices. This is what governments do. BTW, deflation, the lowering of prices, would be great for you and me. But deflation is the enemy of big government. While prices shoot up all around us, government is acting like deflation is a risk. I’m not seeing it.


6 posted on 05/07/2021 11:01:25 AM PDT by Gen.Blather (Wait! I said that out loud? )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

7 posted on 05/07/2021 11:01:55 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion, or satire. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Biden and Democratic leaders—backed by a majority of the U.S. population—

They know this is a lie. They’re pushing this BS hoping to convince more gullible people to join their little Fairyland Express.

How I loathe the media.

8 posted on 05/07/2021 11:04:27 AM PDT by Allegra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Free money to bribe low IQ turd flinging constituents with?


9 posted on 05/07/2021 11:06:43 AM PDT by dsrtsage (Complexity is merely simplicity lacking imagination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Between the 1820s and 1850s Americans hotly debated the merits of public investment in roads, bridges, canals, riverways and, eventually, railroads.


This is true. And you know who opposed this spending? Why the slave-holding South, since nearly all of these improvements were for the North and West. So any opposition to the expanded definition of ‘infrastructure’ is really slavery-based in keeping with Republicans’ long support of slavery.
/s


10 posted on 05/07/2021 11:12:53 AM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Infrastructure spending -- even if they blatantly lie about what "infrastructure" is, and it includes some of the idiocy listed in the article -- has a lot of appeal to government officials and economists for one big reason: It's one of the few things that can't be outsourced.

Even if a state DOT can come under the rare exceptions to the USDOT "Buy America" requirements for a highway or bridge project, for example, the project is built right here in the U.S. with labor that is almost entirely American ... and the ones who benefit most from the use of the infrastructure are Americans.

11 posted on 05/07/2021 11:16:13 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("And once in a night I dreamed you were there; I canceled my flight from going nowhere.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”

Article I, Section 8

The question is: Is it general welfare?

Mr. & Mrs. Rich’s nanny serves the Rich family well, but the Rich family nanny doesn’t serve the general welfare.

Ms. Gimme’s child care provider serves the Gimme family well, but the Gimme family child care provider doesn’t serve the general welfare.


12 posted on 05/07/2021 11:17:47 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
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.

Well, no. On principle, the issue had already been resolved by that time.

The first National Road was authorized by Congress in 1806, and was completed roughly along what is now US-40 from Cumberland, Maryland out to Vandalia, Illinois by the 1830s.

The role of the Federal government WAS hotly debated in the early years of the 19th century before the National Road was established. The project was ultimately approved by Congress because the Ohio territory had established the construction of this road as a condition of entering the Union in 1803. Congress saw the wisdom of building infrastructure to connect the new interior states to the coastal states (up to that point Vermont and Tennessee were the only U.S. states without access to the Atlantic Ocean) to give them access to ports and urban centers of commerce. Without these roads, a Great Lakes state like Ohio would ultimately have stronger physical and economic links to British Canada than to the rest of the U.S.

13 posted on 05/07/2021 11:25:04 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("And once in a night I dreamed you were there; I canceled my flight from going nowhere.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The Democrats always talk about “roads and bridges.” Dukakis and Clinton did. But when they get into power we get crappy roads and toll roads and disrepair.


14 posted on 05/07/2021 11:27:34 AM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Usually when you issue bonds for infrastructure the bonds pay for a physical asset that has a depreciated life. The term of the bond is usually tied to something less than the life of the asset.

Now the question for Democrats and Slow Joe. What is the asset life of “.....perhaps most innovatively—home care for the elderly and disabled, support for families with children, and expanded access to health care (and higher $15/hr wagers for elderly health care providers)..........?”

If it is not an asset under generally accepted accounting principles, then it is not infrastructure. So remove it (about $800 billion) from the infrastructure legislation.

15 posted on 05/07/2021 11:29:52 AM PDT by Robert357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/expanded-rural-wireless-4g-5g-coverage


16 posted on 05/07/2021 11:30:01 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“improvements to water pipes”

There is a big problem with lead water pipes in older communities, but I am on well water, and so is my friend Sharon.

Sharon called the county here in Florida about a week ago and they said it would cost her $6,000 to $7,000 to hook up to county water. The county water hookup fees are about $5,000. Almost all new homes in my Florida county are hooked up to county water and their owners have to pay 100% of the very expensive costs.


17 posted on 05/07/2021 11:39:14 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The Democrats are squealing because people are finally waking up to their bait and switch. For 30+ years they’ve been selling “infrastructure” to taxpayers as roads and bridges, but when they get the money they spend on all their pet projects, anything but roads and bridges. What a majority want is their roads fixed but are tired of it never happening because of the bait and switch.


18 posted on 05/07/2021 11:44:09 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“charging stations for electric vehicles”

Gas stations got commercially built despite the fact that people that rode hayburners could fuel up anywhere grass grew.


19 posted on 05/07/2021 11:47:03 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
As a professional engineer who has designed and monitored many public works projects I have to disagree with you and say this money will be wasted.

You said, “.....Infrastructure spending — even if they blatantly lie about what “infrastructure” is, and it includes some of the idiocy listed in the article — has a lot of appeal to government officials and economists for one big reason: It's one of the few things that can't be outsourced.

Even if a state DOT can come under the rare exceptions to the USDOT “Buy America” requirements for a highway or bridge project, for example, the project is built right here in the U.S. with labor that is almost entirely American ... and the ones who benefit most from the use of the infrastructure are Americans. .......”

In my career, I have advised many government agencies that certain capital construction projects were not needed and that a lesser amount of money spent on significant maintenance could achieve even better results.

Let me explain, based on my knowledge gained from decades of experience and both an MBA and engineering degree. In public agency accounting, an asset is divided into “replacement units.” Let's say you have a substandard bridge. Unless you are removing and replacing full replacement units, the work is “maintenance” and has to come from a public agency “operating budget.” So if you were to replace specific girders, or some of the guard rails or some portion of the bridge deck, it would not be a “capital budget construction project.” And yet the whole bridge might not be needing replacement to bring it up to current standards. Maybe just additional bracing and some specific component replacements.

I have been lectured by Public Agencies so shut up and do what I am told, because they want to pay for it with grant money and that they have staff that can charge time to the capital budget and thus reduce the departments Full Time Equivalent numbers so that the Department looks like it has less employees and a lower operating budget.

Furthermore, when I have said OK, I will design a full capital project for you and suggested we spend extra to make it a “low maintenance and long life project,” I have been told no, the agencies would rather not spend money on maintenance and just let if deteriorate so a new capital project funded by grants can replace it. This allows them to keep a number of FTE’s on the capital budget each year and means that the staff they hire doesn't need to have extensive maintenance training, as they won't be doing maintenance. Just build new, let fail and totally replace.

Until public agencies are held responsible for maintenance, new public works are a significant waste of money. Now if you would pass legislation that would insist on giving money to maintenance by local authorities, I will support that. Far to much infrastructure is and has been replaced because of negligent maintenance. And yes I have argued this with agencies to the point that some have fired me and I have told legislators about specific examples. And yet the game goes on and on and on.

20 posted on 05/07/2021 11:48:09 AM PDT by Robert357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson