Kerby Anderson

Would investments by the federal government and state governments help improve America’s infrastructure? The answer is obviously, yes. Is the current bill before Congress about much more than rebuilding America’s infrastructure? Again, the answer is obviously, yes. The president and his administration promoted it as a “once-in-a-lifetime” infrastructure bill. Given the fact that it will cost at least $2 trillion, you could certainly say that. I say at least, because other politicians are asking for $4 trillion, and one member of Congress suggested $10 trillion. Apparently, some members of Congress do believe money grows on trees and are ready to turn our dollars into Monopoly money. Critics argue that only about five percent of the spending plan goes to roads and bridges. The White House argues that a quarter (25%) will actually fund basic infrastructure. No matter which estimate you accept, that still leaves most of the spending bill allocated to something other than what most of us would consider to be infrastructure. The bill has $400 billion for expanding health care. There is $213 billion for affordable housing, research training, and development programs. And $50 billion to the National Science Foundation, and $50 billion to the Department of Commerce. And there is what is called the PRO Act that is intended to make it harder for workers to choose to stay out of unions. In case you wonder who will pay for this, I think you know the answer. The payment plan involves tax hikes that will impact you, your family, and the economy. It’s also likely that we will get the spending without the tax hikes, forcing the Fed to print even more money. This spending binge is unnecessary. But it will be justified by politicians who will falsely argue that the legislation will build up our crumbling infrastructure. This is not in the country’s best interests. [printfriendly]