Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

"As the week began, Democrats were celebrating final passage of a long-overdue infrastructure bill, which will address a range of pressing needs from lead water pipes to crumbling bridges to broadband deserts, while it will likely create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Meanwhile, Republicans were livid that a few of their representatives voted for the bill, and took their anger out on Big Bird.

In a way, those Republicans are right to be mad, because infrastructure improvements are indeed a liberal plot to undermine everything the contemporary GOP stands for.

Yes, some Republicans — 19 in the Senate and 13 in the House — did vote for the bill. In those votes you can see the fading vestiges of an age when members of both parties considered it their obligation to deliver tangible benefits for their constituents. That’s how you got reelected: a repaired bridge here, a new hospital wing there, all celebrated with a ribbon-cutting at which the congressman or senator who brought home the bacon was center stage for the local media.

But your hometown paper has probably gone out of business or been bought up by private equity vultures and stripped for parts. And for most Republican officeholders, what matters now is what’s airing on Fox News, where the culture war is king.

Which is where Big Bird comes in. Republicans spent the weekend pretending to be outraged that “Sesame Street” was telling kids not to be afraid of vaccinations, even though Big Bird has been talking to kids about vaccines for half a century. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) immediately denounced it as “Government propaganda...for your 5 year old!” Across Fox News, apoplectic talking heads pummeled the show. An Arizona state senator tweeted “Big Bird is a communist.”

All of which no doubt left the Republican base with the warm feeling that can only come from a good round of shaking your fist at liberals. Meanwhile, Democrats are asking themselves whether their infrastructure bill can actually be turned into a political winner.

There are at least a few Republicans who worry that it might. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (who voted for the bill) is touting the good it might do for his home state of Kentucky; he clearly doesn’t want Democrats to get all the credit. But the more visible its effects are — and the more Republicans characterize it as a socialist boondoggle (or attack their own leadership because a few of their members in the House helped pass it) — the more Democrats will have an opportunity to use it as a case study in what Democratic governance actually does for people’s lives. Already, the White House is dispatching Cabinet secretaries and members of Congress across the country to promote the coming repairs and upgrades to roads, bridges and much more.

So why do I say this is indeed a fundamentally liberal accomplishment? A few reasons.

First, it avoided most of the gimmicks and giveaways Republicans usually employ when crafting similar bills. You’ve probably forgotten by now, but amid all the “Infrastructure Week” jokes, the Trump administration did at one point in 2018 put out an infrastructure plan. It was full of misleading numbers and public-private “partnerships” in the form of gigantic tax gifts to private companies to build whatever projects they found most profitable. Rather than the government owning the bridge or road, the private company would — and they’d then charge us tolls to use it forever.

Second, the fact that Republicans failed to pass infrastructure improvements everyone acknowledged were necessary when they were in charge, but Democrats succeeded, reveals a key truth: Only one party is serious about governing these days.
If you’re a wealthy person looking for a tax cut, Republicans will come through for you. But on more fundamental obligations of government, such as making sure you have clean water to drink, only one party will really try to deliver. It wasn’t always that way — Dwight Eisenhower was substantially responsible for building the interstate highway system — but it is now.

And finally, infrastructure is fundamentally liberal because, when it’s done well, it reinforces the idea that there are important things that only government can do. As long as you believe that, you’ll be favorably inclined toward politicians who actually want government to do those things — and just as important, can make it happen.

That doesn’t mean the administration will have an easy time convincing voters that this bill (and the Build Back Better social infrastructure bill, should it pass as well) is a great reason to get out and vote for Democrats. Many of the benefits will take months or years to be felt in people’s lives. And in a polarized age, nothing drives voter turnout like anger.

Which is why they should argue that what matters about that new bridge in your town is not only that Democrats delivered it but that Republicans fought against it. Will it work to say, “While our opponents are complaining about Big Bird, we’re actually helping improve your lives”? It’s certainly worth a shot."

Paul Waldman The Washington Post

Treborteko1 Loc: New Jersey

BRAVO!

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Did you actually read the entire content of the bill to see what's in it or are you waiting for the bill to pass to have someone else tell you what's in it?

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

Did YOU read it?

Just asking "for a friend".

Or are you just trolling as usual?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Nope, didn't read the bill but I also didn't pose any argument against it. I do however, oppose politicians passing a bill they didn't read. Did you read the entire bill since you seem to support the bill?

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

I doubt any politician of either party read it. That’s why they all have a huge staff- to read it in detail and alert them (1) if there is anything they can use to denigrate the opposing party and (2) to see what’s in the bill that benefits thier constituents ( and can brag about next election ) which is one reason they’ve were elected.

So challenging reading or not reading the bill is meaningless .

So rather than get into another argument over who read what here is a good link discussing the contents . Read it then comment intelligently.

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2021/08/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-summary

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Well, they could start by limiting the length of any bills so that the ones voting for the bill can read them on their own. If the bill to is big for them, then don't pass it. The main question is, why do citizens support a bill THEY never read?

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Very few, if any private citizens, read any entire bill before supporting it or rejecting it---You know that.
Instead we read analysis(from both sides); excerpts from the bill; and summarized, credible opinions from all politicians whose chose to offer them; and our elected representatives in the final analysis to make a decision. I have not read the bill in its entirety, but I am pleased that the bill passed. The issues contained are way overdue, and is money well spent to serve the best interests of all Americans.

The downside for Republicans is that it will not serve to better the Republican party simply because. and only because, it was proposed by a Democratic president.

You are quibbling with a non-relevant argument because you have no real argument--and you know that as well.

"Here's what's in the infrastructure bill:

Funding for roads and bridges
The bill calls for investing $110 billion for roads, bridges and major infrastructure projects. That's significantly less than the $159 billion that Biden initially requested in the American

Jobs Plan.
Included is $40 billion for bridge repair, replacement and rehabilitation, according to the bill text. The White House says it would be the single, largest dedicated bridge investment since the construction of the interstate highway system, which started in the 1950s.
The deal also contains $16 billion for major projects that would be too large or complex for traditional funding programs, according to the White House.

RELATED: Here's how Biden's infrastructure plan would impact key areas of American life
Some 20%, or 173,000 miles, of the nation's highways and major roads are in poor condition, as are 45,000 bridges, according to the White House.
The investments would focus on climate change mitigation, resilience, equity and safety for all users, including cyclists and pedestrians.
Also in the package is $11 billion for transportation safety, including a program to help states and localities reduce crashes and fatalities, especially of cyclists and pedestrians, according to the White House. It would direct funding for safety efforts involving highways, trucks, and pipeline and hazardous materials.
And it contains $1 billion to reconnect communities -- mainly disproportionately Black neighborhoods -- that were divided by highways and other infrastructure, according to the White House. It will fund planning, design, demolition and reconstruction of street grids, parks or other infrastructure.

Money for transit and rail
The package would provide $39 billion to modernize public transit, according to the bill text. That's less than the $85 billion that Biden initially wanted to invest in modernizing transit systems and help them expand to meet rider demand.
The funds would repair and upgrade existing infrastructure, make stations accessible to all users, bring transit service to new communities and modernize rail and bus fleets, including replacing thousands of vehicles with zero-emission models, according to the White House.
The deal would also invest $66 billion in passenger and freight rail, according to the bill text. The funds would eliminate Amtrak's maintenance backlog, modernize the Northeast Corridor line and bring rail service to areas outside the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions, according to the White House. Included in the package is $12 billion in partnership grants for intercity rail service, including high-speed rail.
The funding is less than the $80 billion Biden originally wanted to send to Amtrak, which he relied upon for decades to get home to Delaware from Washington, DC.
Still, it would be the largest federal investment in public transit in history and in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak 50 years ago, according to the White House.
Broadband upgrade
The bill would provide a $65 billion investment in improving the nation's broadband infrastructure, according to the bill text. Biden initially wanted to invest $100 billion in broadband.

RELATED: Biden wants to close the digital divide in the US. Here's what that could look like
It also aims to help lower the price households pay for internet service by requiring federal funding recipients to offer a low-cost affordable plan, by creating price transparency and by boosting competition in areas where existing providers aren't providing adequate service. It would also create a permanent federal program to help more low-income households access the internet, according to the White House fact sheet.

Upgrading airports, ports and waterways
The deal would invest $17 billion in port infrastructure and $25 billion in airports to address repair and maintenance backlogs, reduce congestion and emissions near ports and airports and promote electrification and other low-carbon technologies, according to the White House.
It is similar to the funding in Biden's original proposal.

Electric vehicles
The bill would provide $7.5 billion for zero- and low-emission buses and ferries, aiming to deliver thousands of electric school buses to districts across the country, according to the White House.
Another $7.5 billion would go to building a nationwide network of plug-in electric vehicle chargers, according to the bill text.
Improving power and water systems
The bill would invest $65 billion to rebuild the electric grid, according to the White House. It calls for building thousands of miles of new power lines and expanding renewable energy, the White House said.

It would provide $55 billion to upgrade water infrastructure, according to the bill text. It would replace lead service lines and pipes so that communities have access to clean drinking water, the White House said.
Another $50 billion would go toward making the system more resilient -- protecting it from drought, floods and cyberattacks, the White House said.
Environmental remediation
The bill would provide $21 billion to clean up Superfund and brownfield sites, reclaim abandoned mine land and cap orphaned gas wells, according to the White House."

These improvements are all good for every American.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Good question / easy answer- because they are partisan hacks more interested their tribe instead of the country.

Citizens don’t vote on bills . That’s why we. Have a representative government .

Personally I have no trouble with staff doing the research for their boss.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Yet the staff doesn't brief you on the content of the bill, so why support it?

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

The bill is 2700 pages. NOT ONE person who voted for it has read it, every word. They voted for something they know nothing about. Only what other people have said is in the bill, that they have not read. Do you know what investors are called if they invest in something they know nothing about?? I do. Broke.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Did anyone read the 2018 tax bill- yet you supported that. Why ?

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Did you support the 2018 tax bill ?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

I didn't have an opinion either way, so why are you deflecting by not answering my last question I posed to you?

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

If one has not read every word of a piece of legislation, one should not support the legislation.

That is about the lamest, most impractical, immature, unrealistic, and stupid arguments put forth on this forum.
There is no limit to the ridiculousness advanced by the closed minded.
The infrastructure bill will help America in ways that never even occurred to the former President.