That sounds like some Greek fraternity. In reality, infrastructure as most people think it is pretty basic but does not include things like cross-gender studies or transgender education. Infrastructure is as infrastructure does.
Only in Washington could they take something that is bipartisan and obvious and turn it into a hole to pour money into.
Both Democrats and Republicans have now put out a plan to address infrastructure. But Democrats seem to think it is anything they want.
Big spending has become a sacrosanct political opportunity.
My simple theorem is that the more big-spending they do the more lying and opportunities for it there are. It becomes an assault on truth.
I listened to some callers on Cspan about what is needed in their states relating to infrastructure. They varied but clearly the people interpret infrastructure as roads, bridges, electric grid, water and large projects related to basic needs. Liberals need to redefine terms as they go.
Can’t we, for once, stick to standard or traditional definitions? For instance, school lunches and changing diapers are not infrastructure. (and I don’t care how big a load an 8-month-old puts out daily.) Gender transitioning is not basic infrastructure.
Years ago I envisioned a truth in legislation act, which basically said bills should have to tell the truth about what it does. It has only gotten worse since then. Titles especially should reflect that notion. That definitely would not include re-imagined and redefined terms to suit ideology. Changing terms changes the purpose and intention. It ends up meaning anything.
Now Republicans have a bill focused on only real infrastructure. It has pay-fors in it instead of a blank big-spending bill. We’ll see where it goes. But there are no bridges to re-imagined terms in that one.
Right Ring | Bullright | © 2021