Infrastructure Vote? Oh No, That’s Their Bill

Photo credit Verizon

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

There has long been a consensus that America needs to pay more attention to its infrastructure. Last week, the House of Representatives passed President Biden’s $1.2 trillion infrastructure package and sent it to the President for his signature. Of the total amount, $550 billion was new money; the remainder was funding normally allocated each year for highways and other infrastructure projects.

The bill had passed the Senate earlier in the year on a bipartisan vote, 69-30. Even Mitch McConnell voted for it. However, in the House, only 13 Republicans voted for the bill. The rest of the House Republicans were angry over the support given the bill by some of their fellow Republicans. Probably the most galling aspect was that the 13 Republican votes were needed to pass the bill after six far-left Democrats, who refuse to, and do not understand the need for, compromise, voted against the legislation.

Why did most House Republicans oppose an issue that has traditionally been a bipartisan one? A few said they opposed it on its merits, sort of. Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida declared it was a “socialism bill.” Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia referred to as “Joe Biden’s Communist takeover of America.” On the face of it, this argument is absurd. The federal government has been involved in financing public works projects since the U.S. Supreme Court Gibbons v. Ogden decision in 1824. Beginning around that time, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began major projects to improve river access. Proceeding through history, Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) used taxpayer money to build the Panama Canal. One of the major achievements of the Eisenhower administration (another Republican) was the establishment of the Interstate Highway System. In 2016, one of Donald Trump’s major campaign promises was $1 trillion for infrastructure, but he was not able to follow through on it. (Even his infamous wall could be considered infrastructure.)  The Wall Street Journal recently ran an opinion piece by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), entitled, “We Must Pass the Infrastructure Bill.” The Journal and Sen. Cassidy would probably be surprised to hear that they were advocating socialist and Communist policies.

The Republicans plainly opposed the bill because it was a Democratic one. The leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, who, as recently as 2020, doubled down on his earlier call for a $1 trillion infrastructure package, expressed his anger and frustration that Republicans were giving Democrats “a big and beautiful win on Infrastructure.”  “That 13 House Republicans provided the votes needed to pass this is absurd,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.) said. “Vote for this infrastructure bill and I will primary the hell out of you,” Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) threatened his colleagues. The National Review summarized its view simply as, “Disgraceful Republicans Rescue Biden’s Flailing Agenda.”

All four of Virginia’s Republican Representatives opposed the bill. Rep. Rob Wittman has been the only one, to date, to issue a formal press release explaining his opposition. The core of his argument is:

“I support investing in our infrastructure. But I will not support a package that fails to responsibly invest taxpayer dollars in genuine infrastructure projects.

Of the $550 billion in new spending, only $110 billion, or 17.6%, goes to roads, bridges, and major projects generally considered to be traditional infrastructure. Much of the remaining $1 trillion are Green New Deal provisions. As such, it is hardly fair or accurate to call this an infrastructure package. Virginia’s First District, home to one of the worst traffic hotspots in the nation, deserves better.”

Rep. Ben Cline, who represents the Sixth District that covers the area west of the Blue Ridge and north of Roanoke, was quoted by a TV station as referring to “neglected traditional infracture.” He also complained that “just $110 billion is allocated for roads and bridges, less than 15% of the legislation’s total funding.” (Coincidentally, or not, Trump has made the same complaint that only “11 percent” goes to “real infrastructure.” The percentage keeps going down with each speaker.)

In that same TV news report, Rep. Bob Good of the Fifth District was quoted as asserting that “this phony infrastructure bill will do little more than pump billions of dollars into liberal social programs.”

The most charitable thing than can be said about Good’s statement is that he must have been confused about which infrastructure bill he had just voted on.  As for Wittman’s and Cline’s comments about only 15% to 17% going to “real infrastructure,” they are being disingenuous, to say the least. According to reporting in the Wall Street Journal, the following projects will be funded out of the $550 billion in new money:

  • Roads, bridges, and major projects — $110 billion
  • Updating and expansion of nation’s power grid — $73 billion
  • Rail maintenance and upgrades (mostly Amtrak) — $66 billion
  • Broadband — $65 billion
  • Clean driniking water project — $55 billion
  • Ports and airports — $42 billion
  • Public transit — $39 billion

That is a total of $450 billion, or 82% of the new money, that will be going for “hard” infrastructure. Indeed, infrastructure may have once been thought of as consisting of roads and bridges, but that was 40 to 50 years ago. The country has changed.

Rounding out the package was $76 billion for environmental projects:

  • Bolstering infrastructure against climate change and cyberattacks — $50 billion
  • Miscellaneous projects focusing on economic and environmental justice — $21 billion
  • Charging stations for electric vehicles – -$7.5 billion
  • Zero or low emission buses — $7.5 billion

The last item was $11 billion for highway safety projects.

I have no doubt that, when a rural jurisdiction in one of the Republican members’ districts gets a grant for broadband installation, the Congressman will issue a press release with great fanfare extolling the benefits that the federal money will provide and will show up at any groundbreaking ceremony. I hope the media and his constituents have the presence of mind to ask him why he voted against the bill.

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


56 responses to “Infrastructure Vote? Oh No, That’s Their Bill”

  1. One question – when will the first shovel move the first pile of dirt? I remember Bug-out Biden’s ‘shovel ready’ debacle……

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Rte. 460? I thought that was McDonnell.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Roads, bridges, and major projects — $110 billion
    Updating and expansion of nation’s power grid — $73 billion
    Rail maintenance and upgrades (mostly Amtrak) — $66 billion
    Broadband — $65 billion
    Clean driniking water project — $55 billion
    Ports and airports — $42 billion
    Public transit — $39 billion”

    Well, to be fair, nowadays those are liberal programs…

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Which basically is what Gillispie said, yes. And truly, if one is a rockrib conservative, anything beyond roads IS socialism and that might be only because a Conservative, Harry Byrd decided roads were no longer “socialist”!

      As long as Gillispie holds that strict position no matter what political party , I’ll grant him consistent principles. If he swings on infrastructure depending on who is in power, not so much.

      Clearly, when you add in his stated views about Jan 6 and the deep state, et al, he IS pretty far right IMHO but to be honest also in the GOP mainstream these days, apparently.

      But as stated, compromise is how things get done. If the position is that unless it’s pure road stuff, no deal is not traditional conservative GOP thinking.

      What is new is that the GOP that does not support infrastructure beyond just roads is not on Conservative principles but rather partisan rancor and vindictiveness; compare this infrastructure bill with the one Trump supported but could not pass – how different or not?

      OTOH, the current 2nd infrastructure bill is political idiocy and give credit to the moderate Dems for demanding CBO scoring and demerits for the far left , way-out-over-their skis wing of the Dems for basically turning over elections to the GOP. (Apparently some credible economists say that the second “infrastructure” bill WILL create jobs – not unlike any new govt spending actually does in that taxes directly spent into the economy vice money not taxed and held in property does not.

      I think any argument here, including Mr. Gillispie’s arguments, are more cogent and impactful if he restrains his emotional side from attacking others personally. Stick to the issues, don’t name-call or impugn others, and decent debate on the merits is possible.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Which basically is what Gillispie said, yes.”

        Yes, except I meant it ironically….🤷‍♂️

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      The power grid upgrades should be paid for by electricity charges, not federal pork.

      Amtrak should be funded by ticket sales, not federal pork.

      Broadband should be paid for through user fees, not federal pork.

      Ports and airports should be paid for through user fees, not federal pork.

      Public transit is a local matter not a federal matter.

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Once again, a breach in Bacon’s wall about state vs. federal issues…is the curtain down, Jim?

      I suspect Dick has a point, and a Republican-drafted bill wouldn’t have looked all that different. These things always reek of pork. What worries me most is that it is more than can actually be accomplished effectively. If the “Green New Deal” money is spent on power grid enhancements or measures to protect against coastal flooding (AGW or not, hurricanes and relative SLR are real), I’m not offended. Had they funded much of this with a hike in the federal fuel taxes, I would not have been offended.

      I’m not sure since I haven’t researched, but I think the more obnoxious “Green New Deal” elements, the massive subsidies and mandates, are buried in the other bill, which needs to d…i…e now.

      Shocking to think that one party might posture over a bill like this because of electoral politics. Totally unprecedented…. 🙂

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I try not to breach the federal vs. state wall. My main point, which I took a while to lead up to, was the action of some Virginia members of the House and their motivations or justifications.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          What I’d like to see is a list of boodle for the Commonwealth. Maybe Warner or Kaine have circulated one…

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            If ou pay attention to what kinds of road infrastructure projects are being funded in Virginia – not from tolls and special districts, it’s few and far between with Smart Scale. NoVa, Tidewater and I-81 are all funded with tolls and special districts and the rest of the state very little ..mainly improvements to existing infrastructure.

          2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Based on formulas, Spanberger has provided the following estimates for Virginia:

            7 billion–roads

            530 million–bridges

            100 million –broadband

            738 million–water pipes and infrastruct.

            1.2 billion–public tansit

            238 million–Chesapeake Bay resiliency

            106 million–electric veh chargers

            I think these estimates were prepared by th White House.


          3. Matt Adams Avatar

            So 176 out of 21k bridges in VA will get ‘some’ repair. That’s idiotic and it won’t even come close to bringing them back from the brink.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        I think that “wall” came down some time ago with some really weak claims of connection, IMHO.

        The first infrastructure bill is said to be “paid for” but as pointed out not with fuel taxes so that’s breaking a traditional user-pays paradigm and not good but no way they’re gonna get tagged for making gasoline even higher in cost.

  3. Steve Gillispie Avatar
    Steve Gillispie

    When you sense the Sizemore smirk as he pens another of his gotcha smears on Republicans, assume you are going to read some very wrong statements or endure a very partisan or misleading interpretation.

    So it is again. Republicans universally declared strong support for an infrastructure bill. Apparently a concept which doesn’t fit in Sizemore’s calculus, they pushed to do it responsibly and affordably. They took issue with the scale, the failure to cost it accompanied by cynical subterfuges to hide the real cost, the non-infrastructure elements, and the current existence of rising inflation which such a bill will inexorably exacerbate.

    Whether or not spending a $trillion plus now is good for the country (messy numbers and debt are just Republican ploys for Sizemore), here is a partial list of the features those bad, venal Republicans–so heartlessly opposed to the welfare of the nation–thought did not belong in an infrastructure bill. If anyone reads this, you may note that these lines were lifted from a variety of publications.

    Only a tenth of its spending ($110 billion) is for roads, bridges and other major infrastructure projects. (And even that includes plenty of waste, since as the White House notes most of it “will be subject to Davis-Bacon requirements,” meaning union-friendly prevailing-wage rules that vastly boost costs.) [My note: when I must pay Davis Bacon rates, the costs are 50% – 300% more than the prevailing wage costs in the area]

    –Infrastructure spending will favor states with high minority and non-English-speaking populations [I.e. Blue states],

    –$7.5 billion for an electric-vehicle-charging network.

    –$100 billion to “bring affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband designed to promote government and NGO control of broadband and push out private sector providers:

    –several billion dollars to reduce supposed “racial and gender inequities” in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) research and development.

    –install solar or wind technologies …When contractors bid, the bill says minority-owned businesses will get selected first.

    –$5 billion for zero-emission and clean buses

    If you care, do some research. There’s a lot more that hasn’t got much to do with infrastructure.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Cheer up. Maybe, just maybe, you won’t die in a bridge collapse.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        Standard bridges cost $1-3 million dollars to build, if there is only $110 billion allocated to repair (most if not all bridges that are in disrepair) you’re not fixing much.

        This is considering you were aware there are 21,195 bridges in Virginia alone.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      First of all, it was not a smirk but a sigh of despair that our politics have come to this.

      Where is the evidence that Republicans pushed to do infrastructure “responsibly and affordably”? I could not find reports of any Republicans raising the general objections you cite. As for costing it out, this is not an example of estimating the cost of a program, it is a matter of providing a set amount of money for a general purpose. It remains to be seen how many bridges, roads, etc. get built with this money. By the way, a lot of the funding for the $550 billion new appropriation already exists. For example, the bill uses $200 billion in unused COVID money.

      The “only a tenth of the money for roads, etc.” argument: First of all, the math is wrong. $110 billion is 20 percent of $550 billion. (I can’t understand why Republicans can’t do simple math.) But, more importantly, so what? Roads and bridges do not constitute all of the infrastructure of the country. Why don’t you consider the following part of the infrastructure: public transit, railroads, pcorts, airports, water treatment, power grid, and broadband?

      What is the source or basis for the following claims:
      1. infrastructure will favor blue states
      2. broadband money will be used to promote government and NGO control and push out private sector providers
      3. Minority-owned businesses will automatically get selected first.

      In my post, I listed the money for zero-omission buses and for social and environmental justice. Obviously, I did my research. Yes, a small percentage of the money could be considered “soft” infrastructure. That is what compromise is about.

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar


  4. My concern with this infrastructure package is that the projects are politically driven and divorced from any cost-benefit analysis. Admittedly, I haven’t studied this legislation at all — I don’t know much more than I have read in this post and comments. But I do remember “the bridge to nowhere” — does anybody else?

    $66 billion for rail (mostly Amtrak)? Does anyone thing this is a wise investment? Outside the Northeast corridor, Amtrak is a black hole. We’ll be spending billions in up-front capital expenditures to expand a service nationally that will lose money on an ongoing basis and cost us untold billions in operating losses more going forward.

    Responsible governments set aside money in recognition that things wear out and need to be replaced. Government at all levels consistently fail to do so. U.S. infrastructure sucks because after building the bright shiny object — Washington Metro is a case study — governments systemically short-change maintenance. There is no acknowledgement that investing $1.2 trillion in infrastructure entails ongoing operations and maintenance expenses that someone has to pay for in the years ahead.

    Without structural reform over how we pay for infrastructure, pouring another trillion dollars into this broken system fixes nothing over the long term.

    I am disappointed that Dick, who can be fiscally hard-nosed on topics he knows well, has been suckered in by this extravaganza.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      We could easily take care of transportation infrastructure by tolls but I see no Conservatives supporting it!

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        Toll everywhere and you have my support. However, the McAuliffe / Northam approach to tolls is only to put sky high tolls in NoVa as if the people in the rest of the state don’t drive.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          tolls in Tidewater also.

          and higher taxes along I-81

          Tolls and higher taxes where there is more traffic and congestion and more infrastructure needs…

          IOW, the local region is more responsible for it’s own transportation issues.

          1. DJRippert Avatar

            Tolls need to be charged everywhere. It’s no longer technologically difficult to do this.

            The Tidewater tolls are, as I understand it, far less than the same distance tolls in NoVa. Meanwhile, Richmond basically skates.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Actually, they’re pretty hefty… but do the same as Nova and allow non-tolling options.

            This is the way it really has to be. There is no way to really build new roads or tunnels in NoVa or Tidewater in practical terms without taking developed property and putting new roads through communities.

            You’re basically at build-out and have to manage the capacity that is available by pricing it.

          3. DJRippert Avatar

            Please see Dick’s point above about rural roads. The costs of upkeep and occasional expansion couldn’t be covered by tolls because there is too little traffic. That means these roads are subsidized because if there is too little traffic from tolls there is certainly too little traffic from gas tax revenues.

            Let the damn rural roads go back to gravel.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Those roads in Texas are called “Farm to market”.

            IOW, just like electricity and phone/internet – that infrastructure actually supports the ability of rural areas to develop and be able to pay more taxes.

            Chicken/Egg problem.

            Tolls are used as much to manage congestion as to raise revenues anyhow especially in areas where adding more and more roads is not feasible – physically or fiscally.

            If you could ever show me how much NoVa actually pays in transportation taxes versus how much they actually get back – I might believe you but to this point it’s more a claim than a fact.

            Very few new rural roads are constructed. Basically what we have are existing rural roads that cost in maintenance and operations.

            It may be the fuel taxes in rural areas don’t cover all costs – I don’t know – but the total amount of money is a drop in the bucket of what urban costs are. I doubt it’s more than 1 or 2% of the total VDOT budget. Maintaining rural roads is cheap compared to urban roads.

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Tolls are only feasible if there is enough traffic to bring in the revenue. That is not the case in rural areas.

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          Finally! The truth. For years it has been gospel on this blog that NoVa is the big sucking sound for tolls. But now, for once, an admission that the rural roads are really the ones being subsidized. Because if there isn’t enough traffic for tolls there isn’t enough gas tax from miles driven either.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            The “rural” argument is why Eisenhower relented on his preference that the interstates be self-funding with tolls.

            But if you think “rural” is subsidized, explain the I-81 problem and while you’re at it – what to do about I-64 between Richmond and Tidewater that goes through “rural” counties.

          2. DJRippert Avatar

            I-81 should be tolled. I-64 should be tolled. Both heavily tolled. So should Rt 3 in Fredricksburg and Rt 1 in Prince William County.

            Between EZPass and gantries tollways no longer impede traffic.

      3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar

        Tolls/gaso taxes are unfair to lower incomes…right? Dems have painted themselves in to a corner where they want high taxes but they want to target certain segments of our society, to pay the cost.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Hell the price of food and health insurance is “unfair” to lower incomes.
          what’s new on that?

          But, yes. the far left plan to tax the rich to pay for the poor is as dumb and supply side economics is… same church, different pews.

          With any luck the 2nd infrastructure plan is H I S T O R….Y… those idots are ruining the Dems but I do suspect Nancy’s days are numbered… especially if the GOP wins the house and they surely will.

          but everyone needs to pay their fair share of gas taxes. poor folks need econo-boxes and carpool, etc… just like the economize for food and other needs.

          We also DO need to do something about non-wage income and how it is taxed… IMHO… capital gains and qualified dividends need to pay their fair share IMHO.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I agree that sometimes governments sometimes skimp on maintenance, although I think Virginia is pretty good at it. There are state government buildings that have been in use for more than 50 years. You won’t find that in the private sector.

      What structural reform for paying for infrastructure do you suggest?

      And, so we should not build roads or new bridges and other infrastrucure because they may need maintenance later?

      1. how_it_works Avatar

        “There are state government buildings that have been in use for more than 50 years. You won’t find that in the private sector.”

        You will in states that actually had a private sector (that consisted of more than agriculture) 50 years ago.

  5. tmtfairfax Avatar

    Given the fact that the MSM is all excited, this new law will be a bust. Oh, some important infrastructure projects will certainly be built or rebuilt. But once you get into the details and the federal agencies begin mucking around, much of the money will be sucked up by rent seekers. The actual benefits will be much less.

    Point in fact, I worked with a number of Virginia school divisions in the western part of the state leasing their Educational Broadband Service radio spectrum in the late 2000s and early 2010s. It’s good spectrum in the 2.4 GHz range. There were several smaller companies interested in the spectrum so I conducted informal auctions for the spectrum. I got higher than expected bids. During the Great Recession, Obama’s shovel-ready programs allocated significant sums of money. The trouble was the red tape around the program put the projects on ice. Also, investors and lenders would not put up money waiting to see who would get the federal grants. Meanwhile, two of the three companies went under and the third barely hung on. And, needless to say, there was no wireless broadband rollout. Indeed, the survivor partnered with UVA and still couldn’t get any funding. And all this happened before the feds became woke.

    The Infrastructure Bill will greatly underwhelm us.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Exactly. Read the book “Bailout” to get an accounting (from a Democrat) of the Bush / Obama “Great Recession” recovery spending fiasco. Or, go back to the “Savings and Loan” crisis and its bailout. Or, more recently, the Afghanistan disaster.

      For at least the last 50 years the US Federal Government has proven it can’t do any large project right. The infrastructure bill will not represent a turnaround.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        intersting you mention the savings and loan “bailout” as well as the Bush banking meltdown in conjunction with “failed” govt… 😉

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          All big government is a failure. At every level. From both parties.

          The modern Republicans seem to understand this better than the modern Democrats.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            “Big Govt” describes all the developed nations who have more literate citizens, longer lifespans, and higher GDP per capita.

            How is that a “failure” compared to 3rd world and developing world countries ?

          2. tmtfairfax Avatar

            On our recent Alaska vacation, we stopped at an access point to see the Alaska pipeline. It was built in three years. It addressed both safety (earthquake resistant to 7.1 on the Richter Scale) and met environmental standards of the time (including by elevation to avoid negative impacts on tundra permafrost and the provision of many crossing points for wildlife). If it could be built today, three years wouldn’t get it past preliminary engineering.

            Just 20 years ago, the Pentagon was rebuilt in one year after 9/11. The U.S ramped up military equipment production rapidly after Pearl Harbor.

            As I wrote, some projects will be built and provide measurable benefits. But the rent seekers will get their cut off the top. And then there are the woke payments.

            This will not be a success exception in the mind of journalists and college professors, plus the rent seekers and the professional woke consultants.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            You don’t think it is ‘rent-seeking’ for the govt to force private property owners to sell to other private property owners for a pipeline?

            And you don’t think there was any rent-seeking going on with DOD sole-source emergency contracts?


  6. DJRippert Avatar

    Well, let’s see – the CPI came in this morning at +6.2% in October, the biggest inflation surge in more than 30 years. Of course, that caused Treasury yields to spike. But not to worry … Biden appointee Janet Yellen insists that “elevated” inflation won’t last beyond next year. Somebody send her a Whip Inflation Now button from the Nixon Administration and ask Ford and Carter how quickly runaway inflation subsided.

    Prices inflate when the government pours out money. Who could have guessed? What could go wrong?

    Well, food banks can’t feed the poor. Thanksgiving staples are hard to find and extremely expensive when found. Americans have never been so much in debt. Home prices are rising faster than incomes. But not to worry … casinos just had their best quarter ever.

    Against this economic backdrop the liberals are determined to spend, spend, spend.

    The liberals are not done. Senile Joe thinks he’s FDR and another massive spending bill is on the works!

    The numbers are staggering and the liberals try to deflect from this obvious fact;.

    I particularly love the way that “only $550B” of the infrastructure bill is “new money”. ONLY a bit over a half trillion! Dick succumbs to this thinking when he writes, “Yes, a small percentage of the money could be considered “soft” infrastructure. That is what compromise is about.” A small percentage of $1.2T?!?

    The only good news is that the Dems are looking like they will get slaughtered in the mid-terms next November.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      no question, the Dems WILL get slaughtered for a variety of sins to include the “temporary” inflation.

      Do I think the GOP will “fix” it? hahahahah yepper..

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        Now is the exact wrong time to add over a half trillion in government spending on infrastructure. The Republicans generally get that, the Dems generally do not.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Maybe. Is that what they do to bring us out of a recession? i.e. “stimulus” ?

          If we followed that thinking, we would have never built the interstates because they were “roads and bridges to nowhere” right?

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      The “soft” part was about $76 billion, about 14 percent of the $550 billion. Yes, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept that $76 billion is a “small” amount, but it is a smaller percentage of the total and a smaller absolute amount than conservatives are claiming was allocated for these types of projects.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Let the bitterness begin… oops, too late.

    It’s going to be interesting to see if the Democrats’ DYI infrastruture updating compares well to the Republicans’ HGTV sell it to a foreign-owned Flip or Flop company.

  8. Whew! Speak common sense and the strongest support for it comes from NN! There are some cave dwellers on this blog that need to come out into the sunlight. MA is right, this is just a fraction of the bridges that need repair, for only one obvious example.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      I don’t think people understand the cost of bridge repair and or replacement.

      If you’re talking a concrete deck bridge with two abutments alone and no piers that’s easily $3 million dollars.

      The Rappahannock Crossing Project alone is $132 Million dollars.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Normally, I’d take common, as in vulgar, as a compliment, exceptin’ ya went and threw that ‘sense’ with it.

  9. What is the source or basis for the following claims:
    1. infrastructure will favor blue states

    Wittman said: “the Majority’s bill further fails to streamline the project review process and favors urban Americans over our rural communities that already struggle to compete with urban areas in programs preferred under this bill, such as transit and rail. For example, a program to build electric charging stations that will largely benefit wealthy, urban areas would receive $4 billion compared to the Rebuild Rural grant program, which only receives $1 billion.”

    He also said“Instead, we need to focus on hard infrastructure investments and House Republicans have provided such a plan through the STARTER 2.0 Act.

    The STARTER 2.0 Act, would have made historic investments in “real infrastructure” as well as, reform the project hindering National Environmental Policy Act process. This is a fiscally-sound, long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill that provides historic levels of investment in America’s roads, bridges, and core infrastructure to meet the Nation’s growing transportation needs.”

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      What about broadband? Won’t that favor rural (red) areas?

      It seems that your position is that infrastructure is limited to roads and bridges. That seems a pretty narrow view in the 21st century

      1. You asked for the source for “infrastructure will favor urban area.” Wittman provided one.

        The broadband situation? from several plans I’ve read, a local provider teams with the locality and gets all the physical connections built with the grant money for areas they deem not worth investing in themselves. They collect monthly fees from the consumers with no guarantee on future rates.

        Haven’t seen how they plan to address the fact that a lot of people here cannot afford $90/month or more for high speed internet–even where it’s available. Those who can, generally can get it now–one way or another.

        Few of the grant projects are last mile, which is a problem when cable companies want $1,500 to $6,000 to run a line to a house from a main road. When you live in wooded area with 100-110 ft trees, as I do, satellite is out, and so are line of sight connections. I muddle by with 2.5/.75 DSL at $79/month including required land line service I don’t use except for the DSL. It might be about $10 less for cable, since I’m on a main road and won’t have a big connection cost, but they have outages more often than my DSL.

        So without knowing how they plan to use the money, I don’t know how advantageous it will be for our rural areas across the Commonwealth.

        I’d like to have reliable cell phone service, without running into dead spots in the middle of Main St. or going from 5 bars to no service where my connection used to be reliable. Doubt that’s in the infrastructure plan. Just read an article that the chair of the local broadband committee has to go to parking lot where she can catch a cell phone connection to attend zoom meetings of the committee.

  10. energyNOW_Fan Avatar

    Well think of the ramifications Dick, if Repubs were not so vehemently opposed to ALL gov’t spending, Trump could have been re-elected and Senate would still be in Repubs hands. Trump himself wanted to give some COVID handouts before the elections, but of course as you say…

  11. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Will the Republican representatives not accept the money for their districts, or will they just claim that they voted for it? “As on of the 13 who crossed the aisle…”

Leave a Reply