To Redefine Infrastructure Spending, Democrats Choose ‘Violence To The English Language’

Democrats Are Trying To Redefine What Most Americans Consider ‘Infrastructure’ To Justify The Massive Unrelated Spending In Biden’s Plan: ‘It Does A Bit Of Violence To The English Language’

SEN. BLUNT: “I thought it was interesting this whole concept, ‘well, we also need an infrastructure of care.’ Obviously, Democrats have figured out that infrastructure is something we need and something that’s popular. And so they’re trying to take 70 percent of this bill and call it infrastructure in a new way than we’ve ever talked about infrastructure before. And that -- that means you’re looking at another partisan package, just like we had with COVID, which, by the way only, a fairly small percentage of that package really dealt with COVID. It was income to states, it was lots of things, but not what the much-needed title of the bill said they wanted to do.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 4/04/2021)

Economists: Biden’s Proposal ‘Is Really Social Spending, Not Productivity-Enhancing Infrastructure Of Any Kind’

“[E]ven some economists who have carefully studied that shift say the Biden plan stretches the limits of what counts [as infrastructure].” (“Biden Plan Spurs Fight Over What ‘Infrastructure’ Really Means,” The New York Times, 4/05/2021)

“Edward Glaeser, an economist at Harvard University, is working on a project on infrastructure for the National Bureau of Economic Research that receives funding from the Transportation Department. He said that several provisions in Mr. Biden’s bill might or might not have merit but did not fall into a conventional definition of infrastructure, such as improving the nation’s affordable housing stock and expanding access to care for older and disabled Americans. ‘It does a bit of violence to the English language, doesn’t it?’ Mr. Glaeser said.” (“Biden Plan Spurs Fight Over What ‘Infrastructure’ Really Means,” The New York Times, 4/05/2021)

“‘Much of what it is in the American Jobs Act is really social spending, not productivity-enhancing infrastructure of any kind,’ R. Glenn Hubbard, an economics professor at Columbia Business School … Specifically, he pointed to spending on home care workers and provisions that help unions as policies that were not focused on bolstering the economy’s potential.” (“Biden Plan Spurs Fight Over What ‘Infrastructure’ Really Means,” The New York Times, 4/05/2021)

R. Richard Geddes, Policy Analysis and Management Professor at Cornell University and Founding Director of the Cornell Program in Infrastructure Policy: “They have a giant definition of infrastructure… These social issues are very important, but they aren’t nuts and bolts. We need to focus like a laser beam.” (“Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Faces Controversy Over Price Tag And Design,” The Washington Post, 3/31/2021)

Even Journalists Admit ‘President Joe Biden’s $2.3 Trillion Proposal Is More Like A 21st Century New Deal’ That ‘Reads Like A Liberal Wish List For Everything The Left Has Wanted For The Past Decade’ And Democrats’ New Use Of ‘Infrastructure’ To Describe It ‘Starts To Get Strained Beyond Recognition’

POLITICO PRO’s MARTY KADY: “We should probably stop calling it an infrastructure plan. President Joe Biden’s $2.3 trillion proposal is more like a 21st century New Deal, going well beyond bridges, airports and broadband to fund everything from Medicaid for home health care workers to studying racial barriers in climate change. The plan is audacious, but also reads like a liberal wish list for everything the left has wanted for the past decade, and has already come under withering criticism from Republicans as a socialist dream.” (“It’s More Than Just An Infrastructure Plan,” Politico Pro Premium Weekly, 4/05/2021)

POLITICO’s PLAYBOOK: “What is infrastructure? … President Joe Biden wants the concept to be defined expansively, using it for priorities that Democrats haven’t previously associated with that word.” (“Politico Playbook: The Question That’s About To Dominate Politics,” Politico, 4/07/2021)

• “Does the $328 billion to improve housing stock, modernize schools and child care facilities, and upgrade VA hospitals and federal buildings qualify as infrastructure? A lot of that money will be spent on physical stuff, but it doesn’t fit the definition of infrastructure Democrats have traditionally used. The word starts to get strained beyond recognition when the White House gets to the $590 billion to ‘invest in domestic manufacturing, research & development, and job training initiatives.’ These are economic priorities that have been included in previous Democratic jobs bills, but they aren’t infrastructure. Finally, the largest single item in the plan is $400 billion to ‘expand home care services and provide additional support for care workers.’ … [I]t’s silly to call it infrastructure and no previous politician who put forward a similar caregiving proposal has done so under the guise of infrastructure spending.” (“Politico Playbook: The Question That’s About To Dominate Politics,” Politico, 4/07/2021)

ABC’s GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “You just heard Senator Blunt right there said, if you really focused on core infrastructure, you might have a chance of passing this. And it is true that only about 5 percent of this bill goes for traditional roads and bridges. You’ve got 20 percent caregiving for the elderly, about 13 percent for investments in -- in like the Green New Deal. So why not focus on that traditional core infrastructure?” (ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” 4/04/2021)

FOX NEWS’ CHRIS WALLACE: “Let’s talk about this, the White House basically calls this an infrastructure bill, and yes, there are hundreds of billions of dollars for roads and highways and bridges and some other things I think you can argue are infrastructure like expanding broadband. But there are also some other parts of this bill, and I want to put them up: $213 billion for housing, $400 billion for taking care of the elderly and disabled. Brian, those may well be worthy projects, but they’re not infrastructure.”
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR BRIAN DEESE: “Well, look, I think we really need to update what we mean by infrastructure in the 21st century… We believe that the infrastructure of our care economy is something we have to take very seriously. If anybody out there, many of your viewers who are parents, who are taking care of an elderly parent or an adult child with disabilities, they know that if you don’t have an infrastructure of care to support your loved ones, you can’t effectively work. You can’t effectively interact in the 21st century economy. So, I think investing in the infrastructure of care.”
WALLACE: “Brian, I’m not going to argue about whether or not it’s a worthy project, but the infrastructure of care, you’re really stretching the word beyond all meaning. What you’re doing is you’re going to pay people to take care of the elderly and disabled. I mean, it’s a social program.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 4/04/2021)

CBS’ MARGARET BRENNAN: “This $2 trillion ask, only about 5 percent of the funding goes to infrastructure. Viewers can take a look at the breakdown here of all the programs that are called for funding on. But of the $620 billion for infrastructure upgrades, it includes incentivizing purchases of electric cars. Can you honestly call this a focus on building roads and bridges?” (CBS’s “Face the Nation,” 4/04/2021)

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD: “When is a $2.3 trillion infrastructure bill not really about infrastructure? How about when $400 billion would go to expand Medicaid payments for home healthcare, with much of that padding the rolls of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)?” (Editorial, “The SEIU as ‘Infrastructure,’” The Wall Street Journal, 4/04/2021)

• “In other words, Mr. Biden’s $400 billion proposal is a political plan to use taxpayer funds to coerce states to expand the SEIU rolls with cash that will then flow back to elect more Democrats. Ah, the wonderfully elastic political uses of ‘infrastructure.’” (Editorial, “The SEIU as ‘Infrastructure,’” The Wall Street Journal, 4/04/2021)

Democrats And Progressive Economists Aren’t Shy About Trying To Shoehorn Every Left-Wing Ideological Program Into ‘Infrastructure’

“Some progressive economists are pressing the administration to widen the definition even further — and to spend more to rebuild it. ‘The conversation has moved a lot in recent years. We’re now talking about issues like a care infrastructure. That’s huge,’ said Rakeen Mabud, the managing director of policy and research at the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive advocacy group in Washington. But ‘there’s room to do more,’ she said. ‘We should take that opportunity to really show the value of big investments.’” (“Biden Plan Spurs Fight Over What ‘Infrastructure’ Really Means,” The New York Times, 4/05/2021)

“‘I couldn’t be going to work if I had to take care of my parents,’ said Cecilia Rouse, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. ‘How is that not infrastructure?’” (“Biden Plan Spurs Fight Over What ‘Infrastructure’ Really Means,” The New York Times, 4/05/2021)

NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR BRIAN DEESE: “Well, look, I think we really need to update what we mean by infrastructure in the 21st Century… We believe that the infrastructure of our care economy is something we have to take very seriously. If anybody out there, many of your viewers who are parents, who are taking care of an elderly parent or an adult child with disabilities, they know that if you don’t have an infrastructure of care to support your loved ones, you can’t effectively work. You can’t effectively interact in the 21st Century economy. So, I think investing in the infrastructure of care.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 4/04/2021)

“When it comes to electric cars, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) complains that Biden’s package focuses more on them than on ‘traditional infrastructure’ like roads and bridges. To Republicans, she said, that’s a ‘signal that this is being used as a vehicle for parts of the Green New Deal, and massive policy changes, rather than modernizing and rebuilding our infrastructure.’ For [Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer (D-NY) that’s precisely the point. ‘I say yes. We need both. This bill does both. It has one of the largest traditional infrastructure funding [numbers] that we've seen in a long time, and it recognizes the new’ breed of infrastructure, he said.” (“Chuck Schumer Is Thinking Big — Gridlocked Senate Be Damned,” Politico, 4/07/2021)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): “We need to be passing a second reconciliation bill which deals not only with physical infrastructure … we need to deal with human infrastructure, health care, education, climate change, making sure that every kid in this country gets the quality education he or she needs, does not leave school deeply in debt. And one of the issues I'm working on in this reconciliation package is the need to expand Medicare to cover dental care, hearing aids, and eyeglasses because millions of seniors cannot afford those basic health care needs. I want to lower Medicare eligibility age to 60.” (MSNBC’s “All In w/ Chris Hayes,” 4/05/2021)

• SANDERS: “But also, we have got to deal with human infrastructure. We cannot continue being the only major country on earth that doesn't have paid family and medical leave. We have the opportunity now to substantially lower student debt to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, to expand health care.” (MSNBC’s “All In w/ Chris Hayes,” 4/05/2021)

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): “Paid leave is infrastructure. Child care is infrastructure. Caregiving is infrastructure.” (Sen. Gillibrand, @SenGillibrand, Twitter, 4/07/2021)