So let me be clear: A bipartisan infrastructure bill is possible if Democrats are interested in working with Republicans on traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and even modern infrastructure like broadband, if done correctly.
The proposal from the White House, however, misses the mark on our nation’s infrastructure needs and undermines the opportunity for bipartisan cooperation.
Their proposal would spend more taxpayer dollars subsidizing and promoting electric vehicles than on investments in roads, bridges, ports and waterways combined. Less than 6% of the $2.2 trillion plan would invest in roads and bridges, and the most expensive pieces of the proposal stretch the meaning of infrastructure far beyond how everyday Americans would ever define it.
Some items are worthy of bipartisan discussions. But it’s an abuse of the term and, frankly, insulting to the American people’s intelligence to describe billions of dollars for a “Civilian Climate Corps” and for schools to eliminate paper plates as “infrastructure.”
Critics argue that Republicans are nitpicking the meaning of infrastructure. Count me as someone who believes you should be straight with the American people if you’re asking for one of the largest tax hikes in generations to pay for one of the most expensive proposals in American history.