# What is the objection to Biden's infrastructure bill? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 10, 2021, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-objection-to-bidens-infrastructure-bill/954153 "2021-11-10T22:01:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-objection-to-bidens-infrastructure-bill/954153/81 "2021-11-14T18:22:21Z")
> [@bump](#): > > This seems very much to me to be a sort of sop to the rural white crowd- “Hey! We’re helping you too, by spending an inordinate amount of money to get you porn, TikTok and YouTube on the government’s nickel, so don’t vote Republican in the future!” More like a sop to the lobbyists of the powerful unions and engineering firms who stand to benefit from all the work, and who fund various politicians. ‘Infrastructure’ bills are always full of this kind of political payola. This is one reason why a good political reform would be to end these giant ‘omnibus’ style bills. You want high speed rail? Vote on a high speed rail bill. You want internet connectivity for your rural areas? Write an internet bill. Giant overarching bills containing huge numbers of unrelated projects and initiatives are a good way to get your pork voted on. “I’ll vote for your crappy, wasteful idea so long as you vote for mine!” So you get two crappy ideas in one bill. Rural internet buys support from rural politicians. ‘Buy American’ gets union support, even though it works against the other provisions, making them harder to do and more expensive. And so it goes. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-objection-to-bidens-infrastructure-bill/954153/82 "2021-11-15T03:09:08Z")
BTW, reminder: there _are_ extensive (though less than at the start) climate/CO2/“green” provisions, in the _ **other** _ big bill, the Build Back Better Act, the one we are supposed to hear from tomorrow. That’s why it was supposed to be a two-fer, with the fixed-structures-centered Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework being passed with across-the-aisle support, and the more money-to-people-oriented BBBA being the one for which they’d rely on the reconciliation mechanism as they’d have to pass it with the Dems alone, if at all. One objection from the right is passing BIF equals saying there is such a thing as a valid, worth-it trillion-plus bill a Dem president can propose and pass, and keeps alive the possibility of some version of BBBA passing before the midterm. One objection from the left is that taking the easy win with BIF without waiting to also have BBBA can open the door for some needed members to say “well, we got _something_ the people needed and wanted, let’s call that enough, bye”. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-objection-to-bidens-infrastructure-bill/954153/83 "2021-11-15T12:57:57Z")
FWIW according to REPEAT Project, a climate think tank, the estimated impact of the reconciliation agreement back in September ignoring the bipartisan bill was much bigger than the impact of either the bipartisan bill alone or the bipartisan bill when added to the bipartisan bill. I think part of that is that some of the climate investment in the bipartisan bill is technology that is hard to model because if it winds up being an effective tool , but a lot of it is that building the infrastructure doesn’t do enough to change the incentives without the explicit incentives in the reconciliation bill. Also REPEAT is supposed to release an analysis of the latest reconciliation agreement this week. This agreement doesn’t have [CEPP](https://cleanenergy.org/blog/clean-electricity-performance-program-proposal-and-southeast-utilities/) and it seems to me like the replacements won’t make up the gap. > **[REPEAT | Rapid Energy Policy Evaluation & Analysis Toolkit](https://repeatproject.org/)** > > Compiled by the Princeton ZERO Lab to put granular analysis in the hands of policy makers, media and the general public. > > > Sam Ricketts🌲 @SamTRicketts ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2021, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-objection-to-bidens-infrastructure-bill/954153/84 "2021-11-18T19:51:35Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Hey fuckwit? Without actually knowing how many amendments each side proposed those numbers mean fuck all. By the time the bill became law, 306 Republican-proposed amendments appear on the record, 228 Democratic, and 4 Independent. But it’s not necessarily the proportion of amendments proposed/approved that counts… there are a number of reasons Republican amendments may not have survived long enough to be voted on by the House. For example, if the Republican sponsor withdraws the amendment. In June Rep. Kat Commack (FL-03) withdrew _her_ amendment to “exempt livestock haulers from hours-of-service requirements for the last 150 air miles to their final destination”, presumably because it had bipartisan support on the merits and Republican leadership wanted to hold it hostage in the Senate. You have to remember in June, it wasn’t apparent that Progressive House Democrats would vote against the infrastructure bill. From Republican leadership’s point of view they had leverage in the Senate, not the House. From what I can tell the substance of that amendment [made it into the final bill](https://www.agweb.com/news/livestock/pork/livestock-haulers-secure-win-house-infrastructure-bill), as part of an amendment proposed by Republican Sen. Deb Fischer (NE). She voted yes on the final bill. Rep. Commack [ultimately voted no](https://www.gainesville.com/story/opinion/2021/11/14/letters-editor-november-15-2020/6374513001/). ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2021, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-objection-to-bidens-infrastructure-bill/954153/85 "2021-11-18T21:16:34Z")
> [@LivingGhost371](#): > > I don’t see a town of 100 people that’s a hundred miles from the interstate that suddenly has 1 GB fiber to the premises suddenly being the next Tesla factory or Amazon distribution center. Infrastructure is a major factor, along with things like speed of regulatory approval, tax and geographic considerations. Here’s an [interesting story](https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/09/13/art-tesla-deal-nv-won-gigafactory/15593371/) I found about the locationing of Tesla’s gigafactory in Nevada. Quote, from the Governor of Nevada’s liaison to Tesla at the time, > “We had a period of time where we were moving pretty quickly to kind of give them an outline of what we had to offer,” Hill said. “We provided information on what sites were available, what their specifications would be, what kind of utility coverage they had, road infrastructure, that kind of thing.” Broadband access as a utility is not to be underestimated - not necessarily for the factory itself, which will have the fiber cable installed - but as a benefit for its employees who will live in the surrounding community. If you are Tesla and you want to open a factory that needs 500+ workers, and the State tries to sell you some site with about 100 people living nearby, the reality is that you have to attract workers to move out there. Those workers are probably going to want broadband internet access because it is the norm for most people. They will want to stream, do online shopping, get emails, &etc. More importantly their kids will want it because young people these days want fast & reliable internet and cell coverage 24/7/365 - not only for social purposes, even for school. I graduated high school in 2014 and even then we had internet videos assigned as homework. Some teachers _announced_ homework assignments not in class, but in a video posted to the class Facebook group. The kids without reliable computer/internet access at home had a clear disadvantage, and you would see them using library computers or leaning on a friend. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2021, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-objection-to-bidens-infrastructure-bill/954153/86 "2021-11-18T23:20:46Z")
I listened to an interview by SD Rep Dusty Johnson. His objection was that the projects in the future were not funded. That’s what leads to the, “OMG we have to raise the debt ceiling.” later on so if you want to have budgeting that stays within the debt ceiling you would oppose this bill ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2021, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-objection-to-bidens-infrastructure-bill/954153/87 "2021-11-19T00:15:25Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Man, it’s shocking to me how @Sam_Stone almost just regurgitates bad arguments and wild claims that get spewed on Fox News all day (while continually having slips of the tongue that suggest he either isn’t actually Canadian, or that he regularly forgets he is Canadian, which is more concerning probably than the former.) Really? Have you not been paying attention the last few years? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2021, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-objection-to-bidens-infrastructure-bill/954153/88 "2021-11-19T16:02:46Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > His objection was that the projects in the future were not funded. That’s what leads to the, “OMG we have to raise the debt ceiling.” later on so if you want to have budgeting that stays within the debt ceiling you would oppose this bill Just to clarify, the [budget _already_ passed for FY2022](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/14/text) _ **recommends** _ a net deficit. It is literally impossible to write legislation within the existing budget framework that avoids the debt ceiling later on. Read it for yourself, right near the top of the text. Recommended federal revenue, $3.4+ trillion. Recommended budget outlays, $4.6+ trillion. Recommended deficits, $1.2+ trillion. FY2022 only. That ship has sailed. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2021, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-objection-to-bidens-infrastructure-bill/954153/89 "2021-11-19T17:03:36Z")
To answer the OP without assuming what Congressional members are thinking, I pointed out one objection an actual Representative (who supports improving infrastructure) gave was that as unfunded mandates beyond the current budget (2023, 2024, etc.) it leads to having to raise the debt ceiling later on. Your statement > It is literally impossible to write legislation within the existing budget framework that avoids the debt ceiling later on. is the reason he gave of why he voted against it. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2021, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-objection-to-bidens-infrastructure-bill/954153/90 "2021-11-19T17:18:21Z")
My counterpoint was and is that the current budget already leads to having to raise the debt ceiling later on. Well, not even later on, but during FY2022. In fact, we already approached the ceiling and had to raise it. Here is where we raised it by $480 billion, on October 14. The current limit is about $28.9 trillion. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1301/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1301/text) > The limitation under section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, as most recently increased by section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (31 U.S.C. 3101 note), is increased by $480,000,000,000. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-objection-to-bidens-infrastructure-bill/954153.md?page=4)