- Infrastructure 1.2 as in trillion
- In for a trillion, in for three?
- Needed, Republicans to stand athwart Democrat designs to remake America, not facilitate and “incrementalize” the remake.
Our Senator Chuck Grassley, “Mr Watchdog of the Federal Treasury” (boy is that a relative term when they hand out those sobriquets) was one of 17 Republicans to vote to move forward part 1 of the Democrat master plan of moving their agenda by wrapping their turd-burger in bacon.i.e. Infrastructure I. We communicated with our Senator’s offices through one of the helpful conservative contact avenues which for convenience included a pre-drafted message (which we entirely agreed with). FRC Action, a trusted source of legislative analysis (whose leadership are long-time champions of Senator Grassley) is our source for those concerns.
We followed up (after receiving his response) with a message focused on the implications in the measure possibly setting up abortion funding and general cultural concerns as part of our plea that he oppose any bill that moves such an agenda forward inculcating such warpage into society. At this writing we have not received a response to that. Herein we include links from conservative publications raising those concerns and the general larding of the bill with billions in “Great Reset” transformation and billions in boondoggles.
We set forth below Grassley’s response to the first communication. We annotate Senator Grassley’s response offset in red.
August 6, 2021
Dear Mr. Mall:
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns about language in a bipartisan infrastructure package that is under consideration by the full Senate. As your senator, it is important for me to hear about the issues that concern you.
He uses the term “bipartisan” throughout as some sort of shield when the term has all the implications of collaboration in economic and cultural devastation
I appreciate hearing of your concerns about recent infrastructure proposals. On March 31, 2021, President Biden put forward an approximately $2.2 trillion proposal, which he labeled an infrastructure bill. Only about a quarter of the spending in his initial $2.2 trillion proposal is dedicated to traditional infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and related transportation funding as well as broadband initiatives. The remaining hundreds of billions of dollars in his proposal are dedicated to funding partisan policy priorities that many Americans would not consider under the umbrella of traditional infrastructure needs.
“about a quarter” means 500 billion for “traditional infrastructure” presumably still part of the compromise but that means still half (more actually) is not traditional. The paired down part “the compromise” (read manipulation) as is so often the case, the extra-extra lard on top, there as much to allow some Republican Senators to feel good about pairing it down when core transformative (not transportation) items remain. Then there is the use of the term “related transportation funding” which of course is in the eye of the implementor, and that ain’t Republicans.
Traditional infrastructure has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. In fact, President Trump proposed at least $1 trillion in traditional infrastructure. Several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle suggested that rather than propose an enormous spending plan on a partisan basis under the guise of infrastructure, it would be more responsible to come up with a smaller plan and target funding to address our country’s core infrastructure needs. On August 1, 2021, a bipartisan group of senators finalized the compromise bill. The bill authorizes $550 billion in new spending for transportation, water, energy, and broadband infrastructure. The bill also reauthorizes surface transportation programs, which are set to expire on September 30, 2021 and would need to be renewed anyway. Approximately half of this bill is legislation that has passed through the committee of jurisdiction in a bipartisan way through regular order. These pieces of legislation would have gone through the floor process individually and have been put together in one infrastructure package. Since this bill is a bipartisan product, neither the majority or minority party received everything each side prefers. I look forward to having a robust amendment process as this bill is debated on the floor and I will scrutinize how they pay for it.
“The bill also reauthorizes surface transportation programs, which are set to expire on September 30, 2021 and would need to be renewed anyway”. IF they are necessary (never concede they necessarily are when legislative obfuscation is the coin of the realm) then separate them out. It is no comfort that the committee system and regular order produced much of this atrocity
Specifically, you mentioned your concerns with inclusion of the language from H.R.5, the Equality Act, which passed by the House of Representatives earlier this year. Supporters of that legislation say that it is designed to stop discrimination against LGBTQ individuals. Laws to end hateful discrimination can be tailored to prevent injustices in various contexts, like banking or housing, but H.R.5 is drafted in an entirely different way. It would fundamentally change how our society deals with sex, gender, and faith. You can find my statement on the Equality Act, delivered at a March 17, 2021 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, at this address: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/grassley-statement-at-hearing-on-the-equality-act-lgbtq-rights-are-human-rights .
Language from the Equality Act is not included as part of the infrastructure bill. However, the bill does include language addressing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in title III of this infrastructure package, entitled the Digital Equity Act of 2021. I share your concerns, and that is why I have cosponsored amendments that would remove this title of the infrastructure package.
So fundamental transformation of how our society deals with sex, gender, and faith is incorporated/inculcated and you will try to amend it out. Fine, but not succeeding, will you still vote for fundamental transformation inculcated into the bill because Iowa gets some grants which could come by other cleaner means???
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address our infrastructure needs in a financially responsible manner. Your thoughts and concerns will be helpful to me as Congress works on infrastructure-related legislation.
“Both sides of the aisle” where is the aisle on social transformation and a bill where over half by your own admission is not “traditional infrastructure”
Links:
Here’s the Pork Buffet Traitor GOP Senators Signed Off On With This Infrastructure Deal
The 18 Republicans that are pushing pork , boondoggles and planning for the great reset
This site has analyzed the “compromise”, “bipartisan” bill’s proposed contents to date uncovering how big a boondoggle it is: https://randoland.us/bill_breakdowns/the-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-hr-3684/
Analysis: Taxpayers Will Be Paying For $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure For Years To Come
Urge the Senate to reject the $1.2 TRILLION infrastructure bill that is NOT paid for!
Trump blasts ‘Green New Deal’ infrastructure bill, warns it will hurt GOP in next election
The former president critiqued Sen. Mitch McConnell for not passing a “pure infrastructure” bill under Trump.
