“Infrastructure” entry. Here’s a brief list of what the Left and their Progressive-Democratic Party claim is infrastructure and what they want to spend $1.25-$1.5 trillions of your tax dollars on.
- climate action
- climate justice
- affordable housing
- green housing
- police accountability
- Supreme Court expansion
- paid leave
- child care
Infrastructure is turtles, all the way down.
Que Bill the Cat.
Here’s the standard, Merriam-Webster online dictionary, definition:
1: the system of public works of a country, state, or region
2: the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization)
This is a preview of
Progressive-Democrats’ Newspeak Dictionary
. Read the full post (220 words, estimated 53 secs reading time)
That’s what his latest tax-and-spend multi-trillion dollar bill that he’s masquerading as an infrastructure bill is—a misleading mess of profligacy. Here’s some of what’s in it besides actual infrastructure monies.
- $174 billion for electric vehicles
- $400 billion on home-based care for the elderly and disabled
- $25 billion on child care facilities
- $50 billion on “research infrastructure” at the National Science Foundation
- $213 billion for home sustainability and public housing
- $35 billion+ for climate change R&D
- $50 billion to create a new office at the Department of Commerce to “dedicated to monitoring domestic industrial capacity and funding investments to support production of critical goods”
Progressive-Democrats in Congress are moving to bring these back. On this, I tend to agree.
Go ahead and do earmarks; they can be useful horse-trading tools. Just set aside 1% of the budget, the rough amount historically spent on them, as a separate line item.
Then require all earmarks in their aggregate to fit within that 1%, and require each earmark to be individually debated on the record and on the floor of the House and the Senate.
Let the public see, up front, what their tax dollars are paying for, and let the particular constituents see how effective their Congressman and Senator really are in representing them in each Congressional session.
The Biden administration (or, as they like to style it, the Biden-Harris administration (can anyone remember the last administration that was referred to as the President-Vice President administration? The Kennedy-Johnson administration? The Carter-[mumble] administration?)) is making economic recovery promises. Here’s one from his brand-spanking new Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellon:
I’m anticipating, if all goes well, that our economy will be back to full employment—where we were before the pandemic—next year, and the Congressional Budget Office estimated that without this, it could probably take until 2024.
Leave it to Progressive-Democrats to want to bring this exemplar of spendthrift back. You know what earmarks are:
“member-directed spending,” [that] are provisions discreetly tucked away in large spending vehicles that directly fund a pet project championed by a specific member of Congress for the member’s own constituents.
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D, CT) and Senator Pat Leahy (D, VT)—the respective chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations committees are about to introduce legislation that would restore the business.
In contrast, Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) and Congressman Ted Budd (R, NC) are pushing the Earmark Elimination Act, which would ban earmarks permanently. Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz told Just the News that
Barron’s has an example, centered on Europe’s very own Wuhan Virus situation.
The EU economy shrank last year by 6.3%, according to the latest EU forecast, published on Thursday. That amounts to about €877 billion ($1.1 trillion) of lost gross domestic product last year. Or about €17 billion a week.
Compared with this, the total bill of vaccines procured until now by the EU—based on contracts signed, and vaccine prices confidential in principle but tweeted last December by the Belgian health minister—would amount to €20.5 billion.
The finally agreed vaccine bill amounts to a bare day-and-a-half over a week’s lost GDP—and how many lives.
This time on “child care” checks written by the IRS.
The [House Progressive-Democrats’] 22-page bill proposes that the Internal Revenue Service provide $3,600 to every child under the age 6 and $3,000 per child ages 6-17 to families earning less than $75,000 per year, or couples earning less than $150,000. The payments would be distributed monthly, over the course of a year, beginning this July.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D, MA) compounds the cynicism of this move:
Candidates to replace term-limited Bill de Blasio (D) as mayor of New York City are coming out of the woodwork like the city’s rats. The opening sentence of a Wall Street Journal article covering their plans to “job recovery” is riddled with irony.
More than three dozen New York City mayoral candidates are vying for one of the toughest jobs in the country: leading the nation’s largest city back to pre-pandemic employment levels while trying to find the funding to do so.
…or not. Mostly—nearly entirely—not.
real per capita disposable income in [Wuhan Virus situation-ridden] 2020 grew 5.5%
The Wall Street Journal noted that this is all before the December-passed $900 billion stimulus “took effect.” It’s also after that stimulus—which still hasn’t had much effect since much of that money hasn’t even been sent into the economy by Government.
What happened to the $2.6 trillion Government had already lobbed into the economy?
Preliminary data for 2020 show total savings for 2020 was $1.6 trillion higher than in 2019. And that was before the $900 billion stimulus.
Progressive-Democrats are shocked—shocked—that folks want to hang onto their money rather than send in to Government. Thus, when State profligate spending and confiscatory tax rates were exposed by the Federal income tax reform that capped SALT deductions at $10,000, and folks on whom the cap had material effect decided to relocate their incomes, their money, and their lives to other States, Progressive-Democrats squalled most loudly.
The lawmakers say the cap, created in the 2017 tax law, punishes their constituents unfairly and pushes residents to move to low-tax states such as Florida. They are pitching the break as crucial to their states’ economic recovery.