Redefining ‘infrastructure’

The infrastructure dispute between the two parties is hard to watch, although most Americans know the legislation is desperately needed. It is called an infrastructure bill, but it creates funds primarily for numerous social programs that have nothing to do with infrastructure as it has always been defined.

I see some obvious problems here. Because the bill is expanded far beyond its stated goal, to justify this expansion its supporters have redefined infrastructure to include far more. Webster’s dictionary is quite clear about its long-accepted definition. To further justify their purpose, they call it also a jobs bill. This is one of their many recent attempts to dismantle the English language to suit a self-absorbed political group.

If our partisan leaders really wanted to improve our infrastructure, I would think they would propose a bill that would cover only that. Then perhaps it could be passed relatively easily; and other proposals covering social programs could be negotiated separately. Of course, those could require considerable debate. But isn’t that the way our legislature is supposed to work? As it is now, both sides are dug in, and nothing productive is being accomplished, as our roads and bridges, and other real infrastructure, deteriorate further.

The Democrats are not the only ones who operate so unreasonably. In the past, I’ve seen the Republicans also expand bills beyond their stated purposes. And I’ve seldom heard anyone seriously call out either side for such deceptive tactics.

Darlene LaFollette

Spokane