Democrats Are Considering a $6 Trillion Infrastructure Plan That Has Little to Do With Infrastructure

For many elected Democrats, infrastructure is much more than roads, bridges, dams, and waterways.


In the event that a group of U.S. senators cannot agree on committing enough money to a bipartisan infrastructure plan, Democrats are reportedly considering a $6 trillion plan of their own. It would probably be best described as a package full of progressive items wrapped in magical thinking paper.

Most people would consider $6 trillion a lot of money to drop on infrastructure. That's because most of us still have an outdated notion of what infrastructure is. In fact, for most people, the word infrastructure conjures up images of roads, bridges, dams, and waterways. However, as we've discovered during the last few weeks of discussions, for elected Democrats, infrastructure can be so much more than that.

Not long ago, for instance, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) tweeted: "Paid leave is infrastructure. Child care is infrastructure. Caregiving is infrastructure." So it's not surprising to see Politico report that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) hopes to include an expansion of Medicare in the Democrats' plan. That expansion would include, among other things, a reduction of the Medicare eligibility age to 60 or even 55.

This $6 trillion Democrat-only plan is well above the $2.3 trillion plan proposed by President Joe Biden. But incredibly, both pale in comparison to the $10 trillion wish list floated by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. According to Politico, "Their list includes universal child care, lowering of Medicare eligibility age, a permanent extension of the child tax credit."

How will all of this be paid for, you ask? The truth is: It will not. The Biden plan would allegedly pay for its spending over a span of 15 years, with taxes levied on corporations and rich folks. Considering that they can't credibly tie the hands of future congresses for the next 15 years, it's difficult to believe that will happen. Meanwhile, the Democrats' alternative plan would only pay for half of its spending with tax increases on the rich. In other words, $3 trillion of that plan would be added onto the already enormous national debt.

If anybody believes that financing that infrastructure bill with debt will create jobs, pay for itself, and grow the economy, prepare to be disappointed. As I've reported many times in the past, the economic literature doesn't support this, especially in the short term and when the spending is done at the federal level.

This is because federal spending on infrastructure is driven by political calculations, leads to ridiculous projects like the infamous "bridge to nowhere," mandates the creation of green or union jobs, romanticizes high-speed rail, and prioritizes pet political projects. These bills serve as perfect examples. Also, to the extent that there is a role for the federal government in building infrastructure—defined as roads and bridges, not a federal paid-leave plan or "Medicare for All"—that role should be very small, since most infrastructure is privately owned. These plans shouldn't be paid for with class warfare taxes either since that will reduce the private-sector investment in infrastructure.

Instead, it should be paid for with infrastructure user fees. A 2018 article in Regulation Magazine by the University of Toronto's Richard M. Bird and Enid Slack explains that user charges (think tolls) are better than taxes for three reasons: First, charges do not distort behavior like taxes do. Second, they're more transparent, so consumers can better assess the true costs of the services. The last reason, they write, is that user fees "allow political decisionmakers to assess more readily the performance of service managers — and citizens to do the same with respect to the performance of politicians." Accountability allows for better and more targeted maintenance and many other benefits.

In spite of this, politicians still prefer to use taxes. They argue that market failures and economies of scale require taxes for the efficient provision of infrastructure. However, as Bird and Slack demonstrate, the arguments should be taken with a grain of salt.

These massive spending plans—or the increased taxes to pay for them—won't go anywhere, since the Democrats have such a slim majority in the Senate. Still, this entire debate is a nice window into their thinking on these issues, should they ever increase their majority.


NEXT: Hong Kong's Free Press Is Dying

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wait, haven’t we already seen this article, several times?

    1. Nope. This article is critical of Democrats, which means it doesn’t exist because Reason is a progressive magazine that never criticizes Democrats.

      1. Nobody claims that, screetch, except you.

        1. Commenters are claiming all the time that Reason writers are “leftists” and whatnot. Generally, the commenters are people who think that everyone to the left of Ted Cruz is a “leftist”.

          1. Nice strawman fat boy. Got any other bullshit to spew?

            1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

          2. One would think that Sarcasmic would see Jeff is the only one defending him and maybe think he is the one who should rethink his behaviors… but nope.

      2. LOL. You just can’t help yourself. You demand others use adult conversations yet are always resorting to strawmen that are barely above Jeff levels of strawmen.

    2. Improved infrastructure provides a lot of facilities for their general public! The government should invest more capital in developing their infrastructures! This webpage will enable the people to learn more details about vinyl fence and their advantages. Thanks for sharing this post with us.

  2. > Has Little to Do With Infrastructure

    Nonsense! All you have to do is think like a Democrat. Infrastructure is that stuff you spend money on. Therefore it’s all infrastructure.

  3. As long as Democratic control in Washington means the richest people on the planet keep getting richer — which is exactly what’s happening under Biden — I’ll keep voting for Democrats no matter what they do on infrastructure.


  4. The proposals suck, but it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Biden’s plan isn’t fully funded because a future Congress might reduce tax rates.

    1. 28 trillion in debt and counting. No proposal is fully funded ever. Cut Spending!

      1. Oh no. As long as the Fed can create all this wealth out of thin air, it can go on and on forever!

  5. I can see $4 trillion just to repaint the rainbow crosswalks.

    1. Along with Black Lives Matter on every street.

  6. This is what you campaigned for.

    1. de Rugy shouldn’t be lumped in with the rest of them.

      1. definitely classier, but never angry enough about how she’s correct … lunch at the club after tennis.

        1. Catch more flies that way

  7. “The Biden plan would allegedly pay for its spending over a span of 15 years, with taxes levied on corporations and rich folks. Considering that they can’t credibly tie the hands of future congresses for the next 15 years, it’s difficult to believe that will happen.”

    —-Veronique de Rugy

    They’re trying to pass the Green New Deal, etc. by other means.

    “Power Sector: Move ambitiously to generate clean, American-made electricity to achieve a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035. This will enable us to meet the existential threat of climate change while creating millions of jobs with a choice to join a union.”

    —-Joe Biden Campaign Website

    The timing on Biden’s plan to spend money on infrastructure over 15 years and the timing on Biden’s promise to make our power industry 100% carbon free by 2035 is not merely coincidental.

    This is the Green New Deal. Biden promised to pursue it on his campaign website, and if we want to stop him from spending all this money, we need to call it out for what it is.

    It’s the Green New Deal.

    1. P.S. From elsewhere on Biden’s campaign website:

      “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected.”

      —-Joe Biden Campaign Website

    2. Oh look. It’s Ken again lying and demagoguing politicians that he doesn’t like.

      It’s not the fucking Green New Deal, Ken. That is an AOC pipe dream.

      1. “…It’s not the fucking Green New Deal,..”

        As a steaming pile of lefty shit, jeff is both gullible and stupid enough to think re-naming something changes that thing materially.
        Further, he hopes he can sell his bullshit to people not nearly as stupid as he is.

      2. Again, take up your complaint with JOE BIDEN. He even linked to the site stating this. Do not blame Ken for noting what Biden says.

        1. Nowhere does Biden ever say “I support the Green New Deal”.

          Ken frames it that way because he dishonestly wants to conflate Biden with AOC.

          If you actually consume any media that wasn’t Breitbart or Fox News, you would realize that after Biden got the nomination, there was a bit of a disagreement between the establishment Biden wing of the party, and the progressive AOC wing of the party, the two sides had a confab, and this is the type of language that they worked out to try to placate both sides. It says “the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face”. It’s a FRAMEWORK. Not “I support every dopey idea in AOC’s head like tearing down every building or banning cows”. Part of that FRAMEWORK is the idea that environmental concerns and social justice concerns are linked. For example, environmental pollution more often occurs in areas with significant minority populations. One can agree with that FRAMEWORK without endorsing stupid ideas like LET’S BAN COWS.

          Here is AOC herself on Biden’s infrastructure plan: “It’s not enough”

          “One thing that I am very excited about is that I do believe that we have been able to influence a lot of thinking on climate and infrastructure,” she said. “As much as I think some parts of the party try to avoid saying ‘Green New Deal’ and really dance around and try to not use that term, ultimately, the framework I think has been adopted.”

          Yes, the FRAMEWORK. Not the “spend $900 gazillion dollars to tear down every building in the name of Gaia”. The FRAMEWORK.

          Demagogues like Ken don’t want you to notice that type of nuance and just want you to think that Biden’s plans and Green New Deal are one and the same. That’s the dishonesty.

          1. Shut the fuck up fatty. You are wrong as usual.

          2. I’ll agree that it is not THE Green New Deal. It is its own Green New Deal. Let’s call it the New Green New Deal. At the end of the day, it is merely a much better made up pig, and your pedantry is not distracting anyone as much as you hope it does.

            It is a fact that Biden campaigned on getting the US Carbon Neutral by 2035. There is no way, no how that this country gets anywhere close to Carbon Neutral by 2035 without a New Deal-style, drastic re-envisioning of the role of government in our lives. AOC Knows it, which is why she glowingly named it after the New Deal. Biden (or his handler) knows that only about 30% of the country would line up behind such a re-imagining of our economy, so he dissembles.

            But why do you deny this? How can you POSSIBLY thing that an attempt to get us Carbon Neutral by 2035 can be done in any way that is defendable by a Libertarian? And if you cannot see how to defend it on libertarian grounds, why nitpicking names?

            1. “why nitpicking names?”

              He’s not called a sophist for nothing.

              1. Nor an ignorant asshole.

            2. I’m opposed to Ken’s deceit because we should have discussions on issues, not on demagoguery and personality. Far too much of the public discourse consists of deliberate attempts to conflate one issue with another, far more inflammatory issue, mash them all together, and then scream and yell “BE AFRAID OF THAT, VOTE FOR ME AND I’LL STOP IT”. Witness: Trump and “socialism”, Team Red and “critical race theory”, and Ken and “Green New Deal”. [And of course it is the same with Team Blue labeling everything “racist” and “white supremacy”.]

              So if we want to have a conversation on creating a carbon-neutral economy, how fast it could take, what are the strategies to get there, whether it is even desirable to have a carbon-neutral economy, then terrific. That is debating the substance of the issue. Not appealing to cheap demagoguery.

              How can you POSSIBLY thing that an attempt to get us Carbon Neutral by 2035 can be done in any way that is defendable by a Libertarian?

              Virtually anything is possible with voluntary collective action. People do not need government mandates to tell them to brush their teeth or to tie their shoes, they do it anyway because they see the value in these activities and have been successfully persuaded to adopt them as habits. It can be the same for any environmental issue. In fact that HAS to be the way forward on issues of environmental concern from a libertarian perspective. Of course this is not the strategy that I would expect either Team Red or Team Blue to adopt, but it is a perfectly valid way forward.

              1. “Virtually anything is possible with voluntary collective action. People do not need government mandates to tell them to brush their teeth or to tie their shoes,”

                Then by definition you should be as vehemently opposing everything Biden proposes since his each and every proposal will have NOTHING to do with voluntary action. Instead you are sitting here picking nits about whose actual plan it is to force us to pay more to consume less.

                Seriously man, who cares? There is no compromise with Biden that will result in voluntary action. It will be Tax more and regulate more-er. You know that. Ken knows that. I know that. And rather than trying to stop Biden’s deep drive towards the endzone, you are yelling at someone who should be on your team because he isn’t respecting your opponent enough.

                1. I’m NOT in favor of Biden’s plan, I’m NOT in favor of AOC’s GND, and – here’s the important part – I’m also NOT in favor of Ken’s perpetual argumentation by deceit.

                  Ken and you and I all agree that these are generally bad ideas. Where we disagree is how to oppose them. I think the best way to oppose bad ideas is to actually argue against the ideas themselves. Ken evidently believes the best way to oppose bad ideas is to scare people into thinking that it is this hugely MUCH WORSE idea and manipulate people’s emotions into thinking that there is no difference between a merely bad idea, and nation-destroying communism. Where do you stand? Argue against ideas based on the merits, or manipulate people’s emotions?

                  1. Lol. You spent 5 posts claiming you’re not defending something you are defending you mendacity fuck. Green new deal is literally on Joe’s campaign website.

                    Youre such a lying ignorant fuck.

                2. Speaking of end zones…… isn’t joy behar disgusting?


                  1. EISTAU there is not a person in this country wanting to get into that endzone

              2. “I’m opposed to Ken’s deceit.,.”

                I would be too, if there were any.
                Fuck off and die, you pathetic piece of shit.

            3. I’d say whatever Biden’s practical revisions to the Green New Deal AOC called for are minor.

              “The resolution in Congress from Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) calls for a “10-year national mobilization” that would include: . . .

              “Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

              —-Washington Post, February 11, 2019

              “Fact Checker: What’s actually in the ‘Green New Deal’ from Democrats?”


              Because Biden wants to eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions from power generation in 15 years rather than 10 years isn’t a major revision.

              When you look at all the other provisions of the Green New Deal, a lot of them are being sold in separate bills–some of them as “infrastructure” some of them as “stimulus”, but they’re all pretty much present. The reason progressive deny this is because they’re scared to death of what the electorate will do to them if people realize what they’re doing.

              1. Just for the record, here are all the components of the Green New Deal that Biden is pushing–that I’ve seen. These are taken directly from AOC’s new Green Deal.

                —-“Providing all people of the United States with — (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

                —-“Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.” [Biden is pushing to make community college free nationwide].

                —-“Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

                —-“Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible.”

                —-“Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity.”

                —-“Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”

                —-“Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in — (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.”

                —-“Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible.”

                —-The Green New Deal


                Biden has broken some of these provisions in different bills and called them “infrastructure” or “stimulus” or something else, but I think Biden is pursuing each and every one of those provisions. Progressives are dishonest about what Biden is doing with the Green New Deal and why because they know that if progressives were honest about that, the American people would reject the Green New Deal and would reject progressives.

                The only provisions I’d say that Biden hasn’t pushed in detail is the part about guaranteeing every American a job with a family sustaining wage and the part about “Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

                The first part is probably a little too socialist for Joe Biden, and the part about getting rid of greenhouse gas emissions from ranchers is the part that everyone laughed out of the room for trying to regulate cow farts–politically not something you want to push in public.

                1. “as much as is technologically feasible.” means that very little will be done since it will be impossible to meet the 2035 standards.If the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow there is no energy.

            4. Whatever they want to call it, simply means a raw deal for the American people.
              Expect even worse to come out of this.

          3. I’m sorry you’re too stupid to fucking read.

            “ Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.”

            Straight from his campaign site you disingenuous fuck.

          4. It’s honestly kind of bizarre the argument you are making. The TL;DR is “AOC’s plan to reshape our lives with a Trillions-of-dollars, communist-style, decades-long intervention in every part of our economy was crazy, but Biden isn’t doing that. Biden was only INSPIRED to do a Trillians-of-dollars, communist-style, decades-long intervention in our lives by the GND. How dare you criticize that!”

            Truly bizarre.

            1. Here, let me fix that for you:

              AOC: “I believe environmental issues and many other issues are linked together, and any environmental program should be cognizant of this basic tenet.”

              Biden: “I largely agree with that.”

              AOC: “And to implement this, I propose to spend $900 gazillion dollars and ban cows.”

              Biden: “Holy shit that’s nuts.”

              1. That is not at all what you said, Jeff. And it is not what Biden said.

                Biden is saying “Hold on there, I think we can do all of those [totally evil, and non libertarian things that Chemjeff would actually oppose if it didn’t mean agreeing with those filthy team red people] but for 800 bazillion kwatloos”.

                1. You’re arguing with someone who doesn’t care whether his facts are true or false, who doesn’t care whether what he’s saying is rational or irrational, and who doesn’t care whether he’s right or wrong.

                  That’s why it’s best to mute him.

                  He’s not smart or honest enough to use for batting practice.

                2. Biden is saying “Hold on there, I think we can do all of those [totally evil, and non libertarian things that Chemjeff would actually oppose if it didn’t mean agreeing with those filthy team red people] but for 800 bazillion kwatloos”.

                  But see this is part of the problem. The ideas are not “totally evil”. They are simply bad ideas for a lot of reasons, that don’t require amping up the scare words to eleventy.

                  This is much like Trump going around saying he is going to “stop socialism”, even as he proclaims himself to be the world’s biggest defender of Social Security and Medicare. Because he wants to associate everything that Team Blue does with “socialism”, which of course means “Soviet totalitarianism”. So wanting to raise corporate taxes becomes morally equivalent to starving the kulaks. This type of dishonest crap is what I’m arguing against.

                  1. “…But see this is part of the problem. The ideas are not “totally evil”. They are simply bad ideas for a lot of reasons, that don’t require amping up the scare words to eleventy…”

                    jeff, busted once more for bullshit, now hoping to change the subject and hope no one notices it.
                    Stupid fuck…

              2. “Here, let me fix that for you:”

                No, let me fix it for you:
                You’re a fucking TDS-addled piece of shit.

          5. It is on his campaign website you ignorant fuck.

      3. I remember back in the mid 90s when Ken tricked Biden into authoring the tough on crime bill

        1. Or the 80s.

          1. The 80’s are when Ken tricked him into plagiarizing that speech.

            Ken is the Devil, obviously.

            1. That’s nothing. Hank Phillips was leading teddy roosevelts trustbusting team while working with Calvin Coolidge on bank reform and women’s suffrage.*

              Dude shaped the entire 20th century. For reals.

              *The timing of these events need not be sequential or accurate.

              1. Nor could you tell from Hank’s posts.

              2. Hank either wrote the 1972 LP platform or had to pay a shit ton of child support for some kid(s) he accidentally produced sometime before Roe.

      4. Pedo Jeffy, your claims are backed up by zero credibility, and zero facts.

  8. 6 trillion is the only amount they now know how to spend.

    1. Yes, but it has to be first created by the Fed.
      Then the consequences of creating all that fiat currency, then injecting it into the economy will not be pretty.

  9. for all elected persons, infrastructure is graft.

  10. Do you want cockroaches? ‘Cause that’s how you get cockroaches.

    1. If you like your cockroaches, you can keep your cockroaches.

  11. We have that lifelong Democrat, cheeseburger-eating-surrender-monkey, Trump that surrendered the Republicans to profligate spending in general for its own sake and to infrastructure spending in specific to thank for this. The Democrats were always for any and all spending to fertilize the growth of government. Until Trump, Republicans were real, if imperfect and annoying by libertarian measure, and powerful allies against the worst of it. These trillions are stained orange and stinking from the cowardly surrender by and to Trump.

    “In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat,… It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.” ~ Donald Trump

    Trump was a Trojan Horse; that surreptitiously got him and other Democrats completely unopposed inside America’s walls to take the House, the Senate, the White House, to lock in and grow Obamacare (“…but Trump’s Justices…”), and to get a pre-Trump unthinkable expansion of federal spending under both (septuagenarian, East Coast Democrats ) Trump and Biden.

    1. “We have that lifelong Democrat, cheeseburger-eating-surrender-monkey, Trump that surrendered the Republicans…”

      We have a TDS-addled asshole stupid enough to try peddling his idiotic false equivalence.
      Fuck off and die, you slimy piece of shit.

      1. Remember when Obama took some staffers to Five Guys for lunch and the media thought it was cute and wrote a bunch of human-interest fluff articles about it?

        And then when Trump hosted some college athletes and served them all burgers and pizza, and the media thought it showed how down to earth he was? Oh, that’s not the angle they took that time? Weird.

        1. And it takes some son of a bitch like this, attempting to justify TDS-assholery to make clear what TDS results in.

    2. Trump was the result of a decades long abandonment of fiscal conservatism by our country. He is not at fault. All of the populist republicans and moderates electing him are at fault. These are the people who sold out economic freedom to lock down the border, and start union-protecting trade wars.

      And this wasn’t some sudden shift. This country has been on this decent since the 90s. GWB brought us No Child Left Behind not 20 years after the republican platform was “why do we even need a Dept of Education?”. GWB brought us Medicare expansion for drug bennies, a mere decade after Republicans tried substantial limits on the program.

      This country has been growing more and more collectivist and populist over time, and both parties have reacted to it. The country has cared less and less about fiscal sanity over time, and both parties have reacted to it. The main difference at this point is social and nationalist values- that’s it. Trump didn’t flush the toilet, he is just one more turd circling the drain like the rest of us.

      1. “…All of the populist republicans and moderates electing him are at fault…”

        Fuck off and die, TDS-addled asshole.

      2. Very poor analysis.

    3. Trump increased spending from 4 trillion to 5 trillion, and then tacked on another 1 trillion in lockdown relief. Not good, but bad within normal parameters (Obama did the same thing after TARP).

      Dems took that 6 trillion as the new baseline and promptly doubled it. Now they want to triple it apparently.

  12. As usual democrats and RINOs want to fuck it up and find out.

    And OT the hate from both pours out onto DeSantis some more because apparently democrats want full on open borders and socialism, while RINOs want another candidate like – Mitt Romney I guess. But both dems and RINOs want to be elitist pieces of shit who control the narrative and the country through DoJ FBI treachery and CIA agitprop.

  13. When spending 6 trillion a year isn’t enough, double it.
    When throwing 2 trillion at the crumbling infrastructure doesn’t uncrumble it, throw 6 trillion instead.
    When people ask who will pay for it all, tell them you’re hiring 80,000 new IRS agents to make sure the rich are paying their fair share. And jacking up taxes on everyone.

    I can imagine these things are less popular at the ballot box than the Dems assume they are.

    1. I’m going to laugh when those extra agents start fucking with people making $75-$100k. I foresee lots of Facebook posts complaining that they “aren’t rich,‘why is the IRS going after me?!”

      1. So much easier to get rid of these progs. And their inane spending along with it.

  14. Hello inflation my old friend
    We will now see you again
    it will make our life at home much worse
    We will spend less on ourselves of course
    but the left will laugh and smile and skip
    While the Democrats upon us shit

  15. But… But… That’s only ANOTHER $40,000 per working person…
    On top of the already $188,000 bill per working person.

    The number of employed persons in The United States increased to 151620 Thousand in May of 2021 from 151176 Thousand in April of 2021. source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    So $6,000,000,000,000 / 151,176,000 = $40,000

    And anyone has to wonder why simple shelter is costing upward of a 1/2-Million dollars???? You didn’t think that bill was going to be printed and sent directly to you to actual ‘see’ it for what it is did you?

    Work HARDER SLAVES – The Democratic Plantation owners need more *free* infrastructure.

  16. Gillibrand is another idiot liberal. This 6 trillion “infrastructure” spending plan is simply another giveaway to the liberals favorite programs. She is wrong on every count. Most of it is payoffs and paybacks to their favorite pets.
    So where’s the 6 trillion going to come from? The Fed. Which means the Fed is going to print up another 6 trillion to bloat the already trillions the Fed has previously injected into the economy so inflationary prices are going to continue to climb, especially in the back half of this year.
    There will also be massive fraud such as there was in the Payroll Protection Plan and a lot of it will disappear into offshore accounts.
    This is one of the worst ideas ever yet to come out of the Obiden White House, one that is going to finally crash what’s left of the economy and by next year, America will be inside one of the worst depressions in a century.
    New car sales are down, home prices are plummeting YOY and grocery shelves are emptying because they can’t get the goods. Farmers in California are going under because of the drought and prices are rising at the grocery store daily.
    America is broke, busted and fractured.More spending will not cure it.
    Interest rates need to rise to realistic levels and the government needs to stop spending like a little kid in a candy store.
    The riots will continue until morale improves. Expect more rioting this summer. Homicides in every major city will continue to rise as the call for defunding police has now backfired.
    The Dems in congress and the white House will continue to twiddle their thumbs, oblivious to the damage and blame trump for it as well.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.