Government Spending

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Is a Sham

The Senate just passed a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill—and teed up another $3.5 trillion bill in the process.

|

The $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill is a sham. Not only that, it's a sham that sets up a much bigger round of explicitly partisan spending later in the year. 

In a climactic vote this afternoon, 19 Senate Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), signed onto the bill, which calls for $550 billion in new spending as part of more than $1 trillion in funding for roads, bridges, waterways, and broadband. The bill also includes essential infrastructure provisions like, er, requiring unproven new drunk-driving-prevention technology on cars, a vaping ban on Amtrak, and new reporting requirements for cryptocurrency. 

The Republicans repeatedly claimed that the spending would be fully paid for, despite plenty of reasons to suspect that it won't be. As Reason's Eric Boehm reported, the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan scorekeeper, estimates that the bill would add at least $256 billion to the deficit, and probably more like $400 billion. Nineteen Republicans voted for it anyway. 

The same Republicans also claim that while they support the infrastructure spending, they are deeply opposed to the rest of the Democratic agenda, which is being moved separately as part of a $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package that Democrats plan to pass on a party line.

You might think of the budget resolution as the "everything else bill." It funds the bulk of President Joe Biden's agenda that is not physical infrastructure. It's focused largely on climate and social spending—vastly increasing federal funding for Medicare, Obamacare, and a yet-to-be-determined new federal health program as well as welfare-style payments to parents of children and the "first ever Civilian Climate Corps." 

Democrats have insisted that this bill too will be fully paid for, but they haven't spelled out the precise mechanisms. And reconciliation instructions released earlier this week allow for as much as $1.75 trillion in deficit spending over the next decade; like the infrastructure bill, it's unlikely that this "fully paid for" legislation will actually be fully paid for in the end.

The $3.5 trillion budget plan, in other words, is a big government, progressive-agenda spending bill (even if the progressives would have preferred an even bigger reconciliation package). It's the sort of legislation that Republicans claim to oppose, and have promised to fight vigorously

The Republicans signing onto the infrastructure bill have argued, in effect, that doing so restrains Democratic ambitions. In this telling, the bipartisan bill serves as a more modest alternative to Democratic spending plans—a compromise that forces Democrats to chisel down their ambitions. It's no such thing. 

Instead, the better way to look at the two bills is as a package deal. That's how Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) sees it. She's been clear from the start that she will only take up the Senate's bipartisan bill as a two-part play, along with the $3.5 budget plan. "There ain't no infrastructure bill without the reconciliation bill," she said in June. That's how one key centrist Senate Democrat, Joe Manchin (W. Va.) sees it too: Late last month, he said that "if the bipartisan infrastructure bill falls apart, everything falls apart." Sen. Tim Kaine (D–Va.) said last month that if somehow the bipartisan bill fell apart, Democrats would just…add $600 billion or so to their reconciliation bill, meaning they'd get $4.1 trillion or so either way. And while Biden has since (kinda-sorta-maybe) backtracked, he has also said that the two bills could work in "tandem." 

Meanwhile, the Congressional Progressive Caucus released a statement today saying that its members "won't support a bipartisan bill without a bold reconciliation bill to advance our priorities." It's a two-bill deal. 

The best way to think of these two pieces of legislation, then, is not to think of them as two entirely separate bills, but as a package deal representing $4.1 trillion in spending on the Biden agenda. And rather than restraining Democratic spending ambitions somehow, the infrastructure bill tees up the rest of the package, advancing the ball on the larger Biden agenda. 

So when 19 Senate Republicans turn out to vote for the infrastructure deal, arguing that it's a fully paid for compromise that doesn't raise any taxes, they are effectively supporting a $4.1 trillion tandem package, and everything that may end up in it, even while pretending that they are adamantly opposed. 

To understand why this happened anyway, it's important to understand the almost mystical allure of bipartisan dealmaking in Congress, especially in the Senate. In parts of official and high-status Washington, bipartisan deals are seen as a good unto themselves, almost independent of what's in them. And for a certain type of lawmaker, that allure has an even greater appeal now, in the post-Trump era, when one of the Senate's own is in the White House. Biden himself is a true believer in the power of across-the-aisle dealmaking. 

At the same time, Congress has been consumed by gridlock and dysfunction, and as a result there has been a growing sense, shared in part by many frustrated lawmakers, that it has lost the ability to get things done. 

The bipartisan infrastructure deal is intended as a kind of a rejoinder to that narrative, an answer to the question: Who says Congress can't get big things done? The $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure deal, and its $3.5 trillion partner budget bill, says yes, Congress can get big things done—big, terrible things.

NEXT: Cuomo Resigns as New York Governor at Long Last

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s not real money anymore.

    1. When you have to pay $3K extra for a car to fit a breathalyzer it’s real money. Out of your pocket.

      1. Since nobody knows how the proposed technology will work, I have to ask you how you arrived at this amount.
        BTW- The law, which mandates that the DOT must, through the NHTSA develop standards for a device that could “passively” (and thus not a breathalizer, exactly) detect impairment or levels of alcohol over a set limit and then prevent or limit the operation of the motor vehicle. The DOT is given three years to make such standards (with the option to extend it three years when they realize how stupid the idea is) and then three years for the car companies to actually install it.
        While I see no reason why a cost $3K extra would be impossible, I think that the market and the proposed technology would tend to moderate the cost. For one thing, I really think that given the apparent choice between monitoring driving and monitoring alcohol levels passively, the car companies would undoubtedly choose monitoring driving which has the advantage of not being essentially impossible as a passive action (i.e., breathalizer).
        My car already has a “distracted driver” warning buzzer. However, it seems to me to activate at almost random times and yet miss periods of squirrelly steering I might do while trying to get something out of my front pocket.
        I predict this whole thing will end up simply being another waste of time and money, but will never be activated for many reasons.

        1. That’s such a good point! Just look at catalytic converters and full cabin airbags, it’s not like those government mandates led to any added costs. It’ll all blow over! And if it doesn’t, well, it won’t cost that much. And if it does, well, it’s probably a good thing.

          Do you prefer pleather or the real thing when you licking those boots you pathetic sack of shit?

          1. wow, that’s a lot of hate to spew on someone … just because he opposes this gadget being mandatory?

            The disease of hate itself is always very pleased to find such an accommodating host. Those who walk in darkness, believing it is light.

            1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

              See……………VISIT HERE

            2. Use several hours of your spare time to acquire extra $1000 on your paypal account each week…JHG Get more details on following site…Visit Here

              1. After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them nhj for 4 months was for $4500… Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet…Read all about it here… READ MORE

            3. Making extra salary every month from home more than $15k just by doing simple copy and paste like online job. I have received $18635 from this easy home job and now I am a good online earner like others. This job is super easy and its earnings are great.UJn Everybody can now makes extra cash online easily by just follow the given website……………… VISIT HERE

            4. That’s a large pile of self-righteous bullshit to shovel on someone.

              1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.EWq Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

                You can check it out here……………. VISIT HERE

        2. I think the FREE market would dictate that almost no one would want those things. But who gives a shit what stupid people want, amiright?

          1. Google pay 390$ reliably my last paycheck was $55000 working 10 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 20k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably.RHd I can’t trust how direct it was once I attempted it out. This is my essential concern…:) For more info visit any tab on this site Thanks a lot …

            GOOD LUCK………….. VISIT HERE

        3. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes AQz me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

          Try now………………. VISIT HERE

      2. Don’t worry: in 5 years, $3k will barely buy you a cup of coffee.

        1. After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them khj for 4 months was for $4500… Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet…Read all about it here… READ MORE

      3. “When you have to pay $3K extra for a car to fit a breathalyzer it’s real money. Out of your pocket.”

        Exactly. “If you think it’s expensive now, just wait ’til it’s free!” – Ronald Reagan

    2. why even tax us? just greenlight your bullshit until someone votes you out for the next Spend & Spender

    3. It’s time to RE I’ve these people. Period.

    4. This costs less then Dubya’s last Republican War.
      All we got from that was more wars.

      1. Bush was a neocon. Fortunately, those people are being sent back scurrying to the Democrats, where they originally came from.

    5. It is real money, YOUR MONEY, your paycheck, your savings, your retirement account, your kid’s or gandkid’s piggy-bank. It is called inflation. YOU WILL PAY FOR IT, DEARLY!

  2. “Bipartisan “

    1. “Infrastructure”

      1. When “everything” is “Infrastructure” why can’t “everything” be “Bipartisan”? It’s like a new political tautology.

        1. I read on msn (!) yesterday that $128B is going to “illegal immigrants”. That’s infrastructure for ya.

          Oh, I’m sure some racists will object to that. Haha.

    2. It’s hilarious how obvious Reason is being in following their instructions

      1. A sham libertarian magazine writing sham articles about a sham infrastructure bill.

    3. “biPaRTisaN“

      Suderman claims it as such 12 fucking times. Even though he knows full well it’s a 100% Democrat creation.

      “B-b-b-but 19 Senate GOPe’rs voted for it” – and how many had a hand in crafting it?

      I’m so sick of the constant gaslighting.

      1. The gaslighting at this point is so obvious and gross.

        Whining at Republicans for basically letting Democrats spend ungodly amounts of money.

        It’s clearly a heads Democrats win, tails Republicans lose framing.

    4. You know what was not bipartisan?

      The $3.5T that the Senate just approved on a pure party line vote. Almost three times as much spending as this bill.

      https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/senate-approves-3-5-budget-resolution/2021/08/11/id/1031883/

      But I doubt Suderman will be writing any headlines touting those facts.

  3. They have the control now, and they know they’re going to lose it in 2022. Why wouldn’t they do this?

    1. Correct; claim whatever credit and political capital for “what they did” for everyone and blame the inevitable outcome on the successors who will be holding the [empty, very empty] bag.

    2. “they know they’re going to lose it in 2022”

      Oh Unicorn, I hate to break it to you, but they’re never ever going to relinquish power again.

    3. It boggles my mind how you drooling fucking retards could look at the 2020 election, then look at how a (unconstitutional) federal law is being passed to make the rules in every district in the entire country exactly the same as the rules they (unconstitutionally) instituted by judicial fiat in Pennsylvania, and still have some part of your tiny little pea sized mind actually think “Yeah, we’ll get ’em next time”.

    4. They should all be convicted of treason and executed.

    1. You keep saying “fully paid for” I do not think that phrase means what you think it does” Paraphrasing Inigo Montoya. Both parties do it.

  4. In a climactic vote this afternoon, 19 Senate Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), signed onto the bill

    Some Republicans are like walking around in soggy sneakers.
    Squish
    Squish
    Squish

  5. “19 Senate Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), signed onto the bill”

    That means 31 Republicans voted against it.

    Using the word “bipartisan” to describe a bill that a majority of Republicans voted against still seems awkward, at best, to me. It’s only bipartisan in comparison to the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill that he Democrats are presently working to pass with zero Republican support whatsoever.

    If the world “bipartisan” is being used in a way that means any quantity of Republican support north of zero, then the word “bipartisan” doesn’t mean anything. In my eye, a bill that passes over the objections of a majority of Republicans is not “bipartisan”.

    In fact, when a bill like this passes over the objections of a majority of Republicans–and with the yea vote of the Republican leaders–I think it’s time for the Senate Republicans to reconsider their leadership.

    If Mitch McConnell doesn’t represent the majority of Republicans, on such a crucial spending bill, then he shouldn’t be the Republicans’ leader in the Senate. Time to find a new leader.

    1. I did a fair amount of searching to get the exact breakdown, and what I found interesting is numerous press articles were careful to list the 19 Republicans who voted for it, without mentioning a single Democrat that voted for it.

      I’m not sure what to make of that.

      1. Those same press articles always fail to mention the bill number so you can’t go look it up on Congress.gov either

        Apparently the vote count was 69 to 30, so if 19 Republicans voted for it then every single Democrat did too, no need to name them

        1. See my link below.

          I believe it’s “H.R. 3684 (INVEST in America Act )”.

          Measure Title: A bill to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.

          P.S. Have you ever read the Federal Register updates to try to interpret what it even means? I suspect they make it as hard to understand as possible so you need to hire consultants to interpret it–like doctors used to use shitty handwriting on progress notes in the hospital so that what the record said could be disputed and impossible for a jury to interpret if they were sued for it.

          1. Measure Title: A bill to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.(*)

            Hint: it’s 90% “other purposes”, and “other purposes” means “crony capitalist handouts to Democrat lobbyists”.

      2. Did any Democrats vote against it? That would be newsworthy, like Republicans voting for it is newsworthy. Democrats voting for an obscene spending bill? That’s a given. Listing the ones who voted against it would be news.

        1. Yet for 8 months you’ve been attacking conservatives far more than Democrats. Weird.

          1. sarc may support the Democrats without question and defend them till his dying breath, but nobody better dare infer that he is one.

            1. Okay, that had me laughing out loud. Cheers.

            2. Crikey, not another ‘non-partisan libertarian’ who makes a point of being a smug dickhead every damned time about conservatives/the GOP? Though, in this case, a little more spine would have helped from the fuckers. Or, a lot, even.

      3. That may be because every single Democrat voted in favor of it. There’s no need to break them out individually because all the Democrats voted in favor of it.

        The thing I find curious is how they’re getting to 19 Republican senators. Maybe I’m missing one. Here’s the vote from the Senate’s website.

        https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00313

        I see 68 in favor.

        The Democrats have 50 seats in the Senate.

        The Republicans have 50 seats in the Senate.

        68 votes in favor minus 50 Democrats in favor = 18 Republican votes in favor.

        Where’s this 19 number? Shouldn’t it be 18 in favor?

        McConnell is listed as one of the 68 in favor.

        1. You should try to get on the radio. Well, unless you’re regurgitating what you heard on the radio. But if this shtick of yours is all original, then shit man try to get on the air! Call in as a guest. Become a regular. Your posts are so long I assume you put lots of thought into them. Seriously dude, other than being long-winded you’re a good communicator, and until you went full Trumptard I almost liked reading your posts.

          But he’s probably got me on mute because he interpreted my taking his logic to an uncomfortable conclusion as a personal attack. Like leftists who take offence when someone points out that intentions don’t equal uncomfortable results.

          Oh well.

          1. Always the poor victim.

          2. How sarcasmic can simultaneously brag about muting people and whine about being muted by Ken, is a mystery.

            An alcoholics inability for introspection I guess.

          3. until you went full Trumptard I almost liked reading your posts.

            Literally nothing about Ken’s posts has changed in nearly a decade. The only thing that changed is that you became a fucking psychotic Marxist and dropped the mask because Trump broke the brains of the people who you rely on to provide with your opinions.

            1. Trump is a pretty good fucking excuse to reconsider one’s support of the Republican party.

              1. Yeah, he’s a good reason to stick around, your hatred of him is a huge endorsement for what a good job he did.

                1. I don’t hate anyone. People don’t really control what they are. We can make certain small choices though. Like not supporting the world’s most mentally ill grifter to be in charge of the nukes purely out of petty spite for a person you’ve never met because he disagrees with you on politics.

                  1. Yet you actually do support Biden.

                  2. “I don’t hate anyone…”

                    Shitstain also is incapable of posting without lying.

              2. Such mean tweets.

          4. You’re such a disingenuous twat.

        2. Sometimes the Majority Leader abstains for procedural reasons.

          1. turd lies.
            It’s what turd does. turd never tells the truth if it can be avoided.
            turd is a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to realize everyone knows ht lies.
            turd is so stupid, he’ll lie, have the lie refuted, and then repeat the same lie an hour or a day later.
            Dishonest and stupid; that’s turd.

        3. R’s who voted yea = 18 per your http://www.senate link and an excel worksheet I got the following Republicans who voted Yea:

          Blunt
          Burr
          Capito
          Cassidy
          Collins
          Cornyn
          Cramer
          Crapo
          Fischer
          Hoeven
          McConnell
          Murkowski
          Portman
          Risch
          Romney
          Sullivan
          Tillis
          Wicker

          Also those who were to busy to actually do their jobs and shouldn’t be let off the hook:

          Barrasso
          Graham
          Rounds

          1. Burr, Cassidy, Murkowski, Romney, Collins… A veritable rogues gallery of NeverTrumpers joining the Democrats to fuck over America yet again. They need to change their last names to some variation of Vidkun Quisling.

            1. What is fucking America about this bill, specifically?

              I’m sure I can find plenty of things I don’t like, but I don’t mean that. What is so big and objectionable to you?

              1. LOL. Big Government (More Power, More Money) Good. Small Government (Less Power, Less Money) Bad. Did I get that right?

                1. So it’s always bad whenever government spends money on anything. That sounds like a useful philosophy.

                  1. So it’s always bad whenever government spends money IT DOESN’T HAVE on anything. That IS a useful philosophy.

                    1. Our government prints its own money, silly.

                  2. Yes. It’s always bad. It’s sometimes necessary, in very limited circumstances.

              2. Did you even read the article? Even the brown-nosing authors at Reason know it’s a crock of shit.

      4. It seems clear from messaging/coverage that the Ds really don’t want to take ownership of this bill.
        I’m sure there will be something people like in it, which they will take credit for, while blaming the Rs for everything that goes wrong.

        1. Isn’t taking credit for the good and blaming the other side for the bad standard politics, regardless of the policy or party in question?

          1. Yes, but the way that usually works is that you blame the other party for the consequences of legislation they pass.

            Democrats have taken this to a new level and now blame Republicans for the consequences of legislation proposed, written, and passed by Democrats.

            1. sarcasmic knows, but now that he’s trying to be besties with the fifty-centers, he’s gaslighting for free. He’s shit at it, but he’s trying his best.

              1. To be fair, even before he went completely fucking insane sarcasmic was always incredibly stupid and a very shallow thinker. The same half a dozen rote phrases and slogans mostly copped from Niskanen and Cato. When Trump absolutely destroyed the brains of the people sarcasmic relied on to provide him with his opinions, he inherited their derangement by osmosis.

        2. Or, they know that it will not pass the House. Either way, it’s the Sanders/Warren dems against the productive or tax paying districts dems in the house. Perhaps it’s a plan to take down or blame the progressives once and for all.

          MMT requires confiscatory taxation to fight inflation, if the reconciliation printing passes.

          1. Confiscatory taxation, or just taxation?

            1. What’s the difference according to you?

        3. 2-5% of the key will be spent properly. The rest will go to non infrastructure rewards for the dems and the republicans the dems bribed to vote for it. Or flat lit bloated waste in the contracting process.

    2. McConnell is being strategic on this one. Go along with the bill that is mostly actual infrastructure, a subject that a large majority of this country supports. Then block the huge non-infrastructure, infrastructure bill and use that to gain election wins.

  6. How much of this “infrastructure” bill is actually for roads, bridges, and structures? That’s what the newsreaders say but some reports I’ve heard claim that not even half of the spending is for “cement and steel” stuff that the public thinks it is for.

    1. The goal of every function of government is now to provide equity. Start there, work your way outward.

    2. At least $1.

    3. How much of this “infrastructure” bill is actually for roads, bridges, and structures?

      About 10% as far as I can tell. Of course, after the unions and government contractors take their cut, that’s more like 1-2%.

  7. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Is a Scam

    FIFY

  8. So much for that “debt ceiling” thingy. It was always a sham but they used to pretend that it matters.

    1. No doubt. Where are all the articles about the horrors of the federal government having to shut down if they don’t get to spend more than the ceiling?

  9. These senators are up for reelection in 2022, and they need to be replaced by someone else in the Republican primaries.

    Mike Crapo (R-ID) – 2022
    John Hoeven (R-ND) – 2022
    Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) – 2022
    Rob Portman (R-OH) – 2022

    The seats of these two are also up for grabs, but they’re retiring.

    Roy Blunt (R-MO) – Retiring
    Richard Burr (R-NC) – Retiring

    1. To be clear, those are the Republicans who voted for this bill and up for reelection in 2022.

      I wouldn’t mind seeing plenty of Democrats replaced, too.

      1. The point being, now that they’re not running anymore, they don’t care about keeping their promises to the voters that elected them. Just like John McCain and his vote to keep Obamacare, in spite of his promises.

        1. I think the never-Trump wing of the party really did see this as an opportunity to thumb their noses at Trump supporters. The narrative they want to project is that Republicans are turning away from Trump now.

          Meanwhile, they may be retiring because they don’t think they can survive a primary challenge or because they don’t see a place for Bush/Obama era establishment Republican anymore. Maybe they’re getting crowded out. They could be like what Rumsfeld used to call “dead-enders” in Iraq.

          1. They deserve to be executed for what they did. Along with the democrats.

          2. What exactly do you think would be good about Trump becoming dictator?

            1. Dictator? If trump runs in 2924 and is elected again, he will only be legible to serve one term. At the end of which he will be 82 years old. I know you’re a total idiot drone for the democrats, but by what rationale does he become a ‘dictator’?

              1. The rationale that he’s been spending his every waking hour trying to become one?

                1. He was far more restrained and respectful of the constitution and the limits of his office than either Obama, or Biden. Of course anyone will be a dictator to you that isn’t part of the democrat machine.

                  Pleas reply with some vague accusations of how Trump was a tyrant though.

            2. The fact that you can spew that kind of shit while your braindead in chief runs roughshod over the law to keep Nancy happy is telling.

              But those mean tweets…

            3. “What exactly do you think would be good about Trump becoming dictator?”

              Shitstain posts stupid question! Surprise (not).

    2. Crappo won’t lose because Mormons won’t turn on a fellow Mormon.

      1. They’re not too thrilled with Romney these days.

        1. I don’t think he’ll run again, but if he does he will get elected.

          1. Unlikely at this point. Lots of buyer’s remorse in Utah.

          2. flag for asshole

    3. Portman announced his retirement a long time ago, Ken.

      I need to bill you for all these corrections.

      1. Lol, FFS this may be the first time since the big bang you’ve been right. Don’t pat yourself on the back too hard.

      2. Portman announced his retirement on January 25th. You’re still using CDC data from before that to try to make points on here.

    4. I think Portman is retiring, too

  10. “The Republicans repeatedly claimed that the spending would be fully paid for…”

    #RepublicansForTaxHikes as a rule do not have high reelection rates.

  11. Suderman would do better to write something that doesn’t follow the political class narratives, or at least question their motivations. If he stuck with “sham” and applied that to the political class he’d do better. The RINOs voted for it, because they want more spending (does Suderman ever read Veronique de Rugy?). The rest is a lie.

    Regarding the two-bill deal, it seems to me the Democrats and RINOs are doing that and putting as much of their policy changes into the reconciliation bill so they only need a majority to pass, with the infrastructure deal being whatever they can’t put in that reconciliation package because they need 60 votes in the Senate. They’re saying they’re bending the rules as much as they need to pass all of it.

  12. Has anyone heard any kind of explanation, beyond broad assumptions [aka modern monetary theory] or magical thinking as to how all of this stupendous spending is supposed to pan out? It appears to me that we are heading off a cliff and no one seriously wants to say that the emperor is naked and demented, and that it’s all a fools game.

    1. We’ve been screaming it but nobody’s listening. Buy bitcoin or have some other way to plan for the ruining of the dollar.

    2. No. Most believe that we can just print money, consume goods and services, and someone somewhere will make more stuff somehow.

  13. I mean, it’ll always be a sham according to you.

    You consistently want lower taxes (like your master Koch), refuse to ever up taxes after they’ve been slashed, want everything paid for in full, and yet still want all the benefits of roads, bridges, etc.

    So sure- it’s a “sham” because by your standards nothing could ever be done.

    Even the most looney tuned people want our infrastructure maintained because it has allowed our economy to flourish far more than it ever would’ve without.

    1. 99.99999% of federal spending is in your “etc”

      1. It’s hilarious how obvious he is.

        1. “It’s hilarious how obvious he is.”

          It’s spelled “stupid”.

      2. Then maybe you’re the one with the bad ideas.

        1. We’re not. You’re just a partisan drone without an iota of independent thought. You’re also not very bright to begin with.

          If we got rid of federal spending not called for in the constitution, and actually eliminated the bloat and fraud on the contracting process for the rest of it, the federal government could be run for far less than the taxes taken in. Then said taxes could be lowered and the states could more efficiently spend their money on anything additional actually needed.

          You would like that. Then you progs in San Francisco could have your progtopia without involving the rest of us.

          1. The constitution doesn’t specify which federal spending is permitted. If it did, we’d have gotten rid of it centuries ago.

            Your fallacy is: the constitution says something it doesn’t say, and it’s always right.

            1. Yes it does. It’s permitted if it is specifically part of the eighteen enumerated powers. If it is not part of that, then it is not permitted. Period.

              You democrats want to make things up as you go along. Sometimes republicans do that too, which is also wrong. You only complain when a republican oversteps. As you are a lying, partisan sociopath that cares nothing for the rule of law.

        2. Braindead lefty shill. Go fuck off.

    2. roads & bridges lol 2008 called.

    3. This comment is one of the more painfully obtuse comments I have read in a while.

    4. 90% of roads and bridges are not funded by the federal government, but by local bond issues. If 5 trillion dollars annually is not sufficient to maintain the interstate highway system maybe we should consider open bidding.

      1. And paid for with gas taxes, unless they are stolen for bike paths and mass-transit no one uses.

    5. Yet almost none of the spending in this bill goes for raids, bridges, etc.

  14. bipartisan lol you are an exquisite (D) mouthpiece

  15. The term bipartisan in usage when it doesn’t represent of a majority of both parties renders the word meaningless.

    In a split of 50/50 Senate.

    If one party votes 49-1 and the other party votes 2-48, under the usage here both votes are considered bipartisan, both the no and yes votes were bipartisan votes. It makes the word meaningless.

    The only rational usage of the word makes sense when a majority of both parties say yes or no to an item, not when a small subset of one party joins a majority of the other.

    1. Or you could stop wasting your life defending Republicans. They’ve never done a goddamn thing for you except make you feel that they can defend your culture from itself.

      1. Yep, plenty of shitty republicans, along with the 99.9% of shitty democrats. I favor executing all of them.

        I notice, as usual, you have zero criticism for your democrat masters.

        1. Maybe it’s a choice between a leaky bucket of water and the fire consuming the entire planet. I’m not suicidal yet.

          1. True. That’s why I don’t abandon the GOP. It’s the one real firewall between Americans and becoming a Marxist authoritarian shithole like Venezuela or Cuba. I know you will keep trying.

            You won’t rest until you succeed, or are put down. Odds are you will be put down.

            1. So you think you have the right to commit genocide because your political opponents have different ideas about politics than you, which are ideas they don’t even actually have.

              You seem like you should vote.

              1. You’re such a liar. It isn’t your ideas. It’s the horrible authoritarian actions you take to inflict those ideas. Destroying the freedom and prosperity of Americans. You always frame this like you’re some kind of victim that just has ‘ideas’. You passive aggressive little faggot.

                You may be fucked by men, but you really aren’t one. And anything that happens to you and your slaver pals is just self defense. If you want to live in peace, leave us alone.

                1. All I did was vote, which is a right you want to take away from me. Only one of us has the right to kill the other, according to the founding fathers.

      2. Or you could stop wasting your life defending Democrats. They’ve never done a goddamn thing for you except make you feel like you can’t defend yourself from their culture.

        FTFY.

  16. So how is everyone digging Joe Biden’s America so far? I mean, things are absolutely wonderful these days now that Trump is gone, right? There’s no more mean tweets!

    1. I’ve seen some pretty mean tweets, but they are mean to the right people so they don’t count.

    2. I’ll take Biden’s America over Trump’s any day. We have experts in the Cabinet instead of political hacks, our environment is being protected, and we have a President that has confronted the COVID problem instead of ignoring it. If not for Trump’s ignorance regarding COVID, it would be behind us now.

      1. yeah… that environment sure took a hit during the Trump years.
        We’re lucky anyone on earth is still alive!

        1. There can’t be anything wrong with the environment. Jim Inhofe brought a snowball onto CSpan.

      2. You’re either a lying sack of shit, a complete retard, or most likely both.

        If anyone is to blame for SARS-Cov-2, it’s the ChiComs (who I bet you probably love), the virus exists all over the world (not just in the United States), and it’s going to be an endemic virus that hangs around more or less forever regardless just like the Spanish flu, for the simple reason that it lives and spreads through dogs, cats, rabbits, deer, minx, and probably many other animals that we aren’t even aware of yet.

        1. An odd position to take. You seem to think it matters *who* is to blame, yet you’ve forestalled all future blame with this “it doesn’t matter anyway” and “Trump can do no wrong” stuff.

          1. Trump did a number of wrong things. I have no problem pointing that out, anymore than I have a problem condemning the traitors who voted with your masters on this bill.

            You will never really criticize your Marxist masters. You are a sycophant and a drone for them.

            1. I have no masters, and the only alleged Marxists I’ve ever heard about are goth girls on YouTube who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.

              You should make sure the problem you think is such a problem is actually real before you go on to commit genocide on people for the crime of having different ideas than you.

              Like, make sure your ideas are right. Read Wikipedia or something. No?

              1. Yes, I’m sure you see yourself as having a seat at the table, when in reality you are a drone they will sacrifice on a whim. Make no mistake, the people who the the democrats are your masters. You’re just too stupid and narcissistic to see that.

                And you clearly have no idea what the word genocide means. Which doesn’t surprise me. Any deaths on your side will be in self defense. You craven little twat.

                At least have the stones to admit what you are.

      3. You’re a fucking moron. Biden’s cabinet would be a joke if it weren’t such a horror show.

      4. You forgot the ‘/sarc’ at the end.

    3. So how is everyone digging Joe Biden’s America so far?

      It’s the government Americans deserve, good and hard.

      It’s the government Reason lobbied hard to get; Libertarian Moment!

    4. The one silver lining is that enough people might get nary enough to organize and overthrow the leftists and purge our country of them.

      1. It’s always so cute when a moron discovers the virtues of taking what he wants with violent force.

        1. No, it will be self defense. Your tyrannical efforts are an ongoing act of aggression to Americans. To avoid your destruction and live in peace, you are welcome to abandon your Marxist be,Jeff’s and stop all related efforts.

          Basically, if you leave Americans alone, we are happy to leave you alone.

          1. Those weren’t Marxists who attempted to murder Congress and overthrow the constitution. They were fascists.

            Fascists always think they’re acting in self defense against the Marxists. That’s how that works.

            1. Those idiots were trespassers and vandals. No attempted murder took place. Not like your antifa and BLM friends who murdered dozens, and cause billion property damage.

              But cling to your propaganda. You need it to suppress free speech.

  17. Da Reason! Everything about the Biden administration and current Democratic party agenda is a sham. A money spending, nation dividing, hate spewing, lying, dictator creating, sham.
    Peter Suderman name all the Biden policies you support?
    Peter Suderman name all the Biden policies that are better than Trumps policies?
    Trump sucked when it came to deficit spending, but Biden is worse. Trump sucked when it came to domestic spying but Biden is worse. Trump was infinitely better on the border, the First Amendment, The second amendment, the military, Federal courts, the economy, energy independence, and I could go on, but you get it. Trump did not pack the courts, did not try to Federalize elections when Republicans were in power, and did not try to turn Republican cities into states or defund the police. Trump did not divide the country, his opposition did. Considering the lies and conspiracies against Trump what he did accomplish was commendable, especially warp speed vaccines. What he was terrible at, Biden is even worse.
    Does Trump have some personality issues? Sure, but Biden has worse problems, with corruption ad dementia. I believe in policy over personality any day.

  18. What we need is for the Republicans to stop protecting the rich (and thus themselves and their lobbying money) and start making them pay their fair share. Time to raise their taxes and cut out their loopholes. We don’t get them. They shouldn’t either. The Republicans (and some Democrats, too) have exploited our system for far too long, at us working peoples’ expense. Time for them to pay up. But I agree, the chances for this actually happening are slim to none. Trump and Republican cult care for nothing and nobody but themselves. They’ve exploited our infrastructure enough while they got rich. They’ve never accepted responsibility for their actions before. It’s foolish to think they will now, even though they have the responsibility to rebuild what they have destroyed.

    1. You’re a massive fucking idiot.

    2. Is this for real?

      1. This os the lind of ‘Libertarianism’ Reason foments in a post-Trump world

    3. Hello! Honest question. How much is a ‘Fair Share’ for the rich to pay? Is fair subjective, or will everybody’s fair share be about the same?

  19. I really am impressed at the spin of this article. It literally blames Republicans for the Democrat spending. Just astounding to me.

    1. But you aren’t astounded by why you care about defending the honor of Republicans?

      Why is that, specifically?

      1. I tried to understand your question, but it makes no sense. It think it’s trying for a strawman argument, but it fails so badly that I really can’t tell.

    1. I don’t want to click the link. Can you put it here?

  20. As Reason’s Eric Boehm reported, the Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ nonpartisan scorekeeper, estimates that the bill would add at least $256 billion to the deficit, and probably more like $400 billion. Nineteen Republicans voted for it anyway.

    Two and a half years ago, the CBO projected that Trump’s tax cuts would add five to eight times $256 to $400 billion to the federal deficit – and ALL fifty-one Republican senators voted for it.

    “CBO Confirms GOP Tax Law Contributes to Darkening Fiscal Future
    Feb 5, 2019
    CBO projected that the tax cut will add $1.9 trillion to deficits over 10 years, even after accounting for any growth effects. We are already seeing this play out. The deficit grew 17 percent last year and is projected to grow another 15 percent this year even as the economy grew faster. The idea that tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would allow us to grow our way out of debt – one of Republicans’ favorite myths – has proven incorrect once again.”
    https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/cbo-confirms-gop-tax-law-contributes-darkening-fiscal-future

    1. Republicans must, if anything, care the least about the deficit.

      1. Pls Biden wants an annual regular budget of $8.2 trillion and you’re condemning the republicans over the de o rats on spending? You’re like a brainwashed statist stooge right out of ‘1984’.

        1. I’m not condemning anyone on “spending.” The US government prints its own money. It actually can’t run out.

          I do condemn Republicans for their total embrace of rejecting empirical reality including science and who wins elections.

          1. It can’t run out. But it can render our currency effectively worthless. You’re too stupid to understand that.

          2. Yes, it actually can run out of money. You honestly can’t be this economically stupid, can you?

            1. Tony really is that stupid, I’m afraid. The boy actually does need someone to hold his hand across the street, hence the shilling.

    2. Except the tax cuts added 0 dollars to the deficit. Spending just kept going up and revenues were flat.

  21. At the same time, Congress has been consumed by gridlock and dysfunction, and as a result there has been a growing sense, shared in part by many frustrated lawmakers, that it has lost the ability to get things done.

    That’s how the Republic is suppose to work dumb*sses. That’s a *clear* sign that nobody wants YOU NAZI’S to “get” … anymore … “done”. Now stop being frustrated and GO GET A JOB that creates a value!

  22. If you or Republicans want to pay for things, you need to advocate raising taxes. That’s how you pay for things.

    If you’re unwilling to do that, then you don’t want to do anything, you have no ideas, and you’re just a sad ascetic dogmatist sitting in his own piss griping about the universe existing. If taxes must exist (and even you people believe that), then sometimes they have to go up. Right?

    It’s no small matter to having lived under the yoke of this stupid horseshit bald-faced illogic. Republi-tarian OCD nonsense, dogmatic stuff that admits exactly zero intrusion by the circumstances of the real world, takes its toll once you muck about in it for 40 solid years.

    $500 billion to update the entire country from its crumbling 50s-era reality is not that much in today’s money. And it wouldn’t have to have been that much if people like you guys didn’t insist that government can’t and shouldn’t ever do anything other than give you your specific free shit that you think can exist in a vacuum.

    Not that you ever explained why you were entitled to your free shit but nobody else is.

    1. Or, faggot, we could use the 5 trillion dollars you already steal from the 47% of America that pays taxes and not spend more than that.

      1. If only the things you were saying had any connection to reality.

        At this point I must insist that this hypothesis of yours address the stuff going on in the lab.

        1. Fuck off you moron. You know nothing. You’re just a raving faggot and an idiot propagandist.

          1. That could be true. Or it could be true that Donald Trump is the liar.

            How could you ever possibly know?

            1. Because my IQ is far greater than yours, as is my overall education and knowledge. You really revel in your ignorance and blind submission to democrat propaganda.

              But what else should I expect from someone whose entire sense of self is based on his desire to be sodomized by other men, and make others pay for his living through authoritarian government?

              1. I’m so smart I don’t even believed IQ is a thing. That’s my sense of self.

                1. Again you betray your ignorance, and stupidity. Your narcissism won’t let you admit what an idiot you are.

            2. Everyone knows you’re full of shit, Tony.

    2. Hmmm…or, can we just pay for a few things that cost far less than we’re spending now?

      1. Exactly how much should we let the country crumble into ruin before we fix the thing we can fix now and worry about eliminating Social Security and the Pentagon later?

        1. So, just more worthless spending is your answer to everything? The government is atrocious at spending money wisely, yet your only response is they should just spend more.

          It’s sad that you’ve turned into such a troll. You used to raise some interesting points. But now that you are so far into the weeds, it’s hard to even engage with your lunatic positioning.

        2. Sell your Individual souls to the [WE] foundation; Because you don’t own you, [WE] own you!

    3. Just because you can’t tie your own boots doesn’t mean the rest of us are so handicapped.

      Roads and bridges are OK. It’s local work. This bill is barely infrastructure.

  23. This package costs 2.7 Elon Musks. How on earth is that considered expensive?

    Is it because Elon Musk controls an absurdly ridiculous amount of resources for one person?

    No? Oh it must be cheap then.

    1. Where’re the pitch forks and torches? C’mon men! Let’s get ’em! They’re rich!

      1. As a francophile I of course will not permit any method of execution but the original.

        1. It will be a great day for this country when you and your political allies are lawfully executed for treason.

          1. The treason being my differing political beliefs, correct?

            No way you’re gonna find two witnesses.

            1. No, your authoritarian subversion of the constitution where you tell us what we can say, what we can do, taking more of our money yet still wasting trillion on your leftist bullshit, which is destroying our currency, your submission to the ChiComs, and so much more. Of course you always try and frame this as a ‘difference of opinion’, and play the victim.

              You’re not. You continually try to victimize Americans, and if you don’t stop your assault, Americans will stop you. So fuck off with your lies, and back off while it’s still an option.

              1. It’s actually just a difference of opinion. And while it’s neither here nor there, part of that difference of opinion is about what actual facts are happening in reality.

                1. It isn’t. Your masters are actively subverting our constitutional rights. So stop with your lies.

  24. Private industry tried to build additional infrastructure in the 1990’s but Congress chose to protect the Cable TV monopoly that was basically illegal. The Cable TV Act of 1992 was the law that prohibited private campanies from building additonal wired facilities. This law was supported by both Biden and Schummer over a Presidential veto. When government replaces free enterprise there is a probelm.

  25. You should blame people for the bills they vote for. Blame the Republicans for the $1.2 trillion bill. It’s not fair to blame them for the $3.5 trillion bill. (Unless they end up voting for it. Stranger things have happened.)

    And the $1.2 trillion bill is definitely worthy of blame!

  26. Nice article download now, you can create a non-plagiarism in Canva apk

  27. Nice article download now the mod apk Click here

  28. The federal government is a sham. The legislature, executive and Supreme Court are made up of lunatics, subversives, or anti-Americans and all have done their part to ensure this country collapses or becomes China West.

    1. Makes me wonder how long the DNC has been stuffing ballot boxes.

  29. Biden was voted in.
    We are going to have to shoot our way out

    1. When you lose an election you say “fair play” and move on with your life. There will be another election. I’m sorry you didn’t pay attention to civics class or politics until the world’s orangest dumbfuck twitterpated your gonads, but democracies really only work if people are educated, so please do your part.

      1. Dude they have the logs of the data being sent and recvd over the internet of them changing the vote totals.

        1. Citation please.

  30. “And lost in it all is the fact that vaccination effectively reduces the danger to people of COVID-19 even when others refuse to get jabbed.”

    There is no science that says that statement is accurate.

  31. Come on now, we all know that they had to pass the bill to see what was in it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.