March 29, 2024

Infrastructure spending is a go

The bipartisan infrastructure bill has now passed in both the House and the Senate and signed into law by President Biden. It was a long and painful process but it finally got done.

It’s been a long time since Congress addressed the need for building and repairing the nation’s infrastructure. The U.S. interstate highway system was built more than 60 years ago during the Eisenhower administration. Most water and sewer systems built under our cities are well in excess of 100 years old. There are thousands of bridges in the country that need to be repaired or replaced. Both passenger and freight rail lines are badly in need of attention. And those of us living in rural areas know all too well how poor internet service can be.

It was obvious something had to be done to fix the systems that move people, goods and services from place to place, and help us communicate with one another. We can see with our own eyes the poor condition of our roads and highways. We know many bridges are rated poorly and some shut down. We are aware of water pipes contaminated with lead, and we’ve all experienced how fragile and prone to failure our electrical systems are in adverse weather conditions.

Legislative action was badly needed, and thank goodness, there were enough members of this Congress to finally pass the bill. During the past four years, the former administration talked about “infrastructure week” so often it became a running joke in the press, but nothing was ever done to get such legislation underway. In fact, there has been consistent opposition to funding infrastructure projects, and even now with funding approved, Republicans claim the bill wastes money. Their claim that only half of it goes to real infrastructure, however, is disputed by most experts, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Opponents of the bill always bring up the issue of the deficit. It seems necessary in this case to add some to the deficit to improve the daily lives of American citizens; much different than increasing the deficit to give enormous tax cuts to the rich.

The Senate had passed the infrastructure bill more than two months ago, 69 to 30, with 19 Republicans, including Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, joining 50 Democrats to vote “yes.” In the House, 13 Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the bill. Democrat Representative Cindy Axne was the lone House member of the Iowa delegation to vote “yes.” Six members of the progressive wing of the Democrat party voted “no,” still holding out for a reconciliation bill to be passed at the same time. Their decision to vote against a bill that is good for the people they represent, may prove to be a serious political miscalculation on their part.

So, too, may the “no” votes by Republicans come to haunt them. Pundits will be watching and commenting when groundbreaking ceremonies are held for new projects and Republicans are there to take credit for a bill they voted against. Expect them to be called out publicly this time.

A few of the most important components covered by the bill includes $110 billion for repair of roads and bridges, plus another $40 billion for bridge replacement; $11 billion for transportation safety measures to reduce crashes and fatalities; $39 billion to modernize public transit; $66 billion for passenger and rail service; $65 billion to improve the nation’s broadband and bring the internet to areas without adequate service; $17 billion to upgrade airports and waterways; $7.5 billion to deliver thousands of electric school buses; $65 billion to rebuild the electric grid; $55 billion to upgrade water systems; and $50 billion to make public systems more resilient to storm damage.

Iowa’s estimated share of infrastructure funds includes $3.4 billion for highway aid; $304 million for public transportation; and $432 million for bridge replacement and repairs. The Iowa Department of Transportation says this funding is especially crucial for farmers who rely on the state’s transportation system.

Undoubtedly, a lot of money will go to urban areas because Democrats who worked so hard to get the bill passed, more often represent larger population centers. It’s always been a mystery to me why rural areas vote repeatedly for Republicans when their representatives do so little for them.