Uncle Samantics

Ever since President Biden announced his $3 trillion Infrastructure Bill, you figured that the debate over it would be about the money.  Not just for how much the amount being presented was, but on the other end, those who felt it wasn't nearly enough.

But although those debates have occurred, who would have imagined that the biggest Republican talking point  was not money -- and was not even whether the areas proposed to rebuild were in need of improvement and upgrading -- but rather what infrastructure actually was.  

There we have Republicans that the Biden proposal was inappropriate because the broadband Internet system wasn't brick-and-mortar infrastructure.  Or that the electric grid wasn't. brick-and-mortar infrastructure.  Or that nursing home care wasn't brick-and-mortar infrastructure.  Or...or...or...  They weren't traditional infrastructure, so, no, they aren't infrastructure.

Of course, once upon a time during the days of the horse-and-buggy, automobiles weren't traditional infrastructure either. Or in the days of the Model T, that weird Wright Brothers contraption, the aeroplane, most certainly wasn't infrastructure.  Infrastructure?  A federal program for those death traps?  Would be be insane enough to go up in the sky with one of those things?  If God meant for Man to fly, he'd have given us wings and bodies that could all fit into a narrow seat.  Less than 70 years ago -- during the lifetime of many Americans, or at the very least, the lifetime of most Americans' grandparents -- we didn't have a national highway system.  Highways, during this recent lifetime, were not traditional infrastructure.

But, oh, no, if it's not Traditional Infrastructure, if it's not bridges and roads and ports, it's apparently not actually infrastructure.

The thing is, the point here isn't about what infrastructure is or even the cost of it all.  The point is that I realized this is all an issue of semantics.

After all, Republicans -- at the moment -- aren't especially debating money or whether any of the proposals are deserving.  It's what is infrastructure.

My suggestion is that as good, clean and tradition a word as "infrastructure" is, it would be a totally different matter if the White House had instead called their plan, the "Things America Needs to Grow and Be Strong and Up to Date in the Future Bill."

Call the Bill that and you no longer have to win an argument of whether the Internet is "infrastructure"  And whether the electric grid is "infrastructure"  And whether nursing home care is "infrastructure"  You only would have to argue "This is really, really important to how America with run in the future and compete with the rest of the world and provide for the well-being of the country, while creating jobs to build it all."

Now, yes, there would then be a debate on whether each of these needing improving and how much less or more we should spend on that.  But that's the debate we would have -- and should have.  Not one about, "Hey, that isn't a bridge, it's not infrastructure."

And not only would it focus the matter far more intently for politicians in Washington, it would, as well, for Americans.  They could agree or disagree, but worry about improving the national broadband Internet network and not sit around the kitchen table pondering "infrastructure."

I like the word "infrastructure."  It's annoying to type -- especially when you have to type it a lot and it keeps coming out as "infracture" or "infastcturture"-- but other than that, it's a good, sold word with a lot of texture.  But y'know, we can still have a "Things America Needs to Grow and Be Strong and Up to Date in the Future Bill" where one of those things is...traditional infrastructure.  Bridges, roads, ports, all that good stuff that's solid and you can fee it and hold it in your hands, provided you have hands big enough to hold a road.  And plenty of room left over for all those things that society builds on as it changes.  Like, well, the Internet and electricity.  And even provide a corner over there for the foundation of it all, the care of people.  So, there would be something for everyone.

Not that everyone would want something that had something for everyone.  And that's okay.  But at least they would have to go on the record as being against things America needs to grow and be strong and up to date in the future.