Too much in infrastructure package isn’t necessary

Published 1:30 am Monday, June 14, 2021

I believe all of us are interested in improving our infrastructure. That is the not the reason many are uncomfortable with, and are opposed to, the present bill in Congress (“Federal aid sought to give aging U.S. 2 trestle a facelift,” The Herald, June 2).

Many of us are aware that the authors of this bill have hijacked and redefined the meaning of the word infrastructure. It should be roads, bridges (like the U.S. 2 trestle highlighted in a recent message from Rep. Susan DelBene), rail and port facilities and resources, utilities, electric power resources, pipelines, telecommunications, internet, etc. These are the tangible, basic, and essential physical elements of our civilization. The bill being promoted now in Congress is not primarily focused on these real needs. It is packed with political payoffs to special interests under the guise of infrastructure that are not actually about real infrastructure. I do not appreciate this. In fact, I find it offensive and patronizing to me as a taxpayer and citizen.

Because of the abundance of pork that is in this bill, the price tag is inflated to a level that represents to me irresponsible spending that contributes to the ongoing attack on our financial system due to ongoing profligate spending.

This kind of excess is a bipartisan crisis and must be reversed. Let’s have a real infrastructure bill that deals exclusively with those needs and let us commit to working together in bipartisan cooperation to curtail our drunken spending binge that is destroying the next generations’ future!

Don Peter

Lake Stevens