Skip to Content


Redefining the Word "Infrastructure"

What makes the recent “infrastructure” proposal from President Biden so frustrating is that his proposal has very little to do with actual infrastructure. We dug into a few examples in my post back on March 31st, but I want you to recognize what’s happening with the language being used.

So we’re all on the same page, infrastructure refers to (A) physical objects that are (B) necessary for the basic functions of society, and (C) which are available for use by – and benefit of – society as a whole. Whether we’re talking about runways, roads, railways, bridges, water systems, electric grids, communication networks – that’s infrastructure!

We know that government uses taxpayer dollars for many infrastructure projects. (Not all, but many.) We also know that regardless of whether it’s paid for with public or private funds, government obviously has a regulatory and oversight role in our nation’s infrastructure.

Meanwhile, we know Mr. Biden and Congressional Democrats have a LOT of things they want the federal government to control and pay for, especially when it comes to the “Green New Deal.” In fact, almost half of Mr. Biden’s $2.3 trillion “infrastructure” proposal relates to climate change.

I’m not saying that issue is unimportant, but it sure as ____ isn’t infrastructure. As you’re watching the news, pay attention to how proponents of Mr. Biden’s proposal are now using phrases like “climate infrastructure”, “human infrastructure”, “health infrastructure”, “care infrastructure”, and “research infrastructure.” (With zero pushback from the media.)

Friends, those things ARE NOT INFRASTRUCTURE! They’re trying to redefine the word, hoping you’ll find it more palatable when they spend money we don’t have on liberal endeavors with questionable outcomes.

Words mean things. Real infrastructure reform could be a uniting, bi-partisan effort in Congress. It’s too bad Mr. Biden and congressional Democrats have different objectives here.