Now, in the political universe, the definition is being expanded and/or contracted to meet a person’s desires to expand the funding or limit the funding.
In some realms, the contraction has it being limited to concrete and steel types of infrastructure. Roads, bridges, ports, airports, etc. Think of it as transportation-related. On the other hand, the term “infrastructure” is being expanded to anything they want to get funded in a bill that might pass under the reconciliation process in Congress. I think I heard a sound bite that went something like this: “Families are the basic infrastructure of our communities.”
I have no issue with providing appropriate funding for families or college students, but please don’t call it “infrastructure.” If we are going to debate the merits of spending money to upgrade our competitiveness on the world stage — and we do need modern infrastructure — don’t attach things that are only there in order for you to spend dollars on the subject.
On the other side of the equation, I do see solar panels, windfarms, 5G, Internet connectivity and the like as 21st-century infrastructure. Modernizing the electrical power grid while addressing climate change are not two opposing thoughts. Just as the electrification of rural America happened back in the 1930s, we need high-speed Internet in our rural cities and towns if we expect them to compete in our modern world.
Talking in soundbites is never a good way to debate an issue, but it has become our political pastime to “score points” oblivious to the actual facts surrounding the issue.
Let’s stop playing with definitions to suit our political persuasions or needs.
