Democrats should stick to compromise infrastructure bill

Clearly, there is a need for new bridges, dams, tunnels and highways. Throw in high-speed railroads and airport additions. I served as an elected official for 24 years in Mount Airy while I was working for the U.S. Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and was a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers for a number of years. I worked on smaller municipal projects — municipal sewer and water upgrades, roads and parks — as well as larger national projects, such as expanding our nuclear weapons producing facilities and construction of nuclear power plants.

Having said that, I am quite concerned about some of the steps that the more liberal Democrats are insisting be inserted into the current “Democrats only” infrastructure bill being crafted (“What’s in the bipartisan $973 billion infrastructure plan? Here’s a snapshot,” June 24). But I think the current Republican Party is not the one I knew a decade ago, is too concerned about being in power and I did recently register as a Democrat, but I’ve kept some of my conservative thinking.

I think the Republican Senate in concert with a progressive Democrat may deny a compromise infrastructure package based on the 10 Senator deal announced on June 24. The “going large” or Democrats only infrastructure bill conceivably could get through the U.S. Senate by appropriate political maneuvers, but it’s not clear at what cost.

First, there would be court challenges and these could continue for a decade or more — the Affordable

Care Act providing a recent example. Second, the bill likely would be crafted on the fly by Democratic consultants and likely will be voted on by 50 Democratic Senators, possibly including either a drugged-up or straight-jacketed Sen. Joe Manchin, but most won’t be aware of what it really says or what the cost will be.

Finally, the financial impact will be huge, either leading to tax increases or a deficit we can’t get away from. I could see legal challenges about requiring items without a clear delineation of how they would be funded. Can you include future taxes? The bridges, tunnels and highways will be engulfed in a never-ending blame game and likely will not be built in our lifetimes. That is the ultimate tragedy. I believe it would be much harder to challenge the “compromise bill” since it clearly identifies infrastructure as its objective and the spending plan has been worked out.

On top of that, the Democrats, who currently control the House, Senate (barely) and the White House, would come across as politically naive or tone deaf.

Dave Pyatt, Mt. Airy