PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The question in this blog headline has arisen recently over the Biden Administration’s proposal to spend trillions on “infrastructure.”

Why would I, from the cheap seats out West, choose to write about this subject?  Well, the simple answer is that I find it to be an interesting example of what the federal government is doing as we know it today.  So, for me, that is enough.

I have no argument with the idea of investing more in the country’s roads, rail and bridges.  Too many of those pieces of infrastructure are failing.  Plus, investing in the subject will provide jobs for many Americans — and that also is enough for me. 

The “jobs message” has been an emphasis for Biden and his staff.

But, since the Administration announced its infrastructure investment (or is it a “spending” plan), trouble has cropped up around several corners. 

Enough so that it may be difficult for the Administration to find its way toward a bi-partisan solution, even though in the Washington Post today, Biden said this:

“He was open to compromise with Republicans on how to pay for the approximately $2 trillion jobs and infrastructure package, even as he insisted that inaction was untenable.”

As an aside, that quote is a solid testament to the idea of bi-partisan action.  It is up to any president to propose actions.  It is then up to Congress to dispose of those actions.  But, too often, disposing of executive actions means doing nothing.

In this case, what Republicans ought to do is take Biden at his word.  Move forward on infrastructure development.  Find middle ground on the idea, including how to finance it.  And recognize that infrastructure investments could play well with Republican voters around the country.

But, today, infrastructure is a term that means different things to different people.

For my part, the term would apply to “bricks and mortar” developments such as roads, bridges and the like. 

Not so according to the Biden Administration.  The term covers a huge list of what I would call non-infrastructure proposals, such as:

• A stipulation that none of the $350 million Biden proposed for state governments can be used to finance tax cuts.  In a way, that may make sense, but Washington Post columnist George Will calls it:   “The essence of progressivism’s agenda is to create a government-centered society by increasing government’s control of society’s resources, then distributing those resources in ways that increase the dependency of individuals and social groups on government.”

Perhaps, though it may make no sense for me to counter Will’s perspective because he ranks today as the one of the best analysts of government processes.

• Investments in broadband, energy, manufacturing, wastewater systems, electric cars, housing, school buildings and more also are part of infrastructure.
• An estimated $400 billion would go to expand Medicaid payments for home healthcare – also part of infrastructure.

At base, I have no problem with investments in in-home and personal care because many elderly individuals prefer to stay in their homes for as long as possible.  It’s just that such investments may not be part of infrastructure, so should stand on their own.

Still, in any infrastructure plan, I believe there is room for Democrats and Republicans to find something to like.

It’s just that, at the moment:

• The price tag may be too high.
• The proposed tax increases may be too high.
• The definition of infrastructure may be too broad.

But, if officials of good will and good intent – yes, I believe there be some left – will decide against inaction, there should be a way to find middle ground.

Allow the president to propose and allow Congress to dispose – in the best sense of the definition of both words.  And find something that will benefit all Americans.