The government is debating whether to include various pay-fors in order to fund the new infrastructure bill.
2015 December 1, Jason Plautz, “After Years of Waiting, Congress Finally Has Its Long-Term Transportation Bill”, in The Atlantic[1], Washington, D.C.: The Atlantic Monthly Group, →ISSN, →OCLC, archived from the original on 2023-02-01:
The bill is instead paid for by a jumble of pay-fors, including $40 billion from the Federal Reserve surplus account, which acts as a cushion to help the Fed take potential losses.
Why is it, she [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] retorts, that these questions arise only in connection with useful ideas, not wasteful ideas? Where were the 'pay-fors' for [George] Bush's $5 trillion wars and tax cuts, or for last year's $2 trillion tax giveaway to billionaires?
With the passage of a deficit-financed $1.9 trillion relief bill just hours away, Democrats in Congress may soon pivot to new agenda items, including President Biden's Build Back Better plan for infrastructure and other critical investments. And those lawmakers will inevitably face intense pressure from fiscal moderates to include tax "pay fors" in spending legislation.
2021 August 9, Victoria Guida, “Washington wakes up to crypto influence amid infrastructure fight”, in Politico[4], archived from the original on 2022-12-09:
"Other industries were probably better prepared to fend off being a pay-for," said Ed Mills, Washington policy analyst at Raymond James. "This is the first time they've really been on the menu."
