No, it's an argument against another $68 Billion, 170 mile High Speed Rail[1]. Just because the government could do something efficiently, doesn't mean it will

No, it's an argument against another $68 Billion, 170 mile High Speed Rail[1]. Just because the government could do something efficiently, doesn't mean it will be done efficiently. There are so many examples of this type of massive program bloat, every state in the union has numerous examples. So while there are some cases where a municipal fiber network has been built efficiently and well, that is the "unicorn" example, not the norm it seems. Besides, nobody has operated one of these municipal networks long enough to see if the local government has the stomach (or pocketbook) to maintain the network long-term (10-50+ years). Yes it can be done... but will it? That's the question that should be debated, particularly when the local government already doesn't have a balanced budget or has excess debts. Local governments can't just print money like the Fed... and that $9 Billion Bond Californians voted for doesn't even cover 15% of the cost of the HSR. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail