3 ms·

If infrastructure is federally maintained and a bridge in Pittsburgh collapses, voters in Alaska, California, or Texas aren't really going to care. Or at least

If infrastructure is federally maintained and a bridge in Pittsburgh collapses, voters in Alaska, California, or Texas aren't really going to care. Or at least not care enough to push their congresscritter to actually do something about it. If Pittsburgh pays for its own infrastructure (or potentially if it's done at the state level) then voters are far more likely to care and to hold their elected representatives to task. A separate reason is that a sizeable chunk of people want their tax money to mostly go towards supporting their own city/county/state. They don't want tax money from taxpayers in Mobile, Alabama funding bridges in Vancouver, Washington or vice versa. Edit: Also if they were federally managed that would likely mean the feds giving that money for the states to manage, and that always comes with strings attached. See, for example, highway funding to states being dependent on raising the minimum drinking age to 21

long_time_gone 5y ago
These seem like arguments to eliminate the federal government entirely. If the citizens don't want it and don't care about people in other states, then we aren't really a union. Meanwhile, the voter in Alaska has a huge portion of their infrastructure funded by tax payers in other states. > Also if they were federally managed that would likely mean the feds giving that money for the states to manage It is done that way today because no state collects enough gas tax to actually fund their own roads and bridges. All money comes with strings attached, it's one of the characteristics of money.
- SllX 5y ago
  The Feds do things besides move our money around different States to inefficiently spend on local infrastructure. If you want to go all in on the eliminating the Federal government, you’d have to also go after the Military, Federal Courts and the Department of State.
- Xeoncross 5y ago
  > then we aren't really a union A republic union in military protection and legal/political bridges/agreements. If the fed is in charge of everything, then there is no union, just a large federal state. This is what we're becoming as everyone places their hope in Congress for solutions. Like most large countries with a single rule instead of unified states, we're going to regret this more as time goes on. (Excluding countries smaller in population than a single US state)
monkeybutton 5y ago
If infrastructure was all locally funded, wouldn't there be even worse disparities between rich and poor states? From the federal government's point of view, you'd want to invest in weaker areas and bring them up to the same level as the rest of the country.
- MagnumOpus 5y ago
  > From the federal government's point of view, you'd want to invest in weaker areas and bring them up to the same level as the rest of the country Building bridges to nowhere in Alaska or fancy bridges/tunnels in places with zero population density is extremely unlikely to make these areas a net contribution to the federal budget over the long term - just the opposite. Arguably extremely rural areas are already oversubsidised and will be never self-sustaining in terms of infrastructure, in terms of just meeting the cost of maintaning roads, power, water, mail delivery infrastructure...
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  What makes you think the federal government is going to care more? My impression is that the higher up in government you go, the stronger the hold of special interests (special interests work for the rich, not the poor).

long_time_gone 5y ago

These seem like arguments to eliminate the federal government entirely. If the citizens don't want it and don't care about people in other states, then we aren't really a union. Meanwhile, the voter in Alaska has a huge portion of their infrastructure funded by tax payers in other states. > Also if they were federally managed that would likely mean the feds giving that money for the states to manage It is done that way today because no state collects enough gas tax to actually fund their own roads and bridges. All money comes with strings attached, it's one of the characteristics of money.

SllX 5y ago
The Feds do things besides move our money around different States to inefficiently spend on local infrastructure. If you want to go all in on the eliminating the Federal government, you’d have to also go after the Military, Federal Courts and the Department of State.
Xeoncross 5y ago
> then we aren't really a union A republic union in military protection and legal/political bridges/agreements. If the fed is in charge of everything, then there is no union, just a large federal state. This is what we're becoming as everyone places their hope in Congress for solutions. Like most large countries with a single rule instead of unified states, we're going to regret this more as time goes on. (Excluding countries smaller in population than a single US state)

monkeybutton 5y ago

If infrastructure was all locally funded, wouldn't there be even worse disparities between rich and poor states? From the federal government's point of view, you'd want to invest in weaker areas and bring them up to the same level as the rest of the country.

MagnumOpus 5y ago
> From the federal government's point of view, you'd want to invest in weaker areas and bring them up to the same level as the rest of the country Building bridges to nowhere in Alaska or fancy bridges/tunnels in places with zero population density is extremely unlikely to make these areas a net contribution to the federal budget over the long term - just the opposite. Arguably extremely rural areas are already oversubsidised and will be never self-sustaining in terms of infrastructure, in terms of just meeting the cost of maintaning roads, power, water, mail delivery infrastructure...
throwaway894345 5y ago
What makes you think the federal government is going to care more? My impression is that the higher up in government you go, the stronger the hold of special interests (special interests work for the rich, not the poor).