Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
If the states are funding it, then they can make the decision whether the work is really needed and how to prioritize it to stay within their budgets. It means fewer projects that get created just to prove that some Senator is capable of getting money from Washington. It means the state gets done what it thinks really needs to be done rather than what somebody in Washington thinks makes a perfect one size fits all solution. Finally, it shrink's Washington's budget and their ability to meddle in things they shouldn't be be meddling in.
|
You know what's funny? The guy Minnesota elected to carry the title of Governor while he runs for president has real conservative fiscal bona fides. He'd sooner cut healthcare programs for thousands of sick kids and handicapped folk than raise taxes. A few years ago, his budget policies lead to a brilliant plan whereby the state department of transportation, which was unable to secure money elsewhere, tried to front a multiyear, multihundred million dollar highway construction plan. They seemed a bit shocked when there were no takers.
It was also on his watch that a large highway bridge collapsed after a "we'll do whatever the cheapest option is" maintenance plan had been in effect for several years. Sure, the bridge construction wasn't as specified, but it stood for 40 years. Perhaps a more rigorous (and expensive!) inspection scheme would have caught the problem before it got out of hand. In a way, it was kind of a good thing that the bridge collapsed, because its collapse caused widespread bridge inspections throughout the state and now there have several instances where tenuous bridges that likely would have been ignored have been replaced.
The point being: local people already make infrastructure decisions. Sometimes they make really bad ones. Local decisions aren't always better, they're just more influenced by local politics.