Or should we think about using some of the infrastructure boondoggle bills of the last, say, 20 years on bridges that are about to collapse from long-acknowledged rust?
Nah, more paternity leave for Transportation Secretaries ought to do it.
I personally object, and objected at the time, to Federal Stimulus and Shovel Ready Infrastructure money being used to replace still-functioning traditionally valved restrooms faucets, toilets, and hot-air hand dryers with the electrically-operated "No Touch" sensor variety.
SARS and N1N5 came and went, and the electronics have in the decades since installation gradually failed. I watch at the public men's room as customers walk along, hammering upwards with a palm at every spigot, trying to get at least one of a half dozen faucets at the trough to spit water over dirty hands.
And I wonder how many of the fancy faucets were Made in America and how many, or what percentage of components, were shipped in from Asia?
To the extent the Federal government should be involved in infrastructure at all--and I think it does have a role under the Commerce Clause--I think Federal funds sent to the States should be contingent on the State already having signed a specific interstate infrastructure project and construction being already in progress for some period of time (three months comes to mind). Only then should Federal funds be transferred, only for the specific project, and only for no more than half the originally projected cost. Overruns and delays are on the States.
Of course, enforcing that and tracking the funds--and the other fungible funds transferred within the State--would be a cast-iron cisgendered female dog of the canine persuasion.
E Hines, I think the federal highway program falls under Ben Franklin's contribution to the Constitution, authorizing Congress to "Establish Post Offices and post Roads".
Franklin, or somebody, recognized if one hopes to consolidate the whole resources of a continent into a single polity, then AT LEAST message traffic must flow freely and speedily throughout.
And the Interstate Highway System falls under Eisenhower's national security concerns. The Commerce Clause easily encompasses a number of such infrastructure networks; although the post roads (also) have their own place in our Constitution.
In a sense government is all about roads: they need to build the roads for communication, and they need to put up gates and guards to keep undesirables from riding along the roads and plundering everything. If you manage to screw up both of these tasks, you can end up with Somalia; if you get good roads but not good guards, you can get the Mongol Horde. Good guards and good roads gets you something like Switzerland, perhaps, although maybe you need the Alps to be there first.
6 comments:
I personally object, and objected at the time, to Federal Stimulus and Shovel Ready Infrastructure money being used to replace still-functioning traditionally valved restrooms faucets, toilets, and hot-air hand dryers with the electrically-operated "No Touch" sensor variety.
SARS and N1N5 came and went, and the electronics have in the decades since installation gradually failed. I watch at the public men's room as customers walk along, hammering upwards with a palm at every spigot, trying to get at least one of a half dozen faucets at the trough to spit water over dirty hands.
And I wonder how many of the fancy faucets were Made in America and how many, or what percentage of components, were shipped in from Asia?
To the extent the Federal government should be involved in infrastructure at all--and I think it does have a role under the Commerce Clause--I think Federal funds sent to the States should be contingent on the State already having signed a specific interstate infrastructure project and construction being already in progress for some period of time (three months comes to mind). Only then should Federal funds be transferred, only for the specific project, and only for no more than half the originally projected cost. Overruns and delays are on the States.
Of course, enforcing that and tracking the funds--and the other fungible funds transferred within the State--would be a cast-iron cisgendered female dog of the canine persuasion.
Eric Hines
E Hines,
I think the federal highway program falls under Ben Franklin's contribution to the Constitution, authorizing Congress to "Establish Post Offices and post Roads".
Franklin, or somebody, recognized if one hopes to consolidate the whole resources of a continent into a single polity, then AT LEAST message traffic must flow freely and speedily throughout.
I think the federal highway program....
And the Interstate Highway System falls under Eisenhower's national security concerns. The Commerce Clause easily encompasses a number of such infrastructure networks; although the post roads (also) have their own place in our Constitution.
Eric Hines
I've always thought roads were among the best projects for government. If the government stuck more to things like roads we'd all argue a lot less.
In a sense government is all about roads: they need to build the roads for communication, and they need to put up gates and guards to keep undesirables from riding along the roads and plundering everything. If you manage to screw up both of these tasks, you can end up with Somalia; if you get good roads but not good guards, you can get the Mongol Horde. Good guards and good roads gets you something like Switzerland, perhaps, although maybe you need the Alps to be there first.
Post a Comment