We have recently been faced with one of the most horrifying domestic tragedies a nation can witness. A heavily-traveled artery, which provided the backbone of a major city’s transportation needs, mysteriously descended into a pile of rubble feet below in the Mississippi River. There is no doubt that the tragedy in Minnesota is a terrific terror to those who witnessed it, and all the prayers and help our great nation can offer should be with them. However, the liberal congress in Washington has unashamedly turned the bridge collapse into a politically-polarized agenda designed to further smear top government officials, namely President Bush. Some liberals have conjured enough nerve to link the war in Iraq to the bridge accident. The Democratic Party is screaming with signs that it is cracking from the inside out, and many of its leaders, confronted with sinking confidence in congress and rising confidence in the president, are gripped with panic. The democrats’ unabashed animosity for the Republican Party and the president is appalling. The democratic leaders are so afraid of what they are hearing that any opportunity to blame something, anything, on conservative values will be taken straight to the conservative-hating media. The congress has tried to appear valiant by allocating over 200 million dollars to the reconstruction of the bridge. This action should not be criticized because as the law stands now, the correct action was taken. Nevertheless, it enables the democrats and the bureaucracy they bring with them. They can now point to themselves, proclaiming that they allocated the money to fix the problem. Unfortunately, this will appeal to some people who, unaware of the risk, believe in the good intentions of bureaucratic nature. The shameless Washington democrats and their believers wouldn’t have it occur to them that their own irresponsibility led to the failure of the bridge in Minnesota, and if something isn’t done soon, similar tragedies will occur.
The liberal believer thinks that government can solve anyone’s problems. They believe that government should usurp power from the people and states in order to do things in a more streamlined and efficient way. Doing this has only proved that the liberal agenda is the antithesis of what they are trying to accomplish. Liberals are the authors of countless organizations and committees with an alphabet of abbreviations, which are so large and cumbersome that their intent becomes lost. Such is the case with such an organization as the Department Of Transportation. Founded to oversee our country’s transportation needs, the DOT has become a power-seeking giant that micromanages activities that should be left to the states. The cost of doing business in this way is an enormous tax burden on the American people and the smaller local governments. A plan must be designed to return the money and power to the states, which has been unconstitutionally stolen from them. The plan should contain some of these points.
The federal government should purge themselves of all responsibilities of roadway maintenance. Following such action, the federal government would then return the money that would have been used for maintenance to the people in the form of tax credits and tax cuts. If the state government sees the need for this money to accomplish the same ends on their own, appropriate action can be leveled on the state government’s part to collect the money necessary.
Leaders of state governments should then appoint a task force to meet and consult with county and municipal governments to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the well being of all major traffic arteries. Based on the task force’s findings, the state government can then take the appropriate action based on the needs identified. Where possible the state should leave construction projects to cities. When the state level must take the responsibility of maintenance, any contract work that must be completed should be assigned on a competitive basis. This ensures a certain degree of price control, while promising quality work.
A plan that includes these points will catch many of the inadequacies involved in federal transportation responsibility. It helps to remove many middle men who increase the price of doing business and often decreases efficiency. Opponents of the plan use excuses such as some states cannot afford to take full responsibility of maintenance of roads, and leaving such responsibilities to state governments enables top officials to influence the quality of the state’s roads based on their own whims. The plan is full proof in those accusations as well.
It is true that some of the poorer states cannot afford a transportation budget the size required of such a large responsibility. However, that is only considering the state of the states’ finances at this time. After the federal tax burden is lifted by the cuts to the federal government’s transportation budget, the states will have direct access to money they only had limited or controlled access to previously. If the state in question is in need of this money to do the necessary road work, it can collect the funds in much the same manner as the federal government. The difference is that the state will take the money as needed. The federal government takes it, no matter the condition of the roads in the state it has taken it from. The federal government essentially takes money and returns it with federal strings attached, which specifies the way the money is to be spent. Proponents of federal government claim that doing so insures proper use of the money by states that need it. However, the so-called redistribution of the money does not and cannot occur. Any redistribution to more needy states is minimal. Essentially the states get the money they paid, only with the strings already mentioned. If true redistribution occurred, the effect would deprive the states that had the majority of the money taken from it. In short, that state would soon suffer from problems like those of the state which received the money to eradicate the same problems. The process would be a continual seesaw.
It is true that state government can be at the mercy of the whims of those in power. However, it is no more the case than it is on the federal level. One may argue that the whims of politicians are displayed much more generously in Washington than anywhere else. Perhaps that isn’t far from the truth. Many dollars go to pet projects of a certain member of congress, who is only insuring that a friend or campaign contributor is repaid. Additional money is allocated too many non-government organizations and some organizations which no longer exist or whose existence cannot be confirmed. The federal government can hardly be accused of being responsible with its finances.
A plan that will insure efficient state control over transportation will guarantee the American people greater choice and quality. It will reduce expenses by removing the federal government, which is a middle man itself, and the additional middle men it brings along. Such a plan helps encourage fiscal responsibility on the part of state government, and reduces unnecessary demands on the way state projects should be funded and conducted. Finally, greater state control stops the constant enabling of liberal politicians who put political gain above the safety of the American people.