|
In response to
"So much of republican federal downsizing is simply pushing the burdens to state and local governments. I never understand why that seems like an ok "
by
pmb
|
Though decisions made at the state and local level may mean more efficient infrastructure investment.
Posted by
Roger More (aka rogermore)
Jun 4 '17, 10:48
|
People would be more willing to pay for, say, a bridge or a highway interchange, that they use, or that businesses in the neighborhood use, while (to take an extreme example) a bridge to nowhere in Alaska would be less likely to happen.
The risk with a federal system is that issues of merit and value (eg where is infrastructure run down the most? what investments would have the greatest impact to the economy?) have to be balanced against considerations of equity (should all the infrastructure investments and the economic opportunities that flow from them be located in a few lucky places?) and politics (this guy helped pass the bill so his state gets money even if it doesn't really need it)
Of course, you still get those issues at the state/local level - people in Peoria, or even in greater Chicagoland don't want to pay for Chicago's urban transit system, politicians can sell big dreams that don't match reality, etc
|