> URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2216532
> His main assertions are:
>
> 1) Things are a lot better now than they were 25 years ago. The current
> dire stat is that 25% of our bridges are "structurally deficient" or
> "functionally obsolete." In 1982, the figure was 45%.
What a crock. We happen to live in 2009, not 1982, and 25% is a scandal and an outrage. Note that this is just *one* infrastructure index: you have to consider the totality of roads, buildings, power supplies, sewers, etc.
> 2) Neither of those scary-sounding technical categories are really that
> scary. They don't mean the bridge is unsafe.
Oh yes they do. The margin of safety which should there, if the bridge was up to date, isn't there. That means a greater risk of catastrophe.
> 3) If we gives lots of money to localities to fix their bridges, the odds
> are very high that they will spend the money on new contruction rather
> than fixing existing infrastructure
What a crock. Infrastructure money -- and it isn't all that much -- is tracked by a range of Federal and state agencies. You can find out how much is spent, and where, and vote or pressure your local elected officials on how to spend that money, in ways which would be impossible with corporations or private infrastructure.
And not a word about the fundamental problem, which isn't Big Government, but Big Militarism: the US spends $1 trillion a year on unnecessary guns and criminal neocolonial wars. Take that money and spend it on education, health care, the environment.
-- DRR