No one can predict what bridge, levee or water main will fail next. But some problems are widely known, and work is long overdue.
Let's face it, the infrastrucutre of the USA is long overdue for an overhaul. Bridges collapse and kill commuters, blackouts in the northeast are caused by an aging electric grid, many roads are in barely drive-able condition, and anyone who flies regularly knows how decrepit the systems controlling air traffic are.
FDR built much of the infrastrcuture that made the USA an amazing success story; and Ike helped to refurbish and build more infrastructure in the late 1950's. But ever since the conservatives have taken over control of the Republican party government gets a bad rap. Our infrastructure was built by governement and without responsible government involvement it will crumble.
Read Popular Mechanics' report on The 10 Pieces of U.S. Infrastructure We Must Fix Now.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
so why is it republicans neglect the system when they control it? could it be they don't respect the system, don't even know the system, and wouldn't be too concerned if it all crumbled?
the infrastructure has been one of my "talking points" for almost 8 years. that, and the non-existent civil rights division of the dept of justice.
i suspect these things (and more) have simply been designated as secular, and thus deemed unworthy.
I think it stems from a deep-seated distrust of government. And it hasn't always been that way. Republicans, like Ike, could govern responsibly and care for the infrastructure - a "common good" if ever there was a "common good."
But Reagan, and his conservative gestapo government haters, reacted too strongly to admitted problems in terms of corruption and mismanagement. Instead of removing government and abdicating responsibility, better to improve oversight and managerial acumen for government problems.
Let's face it, infrastructure is not sexy and it will be allowed to rot by unless government steps up to the plate to resolve the problems.
This may be a skewed (ie personal) perception, but I suspect that 'sexy' in this instance includes largely 'Defense'.
I seem to remember a "60 Minutes" story years(and I mean years)ago which was about Sen. Robert Byrd and a highway he had built in West Virginia with federal funds which had no reason for being. It was out in the middle of nowhere. The problem with our infrastructure is not Dems or Reps, liberal or conservative, it has to do with national priorities.
I feel any infrastructure which is to be paid for with federal funds should be put before the people(all the people)and with the Internet that shouldn't be that hard. This would help keep Sen. Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere" and Byrd's "Highway to Nowhere" out of the picture and the rebuilding of New Orleans in the picture. Anyone who has had the importance of New Orleans explained to them would be a fool not to OK the funds to rebuild it.
Earmarks are the lifeblood of incumbants to stay alive(vampires?) and get reelected. But the earmarks which get infrastructure built has little to do with the national interest and more to do with some asshole politician's political life span.
I agree with you on earmarks and asshole politicians, Bawdy. But I do believe that the ball got rolling downhill with the ascendancy of the conservative movement in the Republican party and their "government is bad" mantra. Bad government is bad, yes, and we need to do more to ensure that we get good government instead of bad. Like what? Eliminate earmarks? Term limits? These are probably good starting points.
The mantra wasn't the "government is bad" it was the "government is a bad way to solve all of our problems". Conservative thought revolved around the idea the federal government should be small because it would be easier to control(by the people).
What is one of the biggest reasons citizens don't vote? I hear all the time, "why vote, it doesn't matter anyway". Voters feel a loss of control. Washington loves this because they can become less accountable. A perfect example is the problems the FAA is having right now. I believe it is the federal government's job to regulate the airlines, but I would love for the states to make sure the feds are doing their job and not in bed fucking the airlines. With 50 pairs of eyes watching the FAA(and lets face it, states have a vested interest in the safety of their own citizens)the feds just might find it harder to go to bed with the airlines.
And I maintain most citizens find it an easier task to keep an eye on their own state government than it is to watch the far away doings of Washington(maybe this is just because I live in Arizona, I don't know). I also think if the states had more power, other parties, besides the two in power, might have an easier time having a say in policy. Not a bad thing in my book.
Just saw an amusing celphone commercial with the headline: What if firefighters ran the world? It showed a large meeting chamber, obviously supposed to be congress or the senate, and all the seats were filled with grimy smoke stained firemen. Each holding a celphone. Guy at the front is reading off things from a list, "Who wants better roads?" "AYE!", He mutters, flapping the stack of papers, "Lot of paperwork to get clean air, this is the easiest job I've ever had! Who wants clean air?" "AYE". "Alright, let's call it a day and go home!"
Exactly, Bob. It isn't hard. And I think the problem is basically lifelong politicians with their snouts in the trough. If more people were able to run for office and win, and contribute to government, more would get done. And better.
csm: What? You mean...you mean it's not actually necessary to put every little project into 500 pages of legalistic political doublespeak, and then wait while people you can't stand tack on another 300 pages of codicils, exceptions, and additions?
More people would run for office and win and then contribute to society leading to more getting done if the big powerline still underconstruction to Washington D.C. were to be severed by its citizens. And it doesn't matter who wins this fucking election because the inertia of the last 75 years cannot be stopped by any of the three. Our problems will still compound.
This won't come as a surprise to any of you, but I feel the only answer is a complete devolution of power from Washington to the states. Corporations would lose much of their clout, the toilet bowl called Congress would drain and the 50 laboratories would be unleashed. Some(most from the other site)call this antiquated thinking, but in my defense, I can produce exhibit A, which is the last 75 years of centralized federal government, which cannot(in my eyes)be argued hasn't produce the vast majority of the ills which ail us now.
Bob,
Your analysis is spot on. I remember some time ago at Freethinkers we talked about writing a new Constitution. My contention was that it would never be the document we have now because of all the factional infighting, all the lawyers involved and all the mistakes we have made since the original was produced. Also the sheer bulk of it would be open to as much interpretation as the Bible is now. All you have to do is look at the size of the failed EU Constitution as an example.
Bawdy, I'd say that estimate is optimistic. I just shudder thinking of how the constitution we have now would look if it were written anytime in the last 100 years or so. Let's see...how might it begin...
We the people of the United States, inclusive but not exclusive of all ethnic, religious, and otherwise differentiable specificities, in order to form a more perfect union, while recognizing that true perfection is unattainable, still wish to state our desire and determination to the best of our and our descendants' abilities, to establish justice for all people regardless of creed, race or economic sphere, insure domestic tranquility insofar as such a principle is practically possible and does not interfere with the effective continuance and operation of the government, provide for the common defense against whoever is deemed at the time to be the current enemy of our nation, promote the general welfare, as long as it does not inconvenience anyone, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This is also of course with the understanding that we shall wish to grow and mature as a nation, and thereby increase the geographic, economic and military relevance of our nation. (5,354 more pages of minute parsing of phrase and intent follows before the first amendment is attatched)
i dunno, guys..maybe just having a written constitution is elitist. (still stuck on that).
after all, we seem to demand literacy when we hold a written constitution; of course, a memorized, oral constitution would require memory skills..
what to do? ;)
In the beginning of this Republic of Free States we were lucky enough to have a handful of men who, though they didn't always agree on things, put the ideals of liberty and justice ahead of even their own lives and the lives of their families. I don't know if any of you have been watching the HBO miniseries on John Adams(and I am not a big one for getting historical data from TV generally), but I have found it fascinating more for giving me an idea of what life and life's struggles were like at this time. These guys jumped off a metaphorical cliff without a safety net and many had their lives changed for the worse as a result. They didn't have a map or an example of how seceding from an international power could be achieved. But the idea that humans could live without the chains of a monarchy or an oppressive central power(religion?)and the resulting success opened the eyes of the rest of the world. It just saddens me to no end that we have been squandering this legacy ever since because we have lost the selflessness they had in the beginning.
Post a Comment