why can't pres bush focus on America's infrastructure dams, highways, bridges, drinking water etc.?

Answer 1

I really don't think he knows that part of his J>O>B> do you ?
I have not see him start a new project of any kind since he has been in office. What good has he been?

Answer 2

Because the voters have not asked him to do that.

Every few years, a bridge falls down. The one in Minnesota was not the first, and it will not be the last. There is a news media circus when it happens, then within a week or so the focus shifts to something else .. kids abused, another terrorist attack, some sports or hollywood figure being a total **** ****, and a lot of people fall for the short attention span bit.

So if people for 1 week every 3 years are asking that he do something about the infrastructure, and 49 weeks of the year are talking about Iraq, then guess where his attention span is going to be.

Answer 3

first of all by utilising infrastructure in that experience, he's not conversing approximately roads and dams, he's conversing approximately rules and rules that made it achieveable for companies to enhance under a valid economic type. Secondly, the government does not choose for money or something to offer infrastructure, a central authority can in basic terms positioned each and every person into poverty, or on no account have been prosperous first of all, and pay human beings an exceedingly nominal salary to offer even if it needs. This in spite of the undeniable fact that isn't a valid economic type to do commerce with the worldwide under.

Answer 4

In reality even though the federal government funds some of our infrastructure needs its a state and local government problem. And with international terrorism it is more important to focus on that when there are multiple agencies to focus on infrastructure.

Answer 5

That is a state function. The president cannot and should not be the president of each state. He is the president of the Unites States. There are for a reason state responsibilities and federal responsibilities. One man can only guide ideas, it takes many others in Government to create and enforce the ideas. Look to your congress at the state and local area for a reason on why things do or donnot get done at that level.

Answer 6

All the agencies in each independent state take care of these things already. Minnesota had a huge budget surplus that could have tackled this problem had it been something the state legislature and hwy department been gung-ho about. Your suggestion would bog any potential president down in unmanageable micro-management. Let us not pretend that national security and road/bridge maintenance are mutually exclusive items on a government budget, okay?

Answer 7

Why is the federal government's responsibility to check on your local highway, dam, bridge or drinking water? At what point do we say enough with this big government. If you live in Texas, let Texas deal with their road problems. If you live in Indiana, let Indiana deal with their drinking water issues.

Answer 8

It isn't his job?

The states are responsible for 75% of the funding for roads. Almost every state in the union has a surplus of tax dollars from 2006 to today.

You should really learn how the government works. Rather than spouting unfounding unintelligent hatred.

Answer 9

Better yet, why does Minnesota have the money to build a new football stadium and provide free abortions for the poor, but they can't find the money to fix their own bridges?

Answer 10

He's a one trick pony. His war is the only thing he focuses on. Secondly some of it is not his to focus on. Some of the bridges are the responsibilitiy of the state or city or county governments.

Answer 11

I think the state and local governments should focus on these issues, not the Federal government.