Why is Bush not willing to put Bridge and Highway Infrastructure back into funding?

Question

He opposes a 5cent gas tax to fund rebuilding crumbling bridges nationwide.
Does that mean he was right to cut the funds in the first place and hand our road maintenance over to private sector roads investment for usage-fee in SAFETEA-LU? Because it looks like private sector isn't interested: Can I interest you in a bridge for sale, cheap?

So let me get this straight - we should only drive in WEALTHY STATES because their bridges would be in repair?

Answer 1

I've read on this forum that highways and bridges should be left to the local governments. I think it's the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that the public safety is top priority. Unfortunately, the $$ that could be used to fix the infrastructure in this country is going to Iraq, to the tune of billions a month.

Answer 2

While the state and local governments are responsible for bridges on state and local highways the federal government is responsible for interstates. Was the Minneapolis bridge on a local, state, or national highway? If National than there should have been funds available. Unfortunately any infrastructure funds on the federal level have been diverted for the war. The neocon controlled Congress made mandates of the states for homeland security and the states have yet to receive a dime in compensation for these manditory rules, etc. That makes states budgets tight. When we cut taxes and spend more something has to give somewhere. Some say no money was spent on bridges. I fair to differ. There were millions spent on the bridge to nowhere in Alaska that Senator Ted Stevens (R) Alaska, is so proud of. It is time that people at all levels of government examine expenditures and see how we can better spend money on repair and maintenence of the ifrastructure. The fault in Minnesota bridge collapse is the tip of the iceberg and no one person or government agency is at fault. There is plenty of blame to go around. This, tragic as it was, may have been a wake up call to politicians and citizens all around the country. It is too bad that it took a tragedy like that to get things done. Progress is something we have not been doing since early 2001 and probably won't start again until early in 2009 meanwhile we have to do with what we have. Maybe Minnesota could charge a temporary toll to cross the bridge until the costs of repar are met. Let them that use it pay for it.

It is simply shameful that we in the wealthiest country ever have a crumbling infrastructure, children and elderly people who don't have adequate nutrition or health care. Since private industry couldn't make a profit off any of this it looks like if we care at all it must come from government at all levels.

Answer 3

Huh? Wealthy States? Anyhew, who needs a 5 cent gas hike? Big Oil is already doing that. I have another idea: why not use the money that is collected for highways FOR HIGHWAYS? (Or for that matter, why not use monies collected for Social Security for Social Security? And so forth.)
If you go to Europe, there are bridges in use that were built by the Romans. It is NOT a case of bridges being too old; it is not a case of not enough money: it is a case of too much fraud, mis-management, irresponsibility. Haven't you driven anywhere in the past 20 years? You will see 5 people standing around, 1 actually doing something. Earlier this summer, I drove out of state: one construction worker was napping at the side of the road; when I returned 6 hours later, he was still napping! When they repave a road, they do a poor job: within two years, it needs to be resurfaced. In Germany, when they build a road, with all their heavy traffic, it is good for quite a few years. When they repave, it does not require resurfacing the following year.
There is too much apathy in the United States of America, but who cares?

Answer 4

Ooh brother is right! George Bush had nothing to do with the bridge collapse. The Congress allocates funds to the highway bill not the president. (read the constitution) The five cent tax that you are talking about concerns the governor of Minnesota. Of course, he vetoed it. MN was running a 2 billion dollar surplus at the time. The legislature in MN decided to build a light rail system, a sports stadium, a bear exhibit, a replica viking boat, etc, rather than fix their bridges and roads. Don't be a boob, you've been listening to lies from the media.

Answer 5

The President has veto power on all legislation, but he does not control the budget. Congress, specifically, The House of Representatives is the only place where revenue generating bills can be originated.

The states are responsible for maintaining their highways and bridges. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to solve anything. If Minnesota, and other states took a more proactive approach to highway and bridge maintenance it's likely that we wouldn't even be talking about it now.

Answer 6

Ah, Bush didn't cut highway and infrastructure funding.

It has increased every year he has been President.

The last Highway bill passed was $286 billion dollars.

Ive noticed a trend. They accuse Bush of cutting funding in a question, then never back it up with facts.

Ive seem them say Bush cut education funding, even though its 63% higher today, than when he was elected. 62 billion vs the 38 billion then.

ive seen them say Bush cut veterans funding, even though its increased 88% since Bush was elected, from 47 billion to 88 billion.

When you point out the real facts, they then give you a negaitve rating on your answer.

Answer 7

A tax increase is not the answer. Why do people think that if we just keep throwing money out, things will get better. They are doing an oversight to see how all the money is distributed first. We all know very well that the proposed 5 cent increase for 3 years will never go away once implemented.
Also, not increasing funds is not the same as cutting funding.
Besides, I thought all the liberals were already complaining about the price of gas.

Answer 8

I thought a State's infrastructure was just that a State's infrastructure. That's why the roads and bridges in one state are far better than those in another. The same with gas taxes State's gas taxes are higher to pay for such things. The gas tax you are speaking of would not go to help the roads and bridges it would go to line the pockets of our already over paid politicians. Get a clue. Pay the politicians minimum wage in congress and see just how long they will be honored to serve.

Answer 9

There is already federal funding for states to improve roads and bridges. the problem is not the feds, it is the local states who spend the money on other things and don't take care of the bridges. Minnesota has a 3 billion dollar budget surplus. They have plenty of money available to take care of their bridges. People need to realize that it is not the feds responsibility to take care of everything. Bridges are the responsibility of either the state or city that they are in.

Answer 10

I would be willing to pay extra at the pumps if it means that the bridge over anything will be safe. But then again, I have a smallish car that doesn't have a huge gas tank...


The Interstate system was paid for by the FEDERAL government. It was pressure put on the individual states by the FEDERAL government that got the drinking age changed state by state back in the 70's and 80's. Know how they did it? Threatened to take away federal funds for the upkeep of the Interstate system. This is not an alien concept, folks. We need to get more money from the Feds to make sure our bridges and highways are safe...

The bridge that collapsed was an INTERSTATE bridge...

Answer 11

What an insensitive question and ridiculous attack on Bush. Congress provides general funding and the highway services elect how those funds are used (with some limits), so really bridge repair is in the purview of state government...

Bush is a lot of things, but you cannot hold him accountable post-facto to examine every bridge in America and micro-manage the states into fixing them.

And think--it's not as simple as a 5 cent tax for bridge repair, the bill he's against is laiden with pork and other appropriations that he does not want our taxes to cover.

Cheap shot at Bush--why am I not surprised.