Structural Deficiencies

By this point in the day, everybody’s surely aware of the “structural deficiency” that is to blame for the collapse of a Minnesota bridge on I-35W, resulting in the death of at least five people. Wasting no time in capitalizing on the tragedy, the Daily Kos quickly posted the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2005 Infrastructure Report Card. Interestingly, blogger “Meteor Blades” didn’t bother including the 2001 grades, which were equally deplorable, instead choosing the numbers that would best lend themselves to somehow implicating Bush:

As the American Society of Civil Engineers Infrastructure Report Card 2005 points out, we're $1.6 trillion behind in infrastructure investment. That, by the way, is the amount of tax cuts Mister Bush tried to get passed in 2001, before he had the Global War on Terrorism™ [sic] with which to shape his legacy. Congress "compromised" and gave him only $1.35 trillion, tax cuts that writer Robert Freeman once labeled a "national form of insanity."

Yes, the ASCE recommends $1.6 trillion in infrastructure investment. Let’s not forget, though, that this is over 10% of gross national income. Not government income (or the much higher level of government spending, for that matter); add up every individual and company’s earnings in the entire year, and that’s the number we’re looking at.

Mr. “Blades” continues:

Congress has appropriated $600 billion (so far, with more to come) for a war that should never have happened. Congress enables the military-industrial complex to vacuum up additional hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars annually. Congress just approved $25 billion in annual farm subsidies, the vast majority of which go to rich farmers.

Although it sounds like conspiracy theory babble, a legitimate point exists here. The government has spent without restraint, and it isn’t getting any better, what with the Congress’ recent plans to more-than-double SCHIP funding in violation of the Democrats’ Pay-as-you-Go promises (more on this later). But we’re mistaken if we think this is some passing problem of the Bush Administration. This military-industrial complex talk started back in the Cold War era in the 1950s, and all these farm subsidies have been around since FDR, surviving over half a century of changing parties and political players.

It's a shame, but to believe that if we just got the right people in office then everything would change is simple naivete and wishful thinking at its most dangerous. Federal government can be great at providing certain things (such as national defense), but is sure to be horribly ineffective at addressing more local issues. Should the folks in Washington really check up on all our schools, bridges, and water fountains? The inconvenient truth is that politicians at the federal level, no matter their affiliation, will concentrate their time and energy on those things that will provide the maximum return to them, and, come election day, the farmers and oil companies are much more likely to remember the billions of dollars in subsidies they receive than the average voter is to remember those few guys that died a while back on that bridge in that place.

No, the problem isn’t Bush, it’s government. And not just this government, but the government. Let’s take our eyes off the bridge schematics for a few minutes and take a look at where the structural deficiency really is.