NetworkedBlogs
Disaster, Not Averted
The collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minnesota is a startling and tragic event. That "only" four people lost their lives is amazing when one sees the pictures of the wreckage and thinks about the sheer terror of a bridge, loaded with commuters, crashing into the swirling currents of the Mississippi River. My condolences go out to those who lost family members or endured the horrific event.
But upon further inspection, the story grows darker still. It seems that the government knew the bridge was structurally deficient; yet the bridge was not taken out of service, the tragedy-preventing repairs not made. Worse yet, this bridge is but one of many across the country in similar state of disrepair, and apparently the price tag for bringing all these bridges up to standards is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Meanwhile, while these bridges have been standing in their structurally deficient glory, billions and billions of our tax money has gone elsewhere — to new bridges to "nowhere", to pet projects in the home districts of senators and congressmen, to art museums, trains, and milk farmers. Our sugar is more expensive and our Everglades more polluted thanks to the government spending millions each year to subsidize domestic sugar producers; our milk is more expensive and our money wasted thanks to milk subsidies; billions have gone to farmers so they would not grow crops; billions more go to ethanol producers already earning billions in profits. Money is available to tobacco museums, billboards warning against premarital sex, and to prosecute people betting on football games while our bridges become death traps. Yet Congress now says they need more of our money, in spite of the fact they can't manage the extreme amount they already get.
If the I-35 bridge were owned by a private corporation, the people affected by its collapse and its obvious negligence could sue and get at least some recompense. Not that money replaces a life, but because the owner was the government, not even that avenue exists. A private enterprise with a profit motive and a serious financial consequence for inaction would be more likely to get things done — to improve and innovate — than a pencil-pushing government bureaucrat whose job is to do the same job he did yesterday, with no consequences for inactivity or failure.
The broader lesson here is the answer to many of the issues we hear about in the current presidential campaign and in the congressional elections to come: do we want to trust the same government who can't even keep bridges structurally safe with even more responsibility over our daily life? Do we want to relinquish even more of our own choices, thus more of our own liberty, to such glaring incompetents? Do we want to trust even more of our own money to be spent at the whim of people who don't understand that structural safety of a bridge is more important and a higher priority than funding PBS?
I know what my answer is.
But upon further inspection, the story grows darker still. It seems that the government knew the bridge was structurally deficient; yet the bridge was not taken out of service, the tragedy-preventing repairs not made. Worse yet, this bridge is but one of many across the country in similar state of disrepair, and apparently the price tag for bringing all these bridges up to standards is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Meanwhile, while these bridges have been standing in their structurally deficient glory, billions and billions of our tax money has gone elsewhere — to new bridges to "nowhere", to pet projects in the home districts of senators and congressmen, to art museums, trains, and milk farmers. Our sugar is more expensive and our Everglades more polluted thanks to the government spending millions each year to subsidize domestic sugar producers; our milk is more expensive and our money wasted thanks to milk subsidies; billions have gone to farmers so they would not grow crops; billions more go to ethanol producers already earning billions in profits. Money is available to tobacco museums, billboards warning against premarital sex, and to prosecute people betting on football games while our bridges become death traps. Yet Congress now says they need more of our money, in spite of the fact they can't manage the extreme amount they already get.
If the I-35 bridge were owned by a private corporation, the people affected by its collapse and its obvious negligence could sue and get at least some recompense. Not that money replaces a life, but because the owner was the government, not even that avenue exists. A private enterprise with a profit motive and a serious financial consequence for inaction would be more likely to get things done — to improve and innovate — than a pencil-pushing government bureaucrat whose job is to do the same job he did yesterday, with no consequences for inactivity or failure.
The broader lesson here is the answer to many of the issues we hear about in the current presidential campaign and in the congressional elections to come: do we want to trust the same government who can't even keep bridges structurally safe with even more responsibility over our daily life? Do we want to relinquish even more of our own choices, thus more of our own liberty, to such glaring incompetents? Do we want to trust even more of our own money to be spent at the whim of people who don't understand that structural safety of a bridge is more important and a higher priority than funding PBS?
I know what my answer is.
Comments