Is it odd to do infrastructure at the national level? I would think governors might be incentivized to invest in infrastructure, and the people would vote on it. Guess that's not how it works ... Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDongmaybe that would be a good way to do it but the federal govt essentially pays for roads and bridges due to the need for interstate Commerce. And if it were left to the states to pay for Bama, LA, AK, OK, MS for sure would have even worse roads and bridges than they have currently. The wealthy north east and mid Atlantic states and a few others like TX and FL would all have great infrastructure but most of the south would be terrible.
Even though there is a faction of idiots on here that believe otherwise, the wealth democrat run states actually subsidize the poor souther republican run states, from a federal funding standpoint.