Star Tribune Writes on Lack of Federal Presence in Bridge Disaster

Thorgrim · 08-02-2007, 04:09 PM

The death bridge was "structurally deficient," we now learn, and had a rating of just 50 percent, the threshold for replacement. But no one appears to have erred on the side of public safety. The errors were all the other way.

Would you drive your kids or let your spouse drive over a bridge that had a sign saying, "CAUTION: Fifty-Percent Bridge Ahead"?

No, you wouldn't. But there wasn't any warning on the Half Chance Bridge. There was nothing that told you that you might be sitting in your over-heated car, bumper to bumper, on a hot summer day, thinking of dinner with your wife or of going to see the Twins game or taking your kids for a walk to Dairy Queen later when, in a rumble and a roar, the world you knew would pancake into the river.

There isn't any bigger metaphor for a society in trouble then a bridge falling, its concrete lanes pointing brokenly at the sky, its crumpled cars pointing down at the deep waters where people disappeared.

Only this isn't a metaphor.

The focus at the moment is on the lives lost and injured and the heroic efforts of rescuers and first-responders - good Samaritans and uniformed public servants. Minnesotans can be proud of themselves, and of their emergency workers who answered the call. But when you have a tragedy on this scale, it isn't just concrete and steel that has failed us.

So far, we are told that it wasn't terrorists or tornados that brought the bridge down. But those assurances are not reassuring.

They are troubling.

If it wasn't an act of God or the hand of hate, and it proves not to be just a lousy accident - a girder mistakenly cut, a train that hit a support - then we are left to conclude that it was worse than any of those things, because it was more mundane and more insidious: This death and destruction was the result of incompetence or indifference.

In a word, it was avoidable.

That means it should never have happened. And that means that public anger will follow our sorrow as sure as night descended on the missing.

For half a dozen years, the motto of state government and particularly that of Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been No New Taxes. It's been popular with a lot of voters and it has mostly prevailed. So much so that Pawlenty vetoed a 5-cent gas tax increase - the first in 20 years - last spring and millions were lost that might have gone to road repair. And yes, it would have fallen even if the gas tax had gone through, because we are years behind a dangerous curve when it comes to the replacement of infrastructure that everyone but wingnuts in coonskin caps agree is one of the basic duties of government.

I'm not just pointing fingers at Pawlenty. The outrage here is not partisan. It is general.

Both political parties have tried to govern on the cheap, and both have dithered and dallied and spent public wealth on stadiums while scrimping on the basics.

How ironic is it that tonight's scheduled groundbreaking for a new Twins ballpark has been postponed? Even the stadium barkers realize it is in poor taste to celebrate the spending of half a billion on ballparks when your bridges are falling down. Perhaps this is a sign of shame. If so, it is welcome. Shame is overdue.

At the federal level, the parsimony is worse, and so is the negligence. A trillion spent in Iraq, while schools crumble, there aren't enough cops on the street and bridges decay while our leaders cross their fingers and ignore the rising chances of disaster.

And now, one has fallen, to our great sorrow, and people died losing a gamble they didn't even know they had taken. They believed someone was guarding the bridge.

We need a new slogan and we needed it yesterday:

"No More Collapses."

Nick Coleman: Public anger will follow our sorrow

A call from the largest newspaper in Minnesota, that we need more of a federal presence in our lives to help things like infrastructure...trying to run things "on the cheap" constantly cutting budgets to raise taxes, etc I think are what leads to situations like this...

"promote the general welfare" certainly applies to situations like these...keeping bridges safe so our citizens can safely travel and our commerence is increased by a well maintained transportation system...but in the hunger for lower taxes, people will violate even this

JaJae · 08-02-2007, 04:16 PM

The federal government should not be that involved in transportation within local states. The state is at fault here, not the federal government. I disagree with any idea that a government beauracracy could possibly ever do a better job with national transportation that the local markets. The people involved in this accident should sue the crap out of the state because the state is solely responsible. The federal government should not be involved in matters like this within a non-socialist society.

WickedLou9 · 08-02-2007, 04:16 PM

bridges all over the US are in the same situation.

WickedLou9 · 08-02-2007, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The federal government should not be that involved in transportation within local states. The state is at fault here, not the federal government. I disagree with any idea that a government beauracracy could possibly ever do a better job with national transportation that the local markets. The people involved in this accident should sue the crap out of the state because the state is solely responsible. The federal government should not be involved in matters like this within a non-socialist society.

The only involvement that the feds should have is giving money to states if they have a 50% bridge and legitamatly can't afford to fix it.

JaJae · 08-02-2007, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The only involvement that the feds should have is giving money to states if they have a 50% bridge and legitamatly can't afford to fix it.

Without a doubt they should help fund national transportation, but they shouldn't get involved much beyond that. And even then I would prefer a "loan" to the state rather than a handout.

Thorgrim · 08-02-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The federal government should not be that involved in transportation within local states. The state is at fault here, not the federal government. I disagree with any idea that a government beauracracy could possibly ever do a better job with national transportation that the local markets. The people involved in this accident should sue the crap out of the state because the state is solely responsible. The federal government should not be involved in matters like this within a non-socialist society.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...

To establish post offices and post roads;

Linzyhop · 08-02-2007, 04:37 PM

although a tragedy, this is a state issue. something along similar lines happened up in Boston with the big dig and a piece of the tunnel to the airport collapsing on a car and killing someone..

the state is dealing with it, not the feds.

Rouger2 · 08-02-2007, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The federal government should not be that involved in transportation within local states. The state is at fault here, not the federal government. I disagree with any idea that a government beauracracy could possibly ever do a better job with national transportation that the local markets. The people involved in this accident should sue the crap out of the state because the state is solely responsible. The federal government should not be involved in matters like this within a non-socialist society.

They don't know if trying to take care of their transportation on the cheap was the reason for what happened it could have been corrupted or incompetent officials. It seems like this bridge should have lasted longer than it did.

Publius · 08-02-2007, 04:44 PM

This is the same government that so many people want to put into total and singular control of our health care system, yay!

AVengeance · 08-02-2007, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The only involvement that the feds should have is giving money to states if they have a 50% bridge and legitamatly can't afford to fix it.

Screw that. If the bridge is falling apart and the state government needs the money to fix the bridge, they should have a toll booth for it. Has anyone actually considered the concept of making people pay for something that actually use the thing?

WickedLou9 · 08-02-2007, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

although a tragedy, this is a state issue. something along similar lines happened up in Boston with the big dig and a piece of the tunnel to the airport collapsing on a car and killing someone..

the state is dealing with it, not the feds.

Although the feds did fund a large part of the big dig.

DosEquis · 08-02-2007, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

This is the same government that so many people want to put into total and singular control of our health care system, yay!

It is also the same government that everyone trusts and believes in so much when it comes to the military.

The government was not warranted in this case. It is most definitely a local issue.

Thorgrim · 08-02-2007, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Screw that. If the bridge is falling apart and the state government needs the money to fix the bridge, they should have a toll booth for it. Has anyone actually considered the concept of making people pay for something that actually use the thing?

Toll booths hold up traffic

Linzyhop · 08-02-2007, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Although the feds did fund a large part of the big dig.

the state is paying for it now... jesus, is it ever.

but it was a toll road at least.

JaJae · 08-02-2007, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Toll booths hold up traffic

So do fallen bridges.

Thorgrim · 08-02-2007, 05:48 PM

Anyway I think what I'm trying to say is that the government has certain areas where it HAS to be in control...state police, national guard, army, navy, air force, CIA, NSA, roads, subways...there are certain businesses where it's just nearly impossible to have competition (can you imagine 3 highways all parallel to each other competing for the lowest toll...what a waste of resources!) or it's just plain what 99% what americans want (Army, interstates, etc)

And before you go "what about the 1%, oh u can't just violate their rights" we aren't talking about taking straws about who lives and who dies, the Constitution gives the power to tax, if it wants to tax 100% of the citizens for something 99% want, and the dissenting 1% aren't being specifically taxed at a much higher percentange, then there is no injustice

JaJae · 08-02-2007, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Anyway I think what I'm trying to say is that the government has certain areas where it HAS to be in control...state police, national guard, army, navy, air force, CIA, NSA, roads, subways...there are certain businesses where it's just nearly impossible to have competition (can you imagine 3 highways all parallel to each other competing for the lowest toll...what a waste of resources!) or it's just plain what 99% what americans want (Army, interstates, etc)

And before you go "what about the 1%, oh u can't just violate their rights" we aren't talking about taking straws about who lives and who dies, the Constitution gives the power to tax, if it wants to tax 100% of the citizens for something 99% want, and the dissenting 1% aren't being specifically taxed at a much higher percentange, then there is no injustice

In the list you provided State police, roads, subways, etc are maintained by their respective states. I agree most Americans want these things run by the state. Which is why I disagree with the assertations within the local liberal newspaper trying to persuade us that if we adopted a more socialist policy towards transportation we'd have safer bridges. In fact, I think it would be counter-productive.

Just because the constitution gives us the power to tax doesn't mean the government should add a tax for everything and control everything whenever there is an excuse to expand government beauracracy.

Thorgrim · 08-02-2007, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

In hte list you provided State police, roads, subways, etc are maintained by their respective states. I agree most Americans want these things run by the state. Which is why I disagree with the assertations within the local liberal newspaper trying to persuade us that if we adopted a more socialist policy towards transportation we'd have safer bridges. In fact, I think it would be counter-productive.

It's their biggest paper...Minnesota is a blue state

Anyway, unfortunately states don't like paying for city subways, and then there are problems because cities don't have the funds to pay all the services...too many people move to the suburbs but take advantage of having a city nearby...the only solution? Tax the whole state for the city

Same thing for the US federal government, all those people in NJ who take advantage of NYC, shouldn't they be paying for NYC specific security protection programs? What is the only way for people from NJ to pay for NY's problems? Federal Tax

JaJae · 08-02-2007, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's their biggest paper...Minnesota is a blue state

Anyway, unfortunately states don't like paying for city subways, and then there are problems because cities don't have the funds to pay all the services...too many people move to the suburbs but take advantage of having a city nearby...the only solution? Tax the whole state for the city

Same thing for the US federal government, all those people in NJ who take advantage of NYC, shouldn't they be paying for NYC specific security protection programs? What is the only way for people from NJ to pay for NY's problems? Federal Tax

So you're saying it's unfair that people who commute to NY are taking advantage of their resources and it's unfair that we don't pay taxes to NY. So the solution is to make Alaskans pay for it?

That's not a solution at all and the people working in NY do pay their taxes. If NY doesn't want people from NJ coming in making them one of the wealthiest states in the nation, they can implement their own laws regarding taxing non-NY Residents.

Property taxes and other taxes in say Manhattan are EXTREMELY high. Those taxes directly impact the businesses who hire people. Those taxes directly influence their pay, etc. In the end capitalism typically works out. And people who work in NY do pay income tax. If you work in NY and you live in NJ you have to pay BOTH NY and NJ state income tax. If you work in the city you have to pay the CITY tax as well.

See it all works out, without punishing the innocent person in Alaska. Also keep in mind t