How should road and bridge construction and maintenance projects be funded, through taxes or private investment?

Private

1 of 1

by Wyatt Atkins

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Taxpayers' dollars are just that: their dollars. So without further arguments, it should be fairly obvious that they get to say when, how and why their money is being spent. As we all know, however, various branches of government and "public" agencies and organizations are the ones who have taken over the task. To make a long story short, this is what has happened so far: we decided to give power to the people (us!), then formed institutions to protect our rights, and then the institutions got all our rights, and we got a right to vote every 4 years or so. Then the vast majority, disenchanted with what was happening, decided to actually forego voting. Still: nothing happened, but that was no surprise after all.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that, in my book, if you want to fund project xxx with taxpayers' dollars, you should get a reasonable majority vote on the issue at hand (say 67%, the percentage required for any really important decision by a General Assembly of a public company) from anyone legally residing in the state and actually paying taxes (not just registered voters!). Then, a budget cap should be established for the project by using a similar procedure. Now I'm not really saying things should actually closely follow this demanding and possibly "naive" procedure; I'm just supplying the pyre wood for a decent burial of the way things happen - to date and today.

... but this would mean that for most projects there would be no funding!

Why should we fund project xxx? The usual reason cited is "public interest". We fund a road or a bridge, because we rightly assume it is in the public's best interest to have more and better roads and bridges. And we have more or less established means of judging whether that is also the case for the road/bridge in question. Institution ZZZ assesses the need based on statistical data collected, proccessed and presented in a certain predetermined way, acts in a certain, usually perfectly legal way to get the consent it needs from the various decision-making levels, as dictated by applicable law; and the stage is set. We have a perfectly legal decision to spend your money. You get no say in the matter - you did that when you chose A over B for president, because she/he spoke directly into your heart and shook your hand, or because she/he promised equal pay for equal work or just because you were classmates with him/her in 5th grade.

If we set such or similar standards for funding, a lot less projects would be cleared for funding, because the public usually does look after its interests! If the cost of a project is sometimes described as "prohibitive", then it probably is, and taxpayers' money had better be left untouched. If you can't get a majority vote, there is some reason you cannot; not always, but still most of the time, it is a valid one. And, to put it simply, if you can't persuade me to give you my money, why should you have it anyway?

So to get financing, the powers that be now use combinations of private funding and state funding. It is a lot better than curtain A just described above, but still an inherently flawed solution, for the same fundamental reasons.

Private funds only act when there is a real chance of profitability (unless they are after taxpayers' dollars, that is!). If they are right and the whole thing works, you just got your road for free - use your money elsewhere, hopefully even productively, if you still know how to! If they are wrong, well, they pick up the tab. You lost nothing, because you risked nothing. Someone else better equipped for the task may step in afterwards - or not.

... but we really need that bridge/road and now we don't have it!

If nobody else wants to finance that bridge, chances are you probably need quite a lot of things more than that bridge and fast! Otherwise, people with real, active interests depending on that bridge would line up to fund your bridge, with private funding or taxes or a combination thereof. If it's not happening, chances are that it shouldn't, anyway. If you still think that it should, you should actually try to make it happen! That would really be something, wouldn't it! Just imagine: actually fighting for something worthwhile yourself - a notion right out of those stories your mom and dad probably used to read to you at bedtime; or one of these incredible stories about the "silly" people who threw all that lovely tea into the sea so that you can now breathe free - or in blissful ignorance of the very tangible fact that you are not; feel free to choose your favorite brand of poison.

As a matter of principle, I'd say never use taxpayers' dollars when you can use private funding; as a matter of conscience, I'd say never use taxpayers' monies, unless you have their valid, concrete and specific consent to do so. As someone who dabbles in economic issues, I'd say never do it, unless it's profitable. And as a fairly honest and in all probability decent human being, I'd say never do it, unless you are prepared to risk your money and your effort, not someone else's - and especially not everyone else's!

Learn more about this author, Wyatt Atkins.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.