In normal times, there is no reason why local and state governments can’t pay for their own infrastructure. The federal government’s money comes from the people. Instead of giving so much money to the federal government so they can skim some off the top then give it back to us, why don’t we give it to more local governments in the first place? It doesn’t make any sense.

In regard to SAFETEA-LU, if the goal of the spending was to research non-motorized transportation programs to see what works, then that makes perfect sense for the federal government to fund. It provides a springboard for local and state governments to use as they look into what specific programs are best suited to their areas. It benefits all of us. Funding such programs everywhere would be a mistake. They are local by nature, and there’s no reason our money should be used to fund local transportation across the country.

Federal taxes should be spent on things that benefit greatly from us banding together to fund, such as defense, basic scientific research, and food and drug safety testing. Each state or city funding research doesn’t make sense unless they’re just trying to grow the research industry in their area or the federal government has refused to research something, like stem cell research. Each state handling their own foreign relations and fighting their own wars doesn’t make much sense.

Local transportation, on the other hand, does not benefit from federal funding. It is actually *harmed* by federal funding. If the federal government disagrees with a local governments plans, then the federal government doesn’t give them their piece of the pie. For example, cities get federal funding for rail systems all the time. Austin has gotten ZERO in rail funding because our line doesn’t meet their criteria. (The line is silly in the first place, but it’s our money and we should be able to waste it as we see fit.) This makes no sense. I don’t benefit from other cities’ rail lines. Why am I funding them?

How do you suggest local governments cover the cost of infrastructure improvements? Run a deficit? As you pointed out, most cities use federal funding for infrastructure improvements. With strapped budgets and decreased incomes, how do you expect small towns (or most big cities for that matter) to pay to fix failing bridges, obsolete transit or non-existent bicycle infrastructure?

Trust me, cities don’t have money for this stuff now.

What should federal taxes be spent on anyway? What is a federal issue for you? I am mostly just curious, not argumentative.

I suggest you research SAFETEA-LU, the 2006 transportation bill which included a provision for $100 million for non-motorized transportation pilot programs. Look at what amazing improvements this money has done for the four communities involved in the pilot grants.

The other issues you mention are not the same. Labor rights cannot be done on a local level because they increase the cost of doing business solely within that area. Business would just move out of the locality and continue to mistreat their workers. There is no analog with what you’re suggesting. The federal government should set targets for carbon emissions and enforce them with some form of carbon taxation. State and local governments as well as the private sector will *have* to meet those goals because they can’t afford not to.

I don’t understand why you want the rest of the country to tell you what to do when it isn’t necessary. We’ve seen this system fail already. It only works when the people you agree with are in power at the federal level. For the last eight years, the federal government has been telling California and other states that they can’t set more restrictive emissions standards than the federal government. That is ridiculous, and I’m sure you agree. Why do we want the federal government to have that kind of power? It is absolutely not necessary, and it has proven to be detrimental to progress. It needs to stop.

In fact, if we left major issue like this to local initiative we wouldn’t have 40 hour work weeks, a minimum wage, child labor restrictions, customer safety standards, speed limits, seat belts, air bags, fair hiring practices, a unified air traffic control, and the right to vote for over half our population. The federal government is not the daddy to come in and do everything for us, but it is a critical partner in making progress happen a heck of a lot faster.

You’re correct that in Texas, most taxes are regressive. It doesn’t have to be that way. Nothing is stopping us from instituting a progressive income tax except for political will. I think people could be convinced to go along with it if the pretext was wresting control over state and local issues from the federal government.

You’re also correct that the federal government has an advantage since it can run a deficit, but as far as I know, the only thing in the way of Texas and its cities running deficits in the state constitution (I’m guessing on this one, but I think I read that somewhere). The federal government’s poor track record with deficit spending has probably closed that door for the near future, but my point is that this is our government, and we should be trying to optimize it to reach our goals instead of settling for the option that is currently most convenient. The federal government is better equipped to fund expensive infrastructure today, but that doesn’t need to be the case, and it is clearly suboptimal for us to let the rest of the country have a say in how we build our city when it has no effect on them whatsoever.