McCain raps Congress for bridge collapse - Yahoo! News

"'We spent approximately $20 billion of that money on pork barrel, earmark projects,' said McCain. 'Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country. Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it.'"

His Alaska nonsense aside, the Senator makes a fine point when confined to the state of Minnesota. The federal government funds building infrastructure at 80%, and states fund remaining 20% and the upkeep. The federal government can't tell the states how to prioritize their maintenance projects, though. This federalist notion is often lost on our leaders, particularly on the Alaska bridge point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with building a new bridge in order to expand growth and development in an otherwise remote region of our country. Many of our existing bridges and roads were built before the populations they serve today became a reality. Minnesota, on the other hand, had that bridge at such a low position on the priority list that even with a significant increase in maintenance funds would not have resulted in the necessary repairs. Where the Senator is correct, though, is on the matter of earmark projects and their priority. Like this nonsense Rep. Murtha recently wrought.