So weird to me these sort of statements. It doesn't need to have a 100% success rate, but if you don't even aim at having your democratic institutions cooperate, then what are they for exactly?
And what do you propose as an alternative? private sector? As if they are not known for cutting every possible dollar they can on anything they do. At the expense of lives if they can get away with it.
The alternative is to have state and local governments allocate funding for infrastructure maintenance. There's no need for the federal government to get involved; that just creates an extra layer of bureaucracy and waste. Congress should only be funding major projects with a significant impact on interstate commerce.
If we could get billionaires – who can apparently afford their own hobby space agencies – to pay their taxes, we wouldn't need to catastrophize every little perceived "waste".
This feels like argument by meme, and a very tired meme at that. FWIW, I probably agree with you that it would be nice to have a steeper effective tax rate curve, I just find this kind of rhetoric to be very dull.
> If you don't even aim at having your democratic institutions cooperate, then what are they for exactly.
I think they can cooperate, but I don't see why that means everything needs to be pushed to the federal level? It seems pretty reasonable that local infrastructure should be managed by local governments, state infrastructure by state governments, and federal infrastructure by federal governments.
That said, I'm particularly confused by why you think that the purpose of democratic institutions is "cooperation" rather than something like "maintaining the rights and upholding interests of the public". Cooperation is just a means to that end.
reply