Mort Zuckerman: The Case for a National Infrastructure Bank

Reader Comments
Back to article

Printer-Friendly Version
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government," laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Don D. Brock of AZ 3:31PM April 22, 2010

This proposal merits pursuing, sounding more organized, efficient, and cost-effective than the system we have in place now, which is accurately described as "dysfunctional." As just an ordinary citizen, I don't have the background to judge its efficacy, but even in trusting the proposal could be all that it's decribed as being, I have common-sense concerns: start-up costs in what necessarily would be a major transition, adding as they would to the current(and constant) deficit explosion; securing the needed cooperation of the political powers-that-be to dismantle the current system, including the "earmarks" and deal-making down to the local level; instituting and developing an entity with such comprehensive "overseer" power, adding at least in part, another "big government" program.
Not to be a pessimist, but especially given the partisan polarization rampant in our politics, I'd envision health-care-reform-like infighting as opposed to uniting to welcome the opportunity to replace a costly and unsustainable system. However, please pursue consideration of the proposal and report on the relative cooperation or obstinacy encountered. If there are indeed reasonable objections and obstacles, present them. But if this idea isn't kept in the public eye, the important pressure of public opinion won't be brought to bear for adequate consideration to begin with. Thanks for trying.

Richard Palzer of IL 5:27PM December 14, 2009

As a long term county board member in the state of Wisconsin, I am very aware that the system of funding that we use for our infrastructure under our current taxing system is unsustainable. I would welcome a more comprehensive approach to long term planning rather than the election to election, year to year process we have now.
In favor of a new approach? Start now? Absolutely!

Colleen Bates of WI 7:20PM December 13, 2009

Excellent idea.
I have a question about US highways. When I was young (many years ago), I recall reading an article -- I think in Reader's Digest -- about the construction of our highways. It stated that our construction material/process was inferior to the that used in Europe. As a result, European roads lasted much longer and needed fewer repairs than our roads. I believe that these higher-quality highways were also considered safer. Do you know if that is accurate?

Deborah of NY 5:30PM December 11, 2009