To: tejek who wrote (231514 ) 5/4/2005 5:10:27 PM From: TimF Respond to Gov't spending had been reduced dramatically to cope with the mess. "If that were true, then the infrastructure would not be falling apart as consistently as it is." Infrastructure is far from the only thing CA spends money on. Also spending on infrastructure isn't automatically efficient effective spending on infrastructure. I never said it had low tax rates but it doesn't necessarily have a high one either. It depends very much on what survey you're reviewing. And the problem can get more complex. Here in WA state, tax revenues have just started coming back. Meanwhile, there are projects that have been deferred for 5 years. One of them is a viaduct in downtown Seattle that was damaged in the last big quake. For safety reasons it needs to come down. If it were replaced exactly as is.........a hi rise road, the cost would be $4 billion......I am guessing. However, many people want it put underground.......for aesthetic and financial benefit reasons. That would put the cost, and again, I am guessing, at $6 billion. Its a hard call because the feds can give very little help with this one. If it were a private corp. I suspect it would likely go with the cheaper duplicate hi rise replacement. However, a gov't can go with the more costly one and its very likely Seattle will go that way. You would probably object whereas I am all for it. As it turns out, the Seattle area will have to pay a higher gas tax to pay for the viaduct whether its the 'cheap' or expensive replacement. Again, you get what you pay for.
