Funding infrastructure.

In a 2006 report to Congress, Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta claimed that U.S. transportation infrastructure was improving, but it wasn't. He was cherry-picking facts. While it is apparently true that since the mid-1990s the percentage of highways providing "acceptable" rides increased and bridges having deficient ratings decreased, in terms of miles of highway and total numbers of bridges that need serious upgrades or replacement, the numbers have gone up dramatically.

For instance, according to the Federal Highway Administration in 1992, the number of bridges that were deemed functionally obsolete or structurally deficient stood at a grand total of 33,519. By 2006, that number had grown to 153,990. The reason the percentage went down was because many new roads and bridges were added to the transportation system. Clearly, infrastructure in the United States is being allowed to deteriorate instead of being fixed or replaced.

The deteriorating infrastructure is creating a safety concern, to be sure, but it is also causing an economic problem as well. According to an article entitled "US Urban Highways' Condition Worsening; Repair Fund Waning," rough roads alone cost urban motorists "$383 [per motorist] annually in additional vehicle operating costs due to accelerated vehicle deterioration, additional maintenance needs and increased fuel consumption."

A Forbes article reported that "conservative estimates by the DOT say the U.S. loses $168 billion yearly from highway congestion [and] the nation's trucking system in 2004 lost 243,032,000 hours due to traffic delays."

And, according to Aggregates Manager, "the inland waterway system through the heart of the United States--the Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway System--[which] is responsible for transporting nearly 116 million tons of commodities valued at $23 billion each year ... is in disrepair."

This shoddy infrastructure reduces the United States' ability to compete in world trade by raising our manufacturing and shipping costs. The reason, we are told, behind the decrepit infrastructure is lack of money. Most Americans, knowing that our politicians concentrate their efforts on whatever topic is politically correct at the time, would likely attribute the sad state of our highways and bridges to simple ignorance by politicians. The politicians don't take care of the problem because it is not on their radar screen and is not a topic that draws votes. But is this the truth?

The fact is that "infrastructure" is a top priority at both the federal and state levels--just not infrastructure meant to ensure America's competitiveness. For instance, in the "comprehensive immigration reform bill" (S. 1639) that was recently before the Senate, monies would have been allotted to assist "in the development of economic opportunities and [provide] job training for citizens and nationals in Mexico." The same bill included financial support for Mexico to secure its southern border. At about the same time that the immigration bill was being debated, Judicial Watch, a group that investigates government corruption, released documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from the Department of Health and Human Services. These documents outline how that department, under auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, plans to enhance "Mexico's competitive position through the establishment of a grant fund for ... development of infrastructure in Mexico." These documents also list other methods through which U.S. funds will be sent to Mexico. Meanwhile, a NAFTA superhighway is beginning to be implemented, which would run from lower Mexico through Canada. During the past year, the funding and initial construction of this highway has been the focal point of contention in the Texas and Oklahoma legislatures. (See Kelly Taylor's article "Taking the High Road," available online at www.jbs.org/node/4134.)

The plans for the stages of the NAFTA superhighway in Texas, called the Trans Texas Corridor, call for the corridor to bypass major cities in Texas, doing little to alleviate traffic congestion--hence doing little to solve a legitimate traffic problem in the United States and almost nothing to help us compete internationally. The highway does wonders for our competitors, though, promising to flood our roads with Mexican trucks driven by cheap Mexican drivers, carrying imported goods. So our present highway system, which is mainly an east/west system intended to get goods to and from our coastal ports, is being allowed to degrade, while a mainly north/south highway system, which is meant to use Mexican ports, labor, and trucking (bypassing American workers), is being built. Our present highway systems languish while our political elites build a highway that is only useful to the United States if we combine with Mexico and Canada in a North American Union similar to the EU.

Political brilliance, huh!