Hacker News Reader

Comment by forapurpose | Hacker News Reader

U.S. politicians aren't punished or rewarded for their choices in funding infrastructure. In large part, it's because one party supports, as one of their defining policies, almost any reduction in government spending, revenue, and services. I'm not sure the other party faces significant opposition to cutting infrastructure.

You can see it right now in the current tax bill. There is plenty of discussion about what will happen to whose tax rates, but almost none about what services, including infrastructure, will be cut if revenue is reduced. For one party, revenue reduction is, ipso facto, a good thing.

And to even more strongly contrast the current mindset with reality, there is almost no discussion about what government can do to help its citizens except for security.

View on HN

That's an interesting theory but the New York City Council is over 90% Democrat[0], the New York State Assembly is over 70% Democrat[1], and there's only been one Republican governor in over 40 years.[2]

If you're going to blame Republicans, you should probably make sure there are enough to make a difference..

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Council

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Assembly

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_New_York

The parent misinterprets the discussion and makes incorrect factual assumptions.

First, the question the GP addresses is about the U.S. in general, not NY subways:

> I don’t understand why American governments are so bad at providing public services.

Second, the GP discussed problems in the voting public and in both parties, while putting a preponderance of the responsibility on one party - a conclusion that seems hard to escape. The Democrats aren't radically cutting revenue and spending everywhere they are in office.

Finally, the NYC subway is operated by the state, not he city, and I believe it is funded in large part by state. Much infrastructure funding also comes from the federal government.

It's not just funding transportation though, it's also the oversight of projects. Few people take transportation funding into account when they vote; almost no one seems to take transportation oversight into account.

I think also looking at it simply as a party problem hurts things, because there can be a lot of difference within the party, but people tend to overlook these things (and again, not just in terms of the amount of money that's spent, but also in terms of how it's spent).

> looking at it simply as a party problem hurts things, because there can be a lot of difference within the party, but people tend to overlook these things

The GP comment didn't describe it simply as a party problem; it put some accountability on both parties, and blamed the voters and everyone else participating in public discourse.

But sure, one party has made it a policy to cut spending, including on infrastructure. While the parent might be right that there are a lot of differences within the GOP, those differences aren't meaningful because they result in no differences in votes, laws, or public debate. They vote in lockstep and almost always speak in lockstep.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com