>>1057075Assuming we're discussing public-owned entities - transit and rail funding disproportionately benefits those that live in metropolitan areas, who tend to use public transportation. The Acela corridor is a perfect example. Amtrak and metro transit systems lose more money than they take in through fares. What do people in fly-over country get out of the deal? Does that USW or UAW employee in rural Michigan or Wisconsin benefit, and if not, why should they subsidize hipsters in Ann Arbor or Madison?
State and local politicians sometimes funnel money away from infrastructure to pay for pension funds, which are crumbling (ex. the CalPERS Ponzi scheme). Yet they keep demanding more federal funding for infrastructure to compensate for their irresponsibility (in catering to the demands of AFSCME & SEIU members).
At some point you have to ask - if the recipients of funding aren't good stewards of the money (which they haven't been), why does it make sense to continue the funding?
