Spencer Schneier
      Staff Writer

The ongoing crisis in Flint, Michigan is firstly and mainly a tragedy. Originally, I did not think it was appropriate at all to discuss the politics around it, as an entire generation of children in a town being poisoned is hardly a time to voice one’s political opinions.

But when Bernie Sanders chose to make a political attack on Republicans in the aftermath of the crisis, it became clear that politicians were going to once again try and distract the American people from the real problem. This is a common tactic that government officials use to keep the people at bay: blaming the other party.

The reality is that Sanders’ assertion that the Republican Governor of Michigan is responsible for the crisis in Flint is absurd and Sanders would either need to be delusional or dishonest for his statements to make sense.

It seems likely that Sanders, as someone who looks to remove many freedoms from Americans and put them in the hands of the government, was serving his own self-interest by trying to defend the concept of state intervention, which in turn will help him potentially gain more power.

One does not need a degree in public health to understand that the United States’ infrastructure is crumbling, and the reason for that is quite simple: we let the government manage it.

A common argument that statists use is that the government must manage infrastructure because otherwise it will not be accessible, or that those who manage it will not be accountable to maintain it.

And with respect to the argument of accessibility, it is quite difficult to understand how one can believe that roads are kept inexpensive by the government.

The core argument behind government-operated roads is that if roads were privatized, it would become the case that profit-maximizing entities (which the government supposedly isn’t) would charge higher prices for certain roads, which in turn would not provide for equal access for all. This is certainly a good argument, and it’s good to see that the government allows for equal access…

Oh, what’s that? Because it makes financial sense to charge more money for certain roads, states throughout the country have introduced toll roads on key sections of interstate highways? This is certainly preposterous, probably just some libertarian crackpot finding an obscure quote and stretching it to meet their purposes. Except, this explanation is pulled directly from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHA) website.

The FHA explains the need for tolls as follows: “the report attributed this conclusion to ‘the traffic-repelling tendency of the proposed toll-road system.’ Although some corridors had enough traffic to support bond financing, the report predicted that motorists would stay on the parallel toll-free roads to a large extent.”

This argument is, essentially, that not every one will want to or be able to pay the toll, and that they will drive on the lesser roads that do not cost a premium price.

But the FHA’s website also cites the financial success of the toll model for financing roads at an effective price for the government, saying on the same page, “it was an instant financial success. Following World War II, the turnpike’s continued success prompted other States to use the same financing method.”

These states used the funds to pay for things like road maintenance and enhancement, but it seems baffling that interstate highways would end up costing a fee when the government, at multiple levels, is taxing drivers’ income, consumption and even specific items that drivers must pay for like gas, to help fund roads. If drivers are going to have to pay as much as $15 to use a road (the Lincoln Tunnel, one of the highest trafficked routes in the Northeast, costs that much to use), it seems silly that they are also taxed for it.

This is all without mentioning the fact that the American Society of Civil Engineers rated America’s road infrastructure as “poor.” It found that poor road conditions have cost drivers $67 billion a year, or $324 per driver. It also noted that in 2010 $101 billion was lost to wasted fuel because of congestion on government roads.

Relating this back to the crisis in Flint, we have now established that the government is, perhaps, not so excellent at maintaining roads, but surely something as important as water is kept to a much higher standard.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. The Guardian, after accessing files from a special Environmental Protection Agency report, claims that the report said cities such as Detroit, Philadelphia and the entire state of Rhode Island all are potentially underreporting the levels of heavy metal in their water.

It is important to stress that, per the Centers for Disease Control, even a small amount of lead exposure in children can lead to significant drops in IQ, increased risk of ADHD and permanent learning disabilities. Even a minor lapse in the level of heavy metal in the water supply could have potentially devastating long-term effects on children.

Why is it then, that in at least four confirmed locations—surely among others—have the government officials in charge of the water supply allowed this to occur? It is because of the fundamental lack of accountability in government.

Government is a closed-off institution. To participate, one must know people and have access to the money and time necessary to run for office. Once in office, government officials are subject to little transparency, only forced to report metrics that the government itself decides it has to report. This is of course going to come up in a situation like we have with this potentially national water contamination crisis. At the very most, citizens can try and vote some government officials out of office after two years, but in most cases their terms are longer and it can be difficult to remove ineffective officials.

A publicly traded company, in contrast, reports four times a year and must do so on as many metrics as its investors demand. It is accountable to its investors, which can include anyone with enough money to purchase one share. If it does not comply with its investors, it will be either forced to do so quickly, or the entity will go out of business quickly.

To compare: one is held accountable once every two years (usually not even that often), is not accessible and gets to pick what it reports on; the other is held accountable four times a year, has completely open participation and must report on as many metrics as its stakeholders demand. Which one are we expecting to manage critical infrastructure like roads and water?

But politicians, like Bernie Sanders, afraid of losing their power and influence, instead choose to try and obfuscate the fundamental problem. Sanders distracted from trying to find a solution to a crucial issue, instead attack Republicans because it served his own personal aims.

If you do not agree with Mr. Sanders, you can move to Vermont, and then in two years you have a 1/620,000 say in whether or not he gets to continue influencing things like roads and water.

That’s accountability.