Should States Where Biden Isn’t Believed to be the Real President Refuse Infrastructure Funds?

It's a complex issue, but the answer should be no. Here's why it makes more sense for such states to accept these funds.

The Rational Argument for Accepting Funds

Firstly, there are numerous states where some residents believe that Joe Biden didn't win the election. It's important to understand that this belief affects a subset of the population. The vast majority of the state's residents, including many who didn't vote for Biden, still support infrastructure improvements. Refusing federal funds would be a disservice to these people and to the economic and social benefits that the projects would bring.

Reasons to Accept the Funds

Representation and Fairness

Just because a vocal minority thinks differently, it doesn't mean that their beliefs should affect the entire state's actions. In a democratic framework, the majority's decision should guide funding and resource allocations. Every state resident, regardless of their political beliefs, deserves to benefit from public funds. Refusing funds would be an unnecessary political stance that could harm the state's infrastructure and its residents' quality of life.

Tax Contributions and Expectations

Residents of these states pay taxes that contribute to federal funds. They pay federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, and other levies. Accepting the infrastructure funds is a fair and reasonable expectation for using these funds that already come from the state’s tax contributions. Denying these funds would be morally inconsistent with the taxes they pay.

Long-Term Cost Savings

Accepting infrastructure funds is also about long-term cost savings. Delaying necessary repairs and maintenance can lead to more significant and expensive issues down the line. For example, ignoring potholes and damaged roads can lead to larger-scale repairs, which are far more costly. Infrastructure projects like road repair and maintenance are not merely about getting new and fancy things; they are about preventing future, often more expensive, repairs.

Example: The Medical Analogy

Think of it like a medical analogy. Just as regular check-ups and preventative care are less expensive than emergency room visits, regular maintenance and infrastructure repairs are less costly than large-scale rebuilding efforts. Insurance companies encourage regular check-ups because they know that many issues, if detected early, are cheaper and easier to fix. Similarly, routine maintenance and repairs on infrastructure are less expensive than waiting for major breakdowns. Federal infrastructure funds can help states address these needs now, saving them money in the long run.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the disbelievers of Joe Biden's election results should not refuse federal infrastructure funds. Infrastructure improvements are a public good that benefits all residents, regardless of political beliefs. It's a reasonable and practical approach that aligns with tax contributions, promotes long-term cost savings, and ensures the well-being of every resident. In the end, the wise choice is to accept and utilize these funds for the betterment of the state and its people.