The right way to fund the bridge

Maybe some cracks are emerging in the positions taken by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and some of our local and state politicians that would inevitably push primary responsibility for funding the Brent Spence Bridge replacement to state government and newly created local entities.

The State of Kentucky obviously doesn't have the money. So, if those folks get their way, the only realistic alternatives are tolls or new, higher local taxes to support bond payments.

I'm not knee-jerk against tolls. What I am against is the federal government pleading poverty as it abdicates a core responsibility -- providing funds for infrastructure that is of national importance. After all, President Eisenhower pushed creation of the interstate highway system for national security reasons.

We are not talking about replacing the Licking River Bridge between Newport and Covington here. This is a dangerous, functionally obsolete bridge that is a key link on the primary artery between Canada and the Gulf of Mexico.

I called Sen. McConnell's office recently and asked if McConnell -- who is, after all, minority leader and one of the most powerful politicians in America -- had looked at a bill sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. The bill to create a national infrastructure bank to fund projects of national significance seems like an idea well worth examining. McConnell's staff said the senator had no position on the bill and hadn't looked at it, and he continues to push the notion that the federal cupboard is bare.

What's also interesting about the bill is the list of co-sponsors, which include the two leading Democratic presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. This might explain why Obama specifically mentioned the bill in an ad that ran this week in The Enquirer and Clinton spoke eloquently about the federal responsibility for infrastructure in an interview with our editorial board. Meanwhile, Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., sits on the Senate committee where the Dodd bill landed. But, in this story by Pat Crowley, Bunning certainly wasn't very warm to the concept.

Maybe that bill isn't the answer. The point is that there are reasonable options emerging, and it's too early to accept the argument that we need new local taxing authorities to shoulder the costs of nationally important projects. Once those mechanisms are created, we will have guaranteed that the feds will say the problem is solved and move on.

At least Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Hebron, seems focused on finding smart solutions. Good for him, but McConnell and Bunning need to step up.