The question I have always had about these transportation bonds is the extent to which they are covering maintenance expenses that should be included in the operating, not the capital budget. Of course, including them where they belong would require either higher taxes or cuts in other programs. But since it is easier to issue transportation bonds than social welfare spending program bonds, this is what we get, year after year.

To be sure, some of the bonds are no doubt covering legitimate capital expenditures. But even then, the question arises: would we need as many new capital expenditures (say, for bridge replacements) if we had spent adequately on maintenance? Most people who confront these problems in the private sector would say the answer is obvious.

So once again, what we have here is a clever combination of legitimate need and political flim flam.

I have been told that Rhode Island is the only state in the United States that does have its share of gasoline taxes earmarked for transportation needs. Instead, the state taxes on gasoline go into the general fund.

"Does" in the previous post should be "does not" have its taxes earmarked for transportation needs.