Some bloggers at far-left sites in Minnesota and across the country are blaming the collapse of the bridge over I-35W on groups that advocate lower tax rates. A prominent columnist at the state's largest newspaper agrees. (Here's a sample: "it should never have happened. ... For half a dozen years, the motto of state government and particularly that of Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been No New Taxes.")

The New York Times piles on, suggesting that we aren't paying enough in taxes.

Not only is this a morally outrageous exploitation of a tragedy afflicting an entire metropolitan area, and especially about (I'm guessing here) 100 families, it's simply ... wrong.

The Tax Foundation reports that Minnesota has the 11th highest state-local tax burden in the nation. That doesn't sound under-taxed to me.

Give the Times credit for two things, though. One, it points to a federal report that says bridge inspections don't always catch existing problems. In other words, at least in some cases, there's simply government failure at work. (Other times? Bad stuff happens.)

The Times also finds a professor who says "Governments do not want to pay for maintenance because it is not sexy."

Certainly isn't. It's a lot easier to give money to schools (Democrats rely on the teachers union for support, and no candidate wants to be seen as "anti-education.") It's a lot easier to give money to Medicaid, parks, whatever. Roads and bridges sometime get lost in the shuffle. In other words, it's a matter of government living within its means, and setting and keeping priorities.

The article points out that some units of government are looking to partnerships with the private sector, such as leasing toll roads, as a way to deal with infrastructure needs. I know that it sounds crass to suggest at this time -- when divers are still pulling bodies out of the river -- but finding money for roads and bridges isn't easy. The private sector offers a way of getting that funding.

Why not use it?