Samples History Internal Improvement Projects

Internal Improvement Projects

296 words 1 page(s)

The writing by DiLorenzo extensively explains the nature of internal improvement projects in the 18 and 19 centuries. DiLorenzo discusses the issues that the state governments faced when carrying out internal improvement projects. The paper provides an opinion on DiLorenzo writing on internal projects and agrees that Internal Improvement projects should be carried out by private subsidies rather than using tax payers’ money.

DiLorenzo provides information about the prominent personalities who were against the internal improvement projects. He points out that Jefferson, Calhoun, Madison, Monroe and Jackson were all against using tax payer’s money to subsidies public projects. He explains that the government involvement in internal projects failed because corruption and financial debacle affected the activities of the projects. As a result, several states had to amend their constitution to protect taxpayers’ subsidies for internal projects.

Need A Unique Essay on "Internal Improvement Projects"? Use Promo "custom20" And Get 20% Off!

Order Now

DiLorenzo appears to be biases that government handled internal improvement projects were prone with corruption and financial debacle. In the writing, he discusses the impacts of carrying out internal improvement projects using tax payer’s money. I agree with DiLorenzo thoughts on his view of public financed projects that they were mostly prone to corruption when handles by state resources. Most of the leaders during the time opposed the use of tax money to subsidize private companies that were engaged in rail, road and canal building. Besides that the free-rider problem favored the idea, subsidizing private corporations failed in several stated where projects derailed and massive federal resources wasted.

In summary, DiLorenzo writing provides information that private roan and canal building companies only thrived with government subsidies. However, some other companies succeeded even without the state subsidies. This is evident from the argument provided by Daniel Klein. Most of the government subsidized projects failed, prompting several states to suspend state subsidies.