Taxpayer: For the last ten years, Metro City’s bridge-maintenance budget of $1 million annually has been a prime example of fiscal irresponsibility. In a well-run bridge program, the city would spend $15 million a year on maintenance, which would prevent severe deterioration, thus limiting capital expenses for needed bridge reconstruction to $10 million. However, as a result of its attempt to economize, the city is now faced with spending $400 million over two years on emergency reconstruction of its bridges.
Stimulus: states that since last one year the governments annual budget plans for bridges was fiscal irresponsible. They allocated less funds to maintaining bridges and because of which in the last 2 years had to spend 400 million instead of the 30 million. The tax payers main point of argument was that the government should have allocated funds substantially.
IMO AThe main point of the taxpayer’s argument is that Metro City
(A) should have budgeted substantially more money for maintenance of its bridges
(B) would have had a well-run bridge program of it had spent more money for reconstruction of its bridges
(C) is spending more than it needs to on maintenance of its bridges
(D) is economizing on its bridge program to save money in case of emergencies
(E) has bridges that are more expensive to maintain than they were to build