>to establish, protect, and maintain infrastructure. What if
>it is no longer "cost effective" for a company to sponsor
>something like a bridge, tunnel,or highway? What happens
>when you then have to go to the lowest bidder, and THEY are
>soley responsible for the upkeep as opposed to being
>federally/locally/state subsidized?

if the govt gets money from a corporation to name a bridge, they can use the corporate money to maintain the bridge. if the corporation can no longer afford to have the name, another corporation comes in to take its place. if no corporation can afford too, or if it isnt in any corporations best interest to then the tax payer pays the brunt, which is what is happening already...

i dont see any disadvantage. if anything, its helps relieve the local tax burden. but hey, im for privatizing everything! road, bridges, tunnels, you name it. that way no one pays tax ever! user fees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!