You could make a case that, if the citizens of a state refuse to tax themselves for roads, or schools, or adequate police, why does funding those activities automatically become the Federal government's problem?

It doesn’t “automatically” (see: Mississippi), but we have learned that when there are large infrastructure projects which the private market can’t/won’t fund, we are still better off doing them and taxing everyone because we all benefit.

I’m tired of listing them, but Interstates move freight. Airlines move people. Satellites connect merchants and banks. Fewer sick people = more customers. Crummy drugs = more dead people. NASA accelerated microchips, not just astronauts. Canals, railroads, highways, dams, TVA and all the rest make all of us better off. If you say “Sorry Mississippi no roads - and they say yes - well, you’re going to have less steel and poultry and corn and catfish. Let Michigan infrastructure deteriorate and the price of lumber and cars and cereal and stuff goes up.

There are times when 2+2=5, and infrastructure is one of them. Take it away, and you’re lucky if 2+2=3. See: Africa, Haiti, etc.

No, you can’t “make a case” for it, at least not with me.