The “bridges to nowhere” have been axed. Link. But the money hasn’t. Alaska is still getting the money, but now with no strings on it.
When I first read about it in today’s NYT (sorry, no link - not registered), I was enraged, and I nearly posted this in the Pit. But the San Francisco Chronicle has spun the story the same way - a “victory” over pork, so I’m restraining from the Pit in case I’m missing something.
The way I look at it, this is no victory at all - the problem with the bridges to nowhere is that, at a time the Feds are planning big cuts in social services, and trying for yet more tax cuts, money was being wasted on a pork barrel project. Now, the bridges themselves are gone, but the money is still being given away - and with no strings. Hell, the State of Alaska could use the money to buy everyone in the state a Jet Ski - that’s transportation, right?
So, my two questions:
Why is the Chronicle and the Times reporting this as a situation where (to quote the Chronicle) “Fiscal conservatives in Congress won a rare victory”, when government spending was not reduced one iota?; and
Does the GOP think we are that stupid (I know, kinda Pittish, but seriously, do they think that taking away the symbol of the “bridges to nowhere” is sufficient to end criticism and get their spending and tax cuts through)?
I think you are right. The money is still going where it is not most needed. Still looks like pork.
But, at least the extreme waste of the bridge is gone. Hopefully the Alaskans will at least use it for a project that helps many Alaskans and not one company and 50 people.
You have to understand the nature of earmarks for this to make any sense.
In annual appropriations bills, Congress allocates a set amount of money to go to certain agencies. For example, let’s say the Health Resources and Services Administration is allocated $100 million by the appropriations committee. In that bill the committee may also say that out of that $100 million, $3 million must be given by HRSA to a hospital project in Philadelphia and $1 million must go to a telemedicine project in Idaho, etc. So maybe out of their $100 million budget, $15 million is earmarked for specific purposes favored by Senators on the Committee. Thus the agency only has discretion on how to spend the remaining $85 million.
When you talk about getting rid of earmarks all that would do is say that the agency has discretion on how to spend $100 million, not $85 million. The same amount of money is being spent, it’s only a matter of who gets to direct how it’s spent.
If you actually tried to cut the agency’s funding by $15 million and direct that it comes out of the money allocated to earmarks, that would be great. However, as soon as you do that then everyone starts bitching about how the nasty conservatives are trying to eviscerate the safety net.
It’s all a shell game and both parties play it. The GOP gives lip service to fiscal responsibility and yet does little to restrain it. The Democrats demagogue over the huge deficits and yet propose even more spending that would simply expand the deficit. Neither side is serious about actually getting government spending under control.
Renob, if I understand you correctly, then no earmark was removed from the $442 million, just a new earmark was substituted. Before, the money was required to be spent on two projects in Alaska. Now, the money must be spent in Alaska. Still an earmark.
I’m not sure about that. The federal highway bill is a very complicated item that has been oversimplified for media reports. Without actually digging into the highway bill that passed Congress authorizing the program and the appropriations bill passed by Congress actually appropriating money for the program, let me give my best guess: each state gets a set amount of dollars based on a formula for transportation needs, including bridge construction. Steven’s earmarked part of that money to pay for these two bridges. This earmark was removed and now the state of Alaska gets the same amount of money, but it is not forced to use it on these bridges.
As this case shows, the outcry over earmarks is a bit simplified, since if you’re simply fighting over earmarks and not the overall spending level you are simply fighting over who gets to decide where to spend the money: individual Congressmen or the agencies that receive the money.
Not quite. While the money is still being made available to Alaska, transportation projects have to compete for those funds. Presumably, more useful projects will then have a greater chance of obtaining funding. Earmarking money for specific projects essentially does two things—both undesirable. Earmarking: A) reduces the pool of money available for projects which must compete for those funds; and B) removes some of the fiscal restraints from earmarked projects which are inherent in competitive projects.
However, since this money is gonna get spent on transportation projects in Alaska anyway, if this is a “victory” for fiscal conservatives, its a pretty shallow one. Good analysis here:
I read the article in the Times and I didn’t think they thought this was a good idea. To me, and I how I read the article, it is another empty gesture. In fact, they still could build the bridges.
I know Alaska needs a great deal of federal dollars to build and maintain the roads up there but this seems a bit misguided.
Too bad the money didn’t come from Alaskans in the first place. Instead, it came from you and me and people in the other 49 states. The concept of federalism is a far cry from what the founders first envisioned. (Think Andrew Jackson and his veto of the Maysville road project.)
Not their money in the first place. There are donor states that give more in road money to the feds than they receive, there are others that receive more than they give. Alaska isn’t in the donor state group. Besides, Alaskans gouge the rest of us enough as it is by charging taxes on the oil they export to the lower 48.
Yes I am aware of this, but I’m sure that the highway ‘refund’ would be less then the** total **fed income tax they pay
I need this one broken down a bit. My understanding is that oil is a commodity and no one sets a price. If oil is $50/b and the state of Alaska collects $10 tax/b then the Alaskan oil market has to sell for $40/b or Big Oil ™ in the lower 48 will just buy untaxed oil from Middle East Terrorists Nations (also tm). This would just seem to redistrubute money from the Alaskian oil well owners and employees to the state.
Great. I’d like a refund, too. Using the nearest population figure for Alaska I have at hand (2000 World Almanac), I should be getting about 687 bucks.
Silly you, that money is Alaskian pork, not any other state, you can’t expect it to just go elseware.
WOW a Hurrican hit Alaska, Then yes that money could be used to help particularly to get those oil wells back in action - WE NEED THAT OIL - THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS REALLY NEED THAT OIL. Oh wait, we have a war in Alaska, we have an oil interest there, lets divert more funds to the Alaska war effort, we can’t afford to loose that state.
If you live there then I would like to see your money returned, you can use a new muffler.
Lets not make this a GOP issue its not. It is a Congressional issue. This has me sooo pissed off, but the virtually all voted for it so feel there isn’t much I can do.