What the hell is up with this "Bridge to Nowhere"

Great Debates
1

Since Post-Katrina, I’ve been hearing more and more about this so called “Bridge to Nowhere” that’s being built in Alaska. The executive summary is that the Transportation Bill that Bush signed last month includes provisions for a $223m bridge built linking a town of 8000 people with a town of 50 people in the state of Alaska.

Google News Link

My questions are:

Is this anything but blatant pork and has anybody tried to defend it as anything but pork?
Is it really going to be built?
Would it really going to cost $223m to build if it wern’t pork or is it an excuse to give plum contracts to favoured people?
Is the average American aware of this and what is their typical reaction?
Is their any sign of it being scrapped post-Katrina?

2

[QUOTE=Shalmanese]

Is the average American aware of this and what is their typical reaction?

[QUOTE]

My reaction is that this Don Young should be impeached and jailed for at least 20 to life.

3

Yeah, it’s been well-publicized here, but part of our system is that someone in NY doesn’t get to rise up and rail against pork in AK, except in a general sense.

4

[Marge Simpson]“And that was the only folly the people of Springfield ever embarked upon. Except for the popsicle stick skyscraper. And the 50-foot magnifying glass. And that escalator to nowhere.”[/Marge Simpson]

5

I forget, is this the one that crosses egotistical blowhard lake? :slight_smile: Don Young was always kinda wierd, but then most everyone who lives in AK is a bit wierd. I lived there from '93 to '96. Because of the oil revenue and its isolation from the lower 48, pork spending tends to be pretty excessive. The state is more than twice the size of Texas, only has about a million people, and half of that is in one city. There’s a lot of spending major cash to put in roads to towns of 100 people. It’s just a different world.

6

No and no.

Yes.

Probably not and probably not. I’m pretty sure it will be a competitive bidding process. Of course, I have no idea how many bridge building companies there are in Alaska.

This specific one? Probably not.

Nope.

7

Actually, there are three bridges being considered or built. The bridge to which you are referring is in Ketchikan, AK. It will connect the island the airport is on (Garvina Island) to the island that Ketchikan sits on (Revillagigedo Island). At present, people landing in Ketchikan must take a ferry across to the town, an arduous journey that takes about ten minutes. The population of Ketchikan is closer to 14,000 than 8,000. The necessity for this bridge is in question; while tourism in Ketchikan is high, it is primarily from cruise ships. There has been a lot of posturing here in Alaska from the right, who claim all sorts of nonsensical reasons for this embarassing piece of oink. It boils down to this: Don Young is the head of the transportation committee. Frank Murkowski, Alaska’s current (and most unpopular Republican governor) is a former U.S. Senator whose home town is. . .wait for it. . .Ketchikan!

The second bridge is proposed to cross the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet in Anchorage. This billion dollar boondoggle has been lowball estimated at about $400 million. It will connect Anchorage to McKenzie Point on the other side of the Inlet. The reason? Nobody really knows. Excuses from airport expansion to “an alternate evacuation route from Anchorage” (to and from what, I have no idea) abound, but the bottom line is that it’s an ill-conceived pork project. The proposed name for the bridge: Don Young’s Way. I kid you not. Proposed by the other senile half of our proud delegation to WDC, Ted Stevens.

The third bridge is truly a bridge to nowhere, but the work is nearly done on it. Someone thought it would be a good idea to restore the Million Dollar Bridge in Cordova, Alaska, at a cost of $19 million to taxpayers. This bridge was damaged in the 1964 earthquake. The original purpose of the bridge (in 1910) was to allow trains to cross the Copper River on their way to the copper mines at Kennecott in McCarthy, AK. When the mines shut down a bazillion years ago, the railroad was allowed to fall into disrepair. A road was built out to the bridge so people could hunt and fish the area, and it’s popular with tourists (I’ve been there, and it’s a spectacular area), but the other side of the bridge is nothing but alder thickets.

All three of these projects are bullshit projects that do more harm than good, as it is “earmarked” money that takes away from road construction projects that will actually fix some things that need fixing. Don Young’s shelf life has expired in my opinion, as has Ted Stevens’. These projects are an embarassment to the people of my state.

8

Is it possible in this day and age to actually shame politicians into doing the right thing? The national and local media ought to be all over crap like this, but they were too busy trying to find Natalee Holloway in Aruba. :mad:

9

Maybe they just wanted another boondoggle to match the $1.5 million dollar bus stop in Anchorage, AK.

10

Let’s just give $23 million directly to Don Young to distribute as he sees fit. That way we’d save $200 million.

11

This one is a real headshaker, particularly in light of Anchorage’s laughable public transit system. Even the mayor, who is a progressive in most things, ignores public transit as a necessary evil, rather than as a critical part of infrastructure for economic well-being. When the Republicans are in power (which is most of the time here), it doesn’t even get that small bit of attention. The last mayor stated that bus service wasn’t necessary on weekends because “nobody works on the weekend”. :rolleyes: The money could have been better used for bus purchases, snow clearing at bus stops, or a bunch of cheaper shelters for a, you know, winter city.

At the other end of the ridiculous spectrum of things we just don’t understand was the building of a rail terminal at the airport that is for the exclusive use of Princess Tours. Alaska residents and casual visitors are not allowed to use the terminal or the trains that come there unless they are part of a Princess tour. It was built with tax dollars and the railroad is owned by the state, so figure that one out and get back to me.

12

This problem is much bigger than Alaska, and it’s not just a Republican problem. The problem is that agencies submit budgets to the federal government, and then politicians insert ‘earmarks’ as a way of buying votes from the public. “Vote for me, and I’ll bring home the bacon from Washington!”

Often, these earmarks are not even wanted by the agency that’s slated to get them. NASA gets earmarks dumped on it all the time, which it then has to implement with resources that were planned to be used elsewhere. The Army Corps of Engineers is famously being told to build pork projects all over the country. These earmarks are added without any oversight, without any sort of cost-benefit analysis, competitive grant procedures, or any other way of determining if they make any sense.
Remember the line-item veto? That used to be a big political issue. I believe both Reagan and Clinton asked for it, as has Bush. That was the main tool to be used to fight earmarks. Without it, any member of congress can stick some earmark line in a budget, and then either the budget has to be accepted whole, or scrapped and the whole process started again.

So what happens is that the budget gets put together, then members of congress start tacking on all their little pet projects. Then the budget goes into committee, and horse-trading starts in which powerful committee members haggle over which earmarks stay and which ones go. Eventually, the budget comes out of committee, and the President has to sign the whole thing or reject it. So the President is somewhat powerless to stop this kind of pork, unless he’s willing to hold up the entire budget. Reagan did that to make a point, and he got absolutely slammed by Democrats, some Republicans, and the media, for ‘shutting down government’.

So the earmarks continue. ‘Reform’ politicians come along regularly, promising to trim waste, fraud and abuse. Then they get attacked by their own constituents for not bringing home the swag, or in the next election their opponents run on a platform of, “vote for me and I’ll be better for our state than this guy, who couldn’t even get our bridge to nowhere built”, and the guy gets thrown out of office. In the meantime, if he makes too much noise on Capital Hill he might find that he can’t get any juicy committee appointments and is shut out of the process entirely.

The whole system is corrupt. It’s not a Republican or Democrat thing. But to be fair, the Republicans at this time need to take the brunt of the criticism, since they’ve held all three branches of government for quite a while, and because they claim to be the party of smaller government. So throw the bums out.

13

Sam Stone: You’re right on the nosey, of course. That idiotic bus stop is a prime example of the recipient scratching his head and going WTF? while taking abuse from the public who thinks he requested it. What continues to amaze me is the notion that this is ‘free’ money. That somehow, if the money comes from WDC, it hasn’t come out of our pockets, and worse, out of a program that truly needs the dollars. Would that we could “throw the bums out”. But the voting public are sheep and will pull the lever for the guy who delivers, without caring how or what that money is used for or where it came from. Education only works if one has a populace that can be bothered to read or comprehend what is happening around them. Instead, people here tend to just chuckle and shake their heads at Don Young’s antics, instead of becoming outraged. The closest he came to stepping on his own dick was a couple of elections ago when it came to light that he had the worst attendence and voting record in the legislature.

14

This stuff, as opposed to social programs in my opinion, is where a “welfare state” situation really exists. When officeseekers can get up on the platform and compete by promising more money for their home districts, there’s no way to avoid a wasteful government.

15

Let me play Devil’s Advocate for a second. The Senator of a state does not have a responsibility to anyone other than the citizens of their own state and a Representative is only responsible to their district. Their votes on national issues should reflect what is in the interest in their constituents. When Roberts comes up for confirmation, my I want my two Senators to vote on whether or not Roberts as Chief Justice is in the best interest of California. Why should Alaskan senators care about roads in Indiana, wetlands in Georgia, or (sadly) flooding in Louisiana?

The answer is that there is a balance at work. A California Senator needs 50 (maybe 49) other Senators to care about oil drilling off Santa Barbara, historical sites in San Diego, preservation of Yosemite, timber harvesting in the Sierras etc. Sometimes it’s pretty obvious - a Senator that blocks road construction in other states will be paid in kind when they need new roads in their state. Laws about oil drilling in California will effect oil drilling laws in Louisiana and Alaska. Laws regarding farming in the Great Plains affect food prices everywhere. Other times the effect of what is happening in other states on the Senator’s home state is very subtle. Disaster relief in Louisiana now means disaster relief in Alaska, in California, in Texas, in Minnesota, etc. when (or if) it is needed in the future.

Add this to the fact that a Congressman wants the Federal government to spend money in their state/district for economic reasons. With a finite amount of money available there needs to be trade offs if I want the money for my voters. I’ll vote for your pork that has nothing to do with my state because you’ll vote for my pork that has nothing to do with your state. It’s easy to write off the money spent as waste (and indeed it is) but by the same token, the Federal government is the biggest investor in the American economy (arguably after taking money out of the economy via taxes) and that money will be spent on something. If not bridges in Alaska it will be grain silos in Iowa, barnacle removers in Rhode Island, or a sandpiper preserve in Oregon. I commend the Alaskan Congressmen for making sure that the useless pork gets sent to their state instead of elsewhere.

16

But the key issue is not that there is a finite of money available, but that there is a single discrete figure amount of money available. That isn’t so. If we don’t spend pork in California that doesn’t necessarily mean it will get spent on pork elsewhere. It might not get spent on pork at all: it might go to a program that actually needed, or it might simply not get taxed away from anyone in the first place.

17

Few would argue that spending the money on worthwhile projects is not commendable. Pork projects such as these bridges are insulting and useless. We have a lot of people still crapping in buckets around this state, alcoholism is rampant, schools are inadequate, roads are falling apart, etc. Uncle Ted has brought home a lot of money for worthwhile projects; these don’t qualify. Submitting pork projects just because you can is bad government and bad stewardship.

18

That’s what allows this to persist. The benefits come directly to one state or area, and the cost and responsibility are spread out evenly among all 50 states. So everybody might pay a little for each project, but that’s not any one person’s problem. While I understand and accept the fact that pork is part of what makes the system work, in a back-scratching and “why should I vote for your bill unless there’s something in it for me?” way, it can also be wasteful and irresponsible. Who really benefits from this bridge, for example? It seems the Senator is the primary beneficiary, because he gets to say he made it happen.

I wish that something had included better federal emergency planning and resources in the event of a Gulf Coast hurricane, or more levee repair for New Orleans. To pull an example out of thin air.

That’s terrific, but all you’re saying is that he’s good at gaming the system at the expense of everyone else. Many complaints about pork are arbitrary, however, one reason that so many candidates are able to run for office on the “I’ll reduce government waste” platform, and sometimes cut necessary resources in the process, is because of examples like this bridge.

19

The government takes in more money than they need and essential programs to run the federal government are rarely underfunded. As for what programs need money, that is subjective. The levee projects in Louisiana were seen as pork for years and now after Katrina it’s “Oh SHIT!!! Why didn’t we spend money on this all along?” What about social welfare programs? Notoriously underfunded but also nortoriously poorly run and very wasteful. National parks and NASA contribute almost nothing to the economy so is paying for them a waste? What is the definition of a program that needs money?

The tax break idea is interesting but runs into the roadblock of fiscal liberals that believe that the Federal government should redistribute income from the rich (people or states) to the poor (people or states). Thus no matter how lame the project is, it is not pork if the money is used to build up the area’s economy. Although I consider myself a fiscal conservative, I aknowledge that there should be a certain social element to our Federal economy and I have no problem if some pork goes to Louisiana over the next few years.

Let’s face reality, if Congress had a good understanding of macroeconomics and a modicum of self-control - we wouldn’t be in the economic mess we’re in with 11% of taxes paying interest on the national debt, a retirement program based on the infamous pyramid scheme (“Hey! Maybe there’s a reason we made these things illegal.”), or a military that can move and feed soldiers anywhere in the world and kick Saddam’s ass but cannot evacuate New Orleans, prevent looting, and provide bread for the evacuees.

20

Which is an outrage. Probably a 200 year+ outrage, but still.

The level of outrage ebbs and flows with the occupant in the Oval Office.

I don’t recall that incident with Reagan, though I’m not denying that something like that happened. I do seem to recall that Ford vetoed some budgetary bills, returning them to Congress: I think the intent was to trim some pork, but my recollection is sketchy.

Prior to GWBush, I had thought that part of the President’s responsibilities was to look out for the National Interest, which involves putting limits on Congressional pork-fests. This might involve the occasional veto.

Apos
----- It might not get spent on pork at all: it might go to a program that actually needed, or it might simply not get taxed away from anyone in the first place.

… or it might not be borrowed, thus freeing up resources for private investment (assuming that we’re not in a recession).