Tax Dollars For The Few
(And they don't even want them!) Sick, sick, sick. Rebecca Claren writes on Salon of the massive pork being shoveled from Washington to Alaska. Get this -- an Alaskan town of 50 people is slated to get a bridge nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and 80 feet taller than the Brooklyn Bridge:
With a $223 million check from the federal government, the bridge will connect Gravina to the bustling Alaskan metropolis of Ketchikan, pop. 8,000."How is the bridge going to pay for itself?" asks Susan Walsh, Sallee's wife, who works as a nurse in Ketchikan. She notes that a ferry, which runs every 15 minutes in the summer, already connects Gravina to Ketchikan. "It can get us to the hospital in five minutes. How is this bridge fair to the rest of the country?"
The Gravina Bridge is one of a record 6,371 special projects, or "earmarks," in the Transportation Equity Act, a six-year $286 billion bill that rivals the recent energy bill in its homage to the pork barrel. No politician better flaunts an ability to bring home the bacon than Alaska's Don Young. As chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Alaska's lone congressional representative for 32 years, the elder statesman wrangled $941 million for Alaska in the bill, making Alaska, the nation's third least populated state, the fourth-biggest recipient of transportation funds. The money for the bill is fed by a gas tax at the pump, but this slush fund isn't redistributed to all Americans equally: The bill spends $86 per person on a national average; it spends an estimated $1,500 on every Alaskan.
"It seems to me that Don Young let his power go to his head," says Erich Zimmermann, senior policy analyst for Taxpayers for Common Sense. "It's out of control. Alaska manages to do well because Young and [Sen. Ted] Stevens are in positions to get lots of dollars, but it's taking advantage of the power they've been given. This bill is far too large at a time when deficits are supposed to be important."
Neither Young nor Stevens, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, returned phone calls from Salon. However, the two Alaskans, especially Young, have been loud and proud about their prowess to harness big bucks for transportation. They have repeatedly bragged that new roads and bridges will spur development and industry in Alaska. While speaking to a crowd in Ketchikan last year, Young referred to fellow Republican Stevens' prowess at rounding up pork, and said, "I'd like to be a little oinker myself." Young was so proud of the House version of the transportation bill that he named it TEA-LU, after his wife, Lu. He has said of the bill, "I stuffed it like a turkey."
Indeed. Included in the bill's special Alaska projects is $231 million for a bridge that will connect Anchorage to Port MacKenzie, a rural area that has exactly one resident, north of the town of Knik, pop. 22. The land is a network of swamps between a few hummocks of dry ground. Although it may or may not set the stage for future development, the bridge, to be named "Don Young's Way," will not save commuters into Anchorage any time, says Walt Parker, a former Alaska commissioner of highways.
"I wouldn't want the bridge named after me," says Parker, laughing. "Neither bridge makes much sense, but a lot of people are going to make a lot of money building the bridge, and then they'll have it, and it will have to be maintained. Alaska needs transportation money, but it needs to be spent in the right places."
Don Young's Way indeed. What would you call it: State Representation Bordering On National Treason? Your suggestions below.







I read about that bridge several weeks ago. So much for all these fiscally conservative Republicans who were going to get Federal spending under control. I believe that Bush has yet to veto a spending bill regardless of how much 'pork' it contains.
I am begininning to think that Republicans have decided that as a policy they will lower taxes and run up the budget deficit during their administrations, forcing Democrats, when elected to get things back under control, and thereby propagating the false belief that Democrats always raise taxes in an effort to socialize government.
Senor Limey at September 20, 2005 6:48 AM
Actually, they don't want democrats to get control at all. This is a long range plan to get the deficit so out of control that they can force budget cuts that would otherwise be unpopular.
Recommended reading: James Carville's "Had Enough?"
Patrick at September 20, 2005 10:20 AM
Shit. I think Patrick's correct... Hate when that happens.
Crid at September 20, 2005 11:29 AM
Not to worry, Crid. It doesn't happen often.
Patrick at September 20, 2005 12:46 PM
Actually, it's considerably simpler than that.
No matter which party is in power, they will increase spending with their base to buy votes and accuse their opponents of wanting to raise taxes or cut spending, again to buy votes.
The party is irrelevant, it only matters that they are the party making the spending laws.
There are no conservatives in Washington, D.C.
Brian at September 20, 2005 1:01 PM
And that's the sad part. If there were conservatives, I'd like them. But, at the moment, there are only spend-and-spend Republicans and weenies otherwise known as Democrats. All of them are politicians first, people later.
Amy Alkon at September 21, 2005 12:01 AM
i would sugest a grass roots movement on a constitutional ban agaisnt political parties
but with this countrys constant history of people buring their heads up their asses and voting so obviously against their own best interests in order to force people to behave in the name of a religion that is supposed to promote free will and forgivness
couplued with the inabilty of those same people to see the hypocracy and irony of their "moral" stance, or any complex thought i doubt it would go any where
john at September 21, 2005 3:00 AM
Leave a comment