Brother, Can You Spare a Bridge?
Three weeks ago, I started the Fetish for Funds Program because Congressman Don Young (R-AK) apparently needed to have his ears given some much needed affection before he would release the funds for two very expensive bridges in Alaska to help in the recovery efforts along the Gulf Coast. My offer to service him in exchange for those funds still stands, Mr. Young, in case you were wondering. Now it looks like there may be a second member signing up for the program.
Alaska's senior senator, Ted Stevens, threw a hissy fit in the Senate on Friday as Oklahoma's freshman senator, Tom Coburn (R), introduced an amendment to the 2006 transportation appropriations bill that would take away the funding for two very expensive bridges in Alaska. The nearly half billion dollars that would be spent in the appropriations bill for the bridges would instead have some of the money used to rebuild the Interstate 10 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain in the post-Katrina recovery. Stevens put on a show and railed against the Senate, saying that "it is an offense, a threat to every person in my state." Additionally, Stevens said "I will put the Senate on notice -- and I don't kid people -- if the Senate decides to discriminate against our state and take money only from our state, I will resign from this body."
Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Go ahead. Resign. I dare you.
Even if the Senate was not fazed by this non-threat, the amendment was rejected by a vote of 82-15 with three not voting. Stevens got to have his toys and probably learned a lesson that being a baby in the Senate will win you lots of money.
Stevens does have a point though. There is discrimination in the Congress concerning Alaska. But it's not exactly harming the state. And that discrimination is only growing. In the 1994 fiscal year, Alaska received $1.30 in federal spending for every $1 it contributed in taxes. By fiscal year 2000, Alaska received $1.58. But in fiscal year 2003, Alaska received $1.89 in federal funding for every $1 it contributed in taxes.
(Source: Council of Development Finance Agencies)
So yes, Senator Stevens, there is discrimination. Resign now, please. Unless all it takes for you to hand over the funds is a good kiss on the ear like your state's congressman. It's still a worthy trade-off and I offer my services in that regard. You can talk with Congressman Young about it too in case you wanted to do a three-way. Just let me know.
People that also deserve to feel ashamed for their vote to kill the Coburn amendment include the 82 Senators that voted to strike it down. Such members of that group include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), both Massachusetts Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (D), and Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY). The widespread suppression of the bill was more likely the result of thinking that their earmarked appropriations might go next rather than any kind of twisted altruism to further discriminate in favor of Alaska.
Senators, just this once could we have had some sensible spending? Just this once?
(You can find the Coburn amendment by clicking here then scrolling down and clicking "Page:S11690")
The talking heads are out defending the vote. The biggest head of them all belonging to none other than Rush Limbaugh. A transcript of a call during his radio show can be found on his website for your pleasure. Here are the best parts:
CALLER: They're conservative, Rush. We don't have pork. Conservatives don't put taxpayer dollars that are unnecessary in bills.
RUSH: I hate to tell you -- (Laughter)
CALLER: We give the money back to the taxpayers.
RUSH: In theory, yes, that's what we've all been striving for, but there are a lot of conservative Republicans that love the pork game.
CALLER: Well, do we? Do we have anything to do with the outcome? It sounds like we don't unless we have a Ronald Reagan.
RUSH: Oh, I firmly believe we do. But see, there's more to it than just the spending side. Now we're dealing with a tremendous national security threat and there are people who are not up to that task. And so you balance things out. If the people you elect are letting you down in one area, but really doing a great job on something that's even more important right now, given present circumstances, you have to give that weight. It's a long process. Look it, it took the people who believe in big government and big spending lots of years to get where they are, and it's going to take lots of years to reverse it and turn it around. But like anything that's worthwhile, it's hard, and it's probably going to take a long time to do it. I hope you don't get discouraged. I hope you don't get turned off by all of this, because I think the voters really have more impact and power than they're aware of, but it does require leadership after the elections occur.
And later in a monologue:
I shudder to think where we would be had there not been a Ronald Reagan, had there not been a Goldwater, had there not been a conservative movement that has enlightened and informed people on the profligate waste and habits of federal elected officials and state who spend money just for the sake of buying themselves power. It would be even worse, Elizabeth, were there not the natural checks and balances and the ongoing effort to stop it. The federal budget is $2.6 trillion. Where would it be had there not been efforts to curtail spending? I'm not trying to be Pollyanna-ish, you know, and my optimism is not through rose-colored glasses. I don't deny reality in order to be an optimist, but I'm telling you, the effort is well worth continuing because at stake here are the lives of people. I mean, isn't it a crime, isn't it almost criminal, to take actions as a government official, elected, state, local, federal, what have you, that in the end take away opportunity and the chance to become all you can be, to fulfill your potential? I mean, I've had African-Americans call this program, blacks who have called this program and they have told me over and over again that it's been the federal government, white liberals that have destroyed the black population in this country because with all the welfare, with all the federal spending, with all the attempts to buy all the votes, they've replaced the father and the husband in the black family -- or did -- during the worst of it. Before welfare reform came along there was no need for a father to be responsible for his kids because the government was is going to do it.
Never one to cast a critical eye at his own party. Where are the compassionate conservative, small-government values when a Republican violates those principles?
Then he went on to blame Democrats for the fact that Stevens was crying to keep his toys and not share or else he will leave the sandbox. Nevermind the fact that Stevens and Young are Republicans. Nevermind the fact that Republicans have control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Somehow the Democrats, marginalized everywhere, are to blame. It's amazing how much power those Democrats hold if they can somehow get the Republicans to vote this way.
Meanwhile, the cost to rebuild will be passed on to future generations as the country's debt continues to grow. While this is a worthy project that will require deficit spending, it could have been alleviated by cutting out the hugely expensive and unnecessary projects in the appropriations bill to help pay for the rebuilding. When will Congress get it?
Alaska's senior senator, Ted Stevens, threw a hissy fit in the Senate on Friday as Oklahoma's freshman senator, Tom Coburn (R), introduced an amendment to the 2006 transportation appropriations bill that would take away the funding for two very expensive bridges in Alaska. The nearly half billion dollars that would be spent in the appropriations bill for the bridges would instead have some of the money used to rebuild the Interstate 10 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain in the post-Katrina recovery. Stevens put on a show and railed against the Senate, saying that "it is an offense, a threat to every person in my state." Additionally, Stevens said "I will put the Senate on notice -- and I don't kid people -- if the Senate decides to discriminate against our state and take money only from our state, I will resign from this body."
Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Go ahead. Resign. I dare you.
Even if the Senate was not fazed by this non-threat, the amendment was rejected by a vote of 82-15 with three not voting. Stevens got to have his toys and probably learned a lesson that being a baby in the Senate will win you lots of money.
Stevens does have a point though. There is discrimination in the Congress concerning Alaska. But it's not exactly harming the state. And that discrimination is only growing. In the 1994 fiscal year, Alaska received $1.30 in federal spending for every $1 it contributed in taxes. By fiscal year 2000, Alaska received $1.58. But in fiscal year 2003, Alaska received $1.89 in federal funding for every $1 it contributed in taxes.
(Source: Council of Development Finance Agencies)
So yes, Senator Stevens, there is discrimination. Resign now, please. Unless all it takes for you to hand over the funds is a good kiss on the ear like your state's congressman. It's still a worthy trade-off and I offer my services in that regard. You can talk with Congressman Young about it too in case you wanted to do a three-way. Just let me know.
People that also deserve to feel ashamed for their vote to kill the Coburn amendment include the 82 Senators that voted to strike it down. Such members of that group include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), both Massachusetts Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (D), and Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY). The widespread suppression of the bill was more likely the result of thinking that their earmarked appropriations might go next rather than any kind of twisted altruism to further discriminate in favor of Alaska.
Senators, just this once could we have had some sensible spending? Just this once?
(You can find the Coburn amendment by clicking here then scrolling down and clicking "Page:S11690")
The talking heads are out defending the vote. The biggest head of them all belonging to none other than Rush Limbaugh. A transcript of a call during his radio show can be found on his website for your pleasure. Here are the best parts:
CALLER: They're conservative, Rush. We don't have pork. Conservatives don't put taxpayer dollars that are unnecessary in bills.
RUSH: I hate to tell you -- (Laughter)
CALLER: We give the money back to the taxpayers.
RUSH: In theory, yes, that's what we've all been striving for, but there are a lot of conservative Republicans that love the pork game.
CALLER: Well, do we? Do we have anything to do with the outcome? It sounds like we don't unless we have a Ronald Reagan.
RUSH: Oh, I firmly believe we do. But see, there's more to it than just the spending side. Now we're dealing with a tremendous national security threat and there are people who are not up to that task. And so you balance things out. If the people you elect are letting you down in one area, but really doing a great job on something that's even more important right now, given present circumstances, you have to give that weight. It's a long process. Look it, it took the people who believe in big government and big spending lots of years to get where they are, and it's going to take lots of years to reverse it and turn it around. But like anything that's worthwhile, it's hard, and it's probably going to take a long time to do it. I hope you don't get discouraged. I hope you don't get turned off by all of this, because I think the voters really have more impact and power than they're aware of, but it does require leadership after the elections occur.
And later in a monologue:
I shudder to think where we would be had there not been a Ronald Reagan, had there not been a Goldwater, had there not been a conservative movement that has enlightened and informed people on the profligate waste and habits of federal elected officials and state who spend money just for the sake of buying themselves power. It would be even worse, Elizabeth, were there not the natural checks and balances and the ongoing effort to stop it. The federal budget is $2.6 trillion. Where would it be had there not been efforts to curtail spending? I'm not trying to be Pollyanna-ish, you know, and my optimism is not through rose-colored glasses. I don't deny reality in order to be an optimist, but I'm telling you, the effort is well worth continuing because at stake here are the lives of people. I mean, isn't it a crime, isn't it almost criminal, to take actions as a government official, elected, state, local, federal, what have you, that in the end take away opportunity and the chance to become all you can be, to fulfill your potential? I mean, I've had African-Americans call this program, blacks who have called this program and they have told me over and over again that it's been the federal government, white liberals that have destroyed the black population in this country because with all the welfare, with all the federal spending, with all the attempts to buy all the votes, they've replaced the father and the husband in the black family -- or did -- during the worst of it. Before welfare reform came along there was no need for a father to be responsible for his kids because the government was is going to do it.
Never one to cast a critical eye at his own party. Where are the compassionate conservative, small-government values when a Republican violates those principles?
Then he went on to blame Democrats for the fact that Stevens was crying to keep his toys and not share or else he will leave the sandbox. Nevermind the fact that Stevens and Young are Republicans. Nevermind the fact that Republicans have control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Somehow the Democrats, marginalized everywhere, are to blame. It's amazing how much power those Democrats hold if they can somehow get the Republicans to vote this way.
Meanwhile, the cost to rebuild will be passed on to future generations as the country's debt continues to grow. While this is a worthy project that will require deficit spending, it could have been alleviated by cutting out the hugely expensive and unnecessary projects in the appropriations bill to help pay for the rebuilding. When will Congress get it?
posted by Will at 10:53 PM
4 Comments:
Urelated to this particular post:
I'm glad to see some local blogging.
I was looking for a comment on the Citizens Union endorsement. I came across an article - from canada of all places - where Dick Dadey, Exec Dir, raises concern over Bloomberg's campaign spending.
Check my site out
CIVIX
If you link to me, I'll link to you.
Thank you. From Canada...well, the Mayor is spending lots of money to be re-elected as Mayor...more than any other person I've heard of and this isn't to be governor or a senator or president.
This is just whatever's angering me at the moment...lately it's been some things locally but I'll probably have a string of nationally-related posts if things happen. Good to finally see more local opinion and news.
Actually, I believe he breaks all records, except for president. Corzine's Senate race was number 2.
All this for the race...just...stunning. And he spent less to become "known" to the voters in 2001. Some may call it a virtue to be self-financed, but I wonder if it would set more of a trend.
Post a Comment
<< Home