Want To Buy A Bridge To Nowhere?
By Phil Kerpen
September 10, 2008
The issue of pork-barrel earmarks exploded into the national consciousness in recent years, with outrage over the pork-stuffed highway bill of 2005 working its way through the grassroots into the mainstream and the Bridge to Nowhere becoming the most visible symbol of wasteful spending. While Senator Barack Obama is attacking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for voicing some general support for the bridge before later deciding to kill the project, Obama himself voted for the bridge at least twice, which begs the question - does Obama still support the Bridge to Nowhere, and if so, wouldn't it be a good idea to change that position?
The earmark for the Bridge to Nowhere originally appeared in the now-infamous 2005 highway bill. That bill cost a reckless $286.5 billion over six years and included $24 billion in pork-barrel earmarks. It passed on a 91-4 vote (web site) in the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, with Senator John McCain among the four lonely voices for fiscal responsibility. Senators Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, both voted for the bill, including the bridge.
The Senate got another chance to stop the bridge on October 20, 2005, when it voted on an amendment offered by Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn that would have redirected the funds from the bridge to New Orleans for relief from Hurricane Katrina. By then the grassroots outrage was beginning to take hold and there was more pressure on the Senate to adopt the amendment. The pressure came from the left as well as the right, with Markos Moulitsas stoking the fires at DailyKos, saying: "Honestly, there's no reason for any Democrat to vote against this amendment." (web site)
Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (presently under indictment on corruption charges), however, played hardball, ominously stating on the Senate floor:
"I come to warn the Senate, if you want a wounded bull on the floor of the Senate, pass this amendment. I stood here and watched Senator Allen teach the Senate lesson after lesson after something was done to Alabama that he didn't like. I don't threaten people; I promise people."
Unfortunately, most senators chose Ted Stevens over taxpayers. The result was shameful - Coburn's amendment got only 15 votes. (web site) John McCain missed the vote that day, but Barack Obama and Joe Biden both buckled to Stevens and voted against the amendment. Moulitsas's comment after the vote: "Simply unconscionable. (web site) Those who voted against these amendments have zero credibility on issues of fiscal responsibility. Zero."
About a month later the Senate Appropriations Committee removed the earmarking language for the bridge from that year's transportation appropriations bill, in effect leaving the funding for the bridge intact but allowing the state of Alaska to decide whether to proceed with the project. The House passed stronger language in an amendment sponsored by Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, actually prohibiting federal funds from being used on the bridge on June 7, 2006, but the Senate never took up the matter. So it was up to Alaska.
>> Continued -- Page 1 2
| 
