The Bridge to Nowhere

anderclayton · #1 09-11-2008, 05:34 PM

OK. I see a bunch of talk about The Bridge to Nowhere and sure it is a great and cute little buzzword/soundbite sort of thing (snicker, snicker Bridge to Nowhere ha ha). But is it a reasonable expense compared to some of the other expenses other States get from the federal government?

Ketchikan is the fifth most populated city in Alaska. It is located pretty much on the side of a mountain (or at least a hill depending on where in the US you live). City of Ketchikan has a picture.

Ketchikan might not be that big. It has about 8k according to wiki Ketchikan, Alaska - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but 14,500 according to a promotional site Ketchikan, Alaska.

Ketchikan is a reasonably large cruise ship destination right now with pretty steady tourist activity going to it (my folks are going there right now). It also is a relative hub in Alaska with two ferry systems going through it (as well as a ferry going to the airport at Gravina Island).

Gravina Island Gravina Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is located about half a mile from Ketchikan across the Tongass Narrows. It is an island that is actually flat enough to have an airport on it. The Ketchikan International Airport Ketchikan International Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (geeze it would be nice if I could figure out the linky thing) is located on Gravina Island but has no road access between it and Ketchikan. So the Gravina Island Bridge was proposed to provide that access. It would also give the city of Ketchikan room to expand (like I said, the town is essentially built into a hillside). Currently there is a bustling ferry system to do this but it does not seem to be adequate for the task.

So, should (in concept) Alaska be allowed to allocate funds to support a bridge? Should geography preclude them from doing it? If so, should the funds instead be diverted to another State whose geography has caused significant problems? Alaska give a fair bit of federal taxes so shouldn't they get their share too?

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #2 09-11-2008, 05:39 PM

Alaskans seem to get a pretty good share of their tax dollars back.

That link depends on sharing the website's definition of "pork." If you want to look purely from a tax basis, scroll down one state on the .pdf posted on this page. Alaska got $1.84 for every $1 paid to the Feds in 2005, the last year for which data is available.

anderclayton · #3 09-11-2008, 05:58 PM

Is the citation relating to federal *income* taxes paid or simply all taxes paid? I sure can't tell from the cite.

anderclayton · #4 09-11-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

mjfrombuffalo said

Alaskans seem to get a pretty good share of their tax dollars back.

That link depends on sharing the website's definition of "pork." If you want to look purely from a tax basis, scroll down one state on the .pdf posted on this page. Alaska got $1.84 for every $1 paid to the Feds in 2005, the last year for which data is available.

Hmm. Well, I'm honestly having trouble finding what all their definition of pork includes. I can see it includes highways...

If you divided the number by the amount of federally owned land though, Alaska has more federally owned land than any other State has. Total. Federal land in Alaska is about 65% of the land in Alaska and Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas. Geographically Alaska is incredibly huge (it has more coastline than the rest of the country combined for example). It also has perhaps the harshest conditions in the country and those are general conditions that would apply every day so would be taken out of the general funding (generally what the website you reference is referring to as "pork") rather coming out of an emergency fund.

**conradd** · #5 09-12-2008, 04:31 AM

So, did Obama vote for it? How about Biden?

Answer here.

**mtomm**[$] · #6 09-12-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

conradd said

So, did Obama vote for it? How about Biden?

Answer here.

Title:

A bill to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.

So not a bill just about this bridge. Right?

McCain voted against it. Yet Palin claimed a lot during her return to Alaska speech that McCain is a friend to Alaska. But it may just depend on their oil situation and less on funding for their state.

frazzledspice · #7 09-12-2008, 10:29 AM

Palin may have (at the 11th hour--11:59 and ticking) opposed the "bridge to nowhere...."

But she was awfully busy building her "bridge to Washington," sending 30 paid lobbyists there to bring back lots of money for other projects in her state.

Hey, I think that would make a pretty good soundbite.

"Sarah Palin was too busy building her bridge to Washington to transfer pork back to Alaska to worry about the bridge to Nowhere."

**mjfrombuffalo**[$] · #8 09-12-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

mtomm said

Title:

A bill to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.

So not a bill just about this bridge. Right?

You would be right. Scanning it quickly, there's over 100 other projects tied, loosely or otherwise, to the bill. Which is one of the huge problems I have with reports on how people voted on bills - these bills are rarely one-issue bills, they're tied in with a multitude of other related or unrelated things. Fake Example to Avoid Derailing Thread (as would happen if I used a real one): Vote for against the Bill to Greet Space Aliens and your opponent will nail you for voting against Financial Aid for NASA students because there was a tiny item on the bill to provide a $1,000 scholarship buried in the multiple sections of the bigger Bill.

Now if someone is sponsoring a bill, that carries more weight with me.

Quote:

McCain voted against it.

Depends on which time it went up to vote. What I recall reading yesterday is Obama and Biden voted not to change the bill to remove the Bridge (among other items) and McCain didn't vote yea or nay on the change (although he voted on other bills that day).

Of course none of this has to do with the original premise of the thread, which was the question whether or not the Bridge project was a valid project.

anderclayton · #9 09-13-2008, 07:25 AM

Quote:

mjfrombuffalo said

Of course none of this has to do with the original premise of the thread, which was the question whether or not the Bridge project was a valid project.

Yup. I was trying for a nonpartisan sort of thread debating the bridge.

A Republican supported it initially. Not talking about Palin.
A Republican decried the bridge and called it and its brother bridge "The Bridge to Nowhere".
Democrats pretty much voted for the bridges.

Sooooooooooo... *bigshrug* on the partisan crap. Like I said in the other thread, I don't agree with Palin's withdrawing support for it but can understand it.

Ander

anderclayton · #10 09-13-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

anderclayton said

Hmm. Well, I'm honestly having trouble finding what all their definition of pork includes. I can see it includes highways...

Oddly enough, even without the bridge projects, Alaska's "pork" allocations are really pretty stable at around the same amount every year.

So, perhaps the bridge projects actually were cutting into what they needed for basic road stuff... I'd imagine that the specific allocations would also include national park maintenance budgets. Lots and lots of that in Alaska.

Geeze it is fairly tough to find facts and figures on these things.

Ander

**mtomm**[$] · #11 09-13-2008, 06:20 PM

Ander, I don't think anyone cares whether Alaska can justify the bridge or not. The point is that Palin is giving the impression that she was this big non-supporter of the bridge when in reality she wasn't.

See, just like the war thing. Nobody cared what the reasons were for Kerry changing his mind on the war, they only cared that he flip-flopped.

You know, waffling.

What are some of those other conservative little ditties that we can't seem to forget and were so damaging to those that got them pinned on them?

anderclayton · #12 09-13-2008, 06:35 PM

Quote:

mtomm said

Ander, I don't think anyone cares whether Alaska can justify the bridge or not. The point is that Palin is giving the impression that she was this big non-supporter of the bridge when in reality she wasn't.

See, just like the war thing. Nobody cared what the reasons were for Kerry changing his mind on the war, they only cared that he flip-flopped.

You know, waffling.

What are some of those other conservative little ditties that we can't seem to forget and were so damaging to those that got them pinned on them?

Allow me to redirect you to the Complaining About the Bridge to Nowhere thread: http://www.eaforums.com/forums/sympo...e-nowhere.html, the Source for all of your venting about Palin needs

Ander

Edited to note that this is kinda part of my point behind starting this thread. People aren't actually interested in debating the merits of the bridge or the merits of the funds that Alaska is getting but are rather more interest in 'getting' Palin. The "Bridge to Nowhere" phrase makes for a tremendous sound bite but actually explaining it takes a good bit more time and effort.

Edited again to note that while the partisan stuff was part of my point in starting this thread, I'm honestly interested in having a debate on the bridge issue. I'd almost debate it with myself and have been debating doing just that here