The ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ takes a tumble, sort of

November 17, 2005

Congressional Republicans just haven’t been able to spin that silly “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska they approved as part of the $286 billion transportation bill passed earlier this year. The legislation was filled with equally embarrassing pork projects — let’s not forget the $1.5 million bus stop — but that darn bridge became the symbol of Congress’ reckless fiscal policies.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said, “You can’t defend it.” Questions about the bridge kept popping up at lawmakers’ town meetings. One GOP consultant warned that the project had become “a political albatross.”

As a result, lawmakers decided yesterday to drop support for the bridge. Sort of.

Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party’s reputation for fiscal austerity.

Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as “bridges to nowhere” because of the remote territory and small populations involved.

The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose. (emphasis added)

It’s a classic case of Congress pretending to respond to public demands. Congress passed the most bloated and expensive transportation bill in American history — complete with 6,371 pet projects, a new pork record — sparking cries of Republican excess. In response, lawmakers have “trimmed” the legislation without actually cutting a penny.

In fact, the bridge linking the town of Ketchikan to a sparsely populated island and regional airport may still be built. Instead of a congressional earmark, Alaskan officials can just go build the bridge themselves with federal money.

This is what passes for Republican fiscal restraint in 2005. A $286 billion transportation bill will still cost $286 billion, but now local officials will have more say over how .001% of the bill is spent. It’s quite an accomplishment.

A steady diet of Republicanism causes uncomfortable bloating, unable to hide beneath today’s more revealing fashions. Do you smell a Dem commercial here or is it just me?

  • You might want to look at a map of Alaska. Ketchikan and Anchorage are 700 miles apart, so a “bridge linking Ketchikan and Anchorage” would probably be too much, even for the free spending Republicans. The actual proposal was for two bridges, one in each city. Both are boondoggles and should not be funded, but this kind of sloppy reporting just undermines your credibility.

  • Nobody in this state has the means to build these projects and so even if the money will be in “local control ” it will simply go back to the cronie contractors of club W.
    Then we will be stuck with an outrageous Maintenance bill for bridges built in some VERY tough places.
    Since Nana Corp.(an Alaskan corporation) is not hireing any local New Orleans workers to rebuild its schools, maybe those New Orleans workers can come up here to build our bridges. Rant..rant..rant..seriously, I’ve benn enjoying this blog for some time and wanted to say thanks.
    By the way, if you connect Anchorage and Ketchikan with a bridge you will be spending a little more than a paltry $442,000,000!

  • Ketchikan and Anchorage are 700 miles apart…

    Ah yes, that would be a problem. I’ve corrected the post. Thanks for catching this.

  • You’re being unfair. The Congress is actually allowing local officials to have a say over a whopping 0.154% !!

  • I guess I can understand pork. You’re a powerhouse a-hole like Ted Stevens, so you want to show off what passes for your manhood by showing what a big project you can deliver. It’s happened throughout out history, regardless of the party in power. But delivering untethered money seems … well, unCongressional.

    Stevens also wants Congress to repeal the so-called Magnussen Amendment, a law passed in the 1970s which restricted the size (and flimsiness) of oil tankers which could move through Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands. Not content with the massive Exxon in his own state, Stevens would like to spew similarly great amounts just outside my window.

  • It’s official, the “daddy party” is now the “teenagers on crack” party. Time for the grownups to take away the car keys!

    Send this article to all your “fiscal conservative” Republican friends, and ask them which party they plan to vote for in the 2006 elections. (and why)

  • Do you smell a Dem commercial here or is it just me?

    As I was reading this, I did think, “Wow, the commercial pretty much writes itself.”

    • Comments are closed.