Ted Stevens is indicted

cawacko said:
Coburn tried to stop the Bridge to Nowhere but got voted down. Stevens threatened to quit if it happened. I hope he loses in the Republican primary and if he doesn't I don't care if he loses to the Democrat. Republicans need to clean house and he is at the top of the list.
Click to expand...

Would you also opine that the Democrats could use a broom for a few members? :cof1:
 
uscitizen said:
Not really considering how much oil we get from their state and plan on getting in the future. just figure out how to get it out of the oil money.

Infrastructure per capita investment always has been and always will be higher in Alaska.
Click to expand...

What do their natural resources have to do with a bridge building that would benefit few if any?
 
Probably unnecessary here, but just a recap:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001931.html

For a Senate Foe of Pork Barrel Spending, Two Bridges Too Far

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 21, 2005; A08

Republicans in Congress say they are serious about cutting spending, but they learned yesterday to keep their hands off the "Bridge to Nowhere."

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a staunch opponent of pork barrel spending, tried to block $453 million for two Alaska bridges that had been tucked into the recent highway bill. Coburn wanted to redirect the money to the Interstate 10 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain, a major thoroughfare that was severely damaged during Hurricane Katrina.

Sen. Ted Stevens, the veteran Alaska Republican, was dramatic in his response. "I don't kid people," Stevens roared. "If the Senate decides to discriminate against our state . . . I will resign from this body."

Coburn's measure, offered as an amendment to the 2006 transportation appropriations bill, failed 82 to 15. The Senate also narrowly defeated spending an additional $3.1 billion on emergency heating-bill assistance for low-income people, a major priority for many Democrats, who said they would try to attach the increase to other bills this fall.

Although the Coburn amendment lost, it struck a chord among lawmakers as they face increasing belt-tightening pressure. Katrina and the war in Iraq have created billions in unexpected expenses, and Republicans as well Democrats would like to trim other programs to offset the cost. But yesterday's debate showed even an obscure budget item has its patrons.

One of the Alaska bridges, dubbed the "Bridge to Nowhere" by its critics, would connect one small town to a tiny island. It received $223 million in the highway bill that Congress passed this summer. The second bridge, named "Don Young's Way" in honor of its patron, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska), received about $230 million -- but that is just a down payment on a cost that could hit $1.5 billion.

Coburn had wanted to shift all the money to the I-10 rebuilding project, which is expected to cost $500 million to $600 million. Because of restrictions in the way highway dollars are distributed, Coburn's amendment would have redirected $75 million to the Pontchartrain bridge while unfunding the two Alaska bridges.

"I believe that we should spend taxpayer dollars where they are most needed," Coburn wrote fellow senators asking for support.

The amendment became a cause celebre on the left and the right, with watchdog and conservative groups reporting updates on their Web sites throughout the day. The Club for Growth alerted readers early yesterday on its Web log, or blog: "As of last night, the opposition is putting up a big fight. They sense this amendment, if successful, as establishing a precedent. A precedent where all pork is vulnerable and no lawmaker is safe."

Later in the day, the Heritage Foundation circulated a paper, "The Bridge to Nowhere: A National Embarrassment," and noted, "fiscally responsible members of Congress should be eager to zero out its funding." Even the Sierra Club backed the amendment, noting, "We must fix the nation's existing infrastructure first."

And, there is a curious twist to the story: Many residents of Alaska appear to support forfeiting the bridge money for hurricane relief. "This money, a gift from the people of Alaska, will represent more than just material aid; it will be a symbol for our beleaguered democracy," reads a typical letter to the Anchorage Daily News.

Young, who made sure his state was one of the top recipients in the highway bill, was asked by an Alaska reporter what he made of the public support for redirecting the bridge money. "They can kiss my ear! That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard," he replied.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to reconcile the idea that Coburn is anything but a reformer.
 
Like Big coal did The Applachians.

Luckially Alaska has learned a bit since then.

I saw my streams run black with coal waste, all the fish and even crayfish killed before some basic regulations were put into place. And now under Bush they have hit it again. Mountain top removal this time. Not many fines for big coal violations under Republicans either.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
How many people in Alaska do you know ?

Actually there are not too many people in Alaska.
Click to expand...

I know three. I've never read or heard on the news people in Alaska complain about getting raped and pillaged. I do know Alaskans get an annual dividend from the state through APFC which my greedy company does work for.
 
cawacko said:
I have heard zero people in Alaska complain that they get raped and pillaged. Who have you heard complain?
Click to expand...

Hell, I go up to Anchorage and Fairbanks once a year.... they want the jobs to come to their state. They want to open up more drilling in ANWR. They want the funds that additional oil and gas represents to their state.

We are talking about land the equivalent size of LAX. That is the amount of land they want to use to expand our national energy production in AK.
 
Superfreak said:
It is what the senile old fool just pulled out of his ass.
Click to expand...

HaHa, we are pension fund advisors. That means we invest on behalf of public union employees to fund their retirment and in this example the people of the state of Alaska. Yet that makes us parasites? Interesting viewpoint considering his political positions.
 
cawacko said:
HaHa, we are pension fund advisors. That means we invest on behalf of public union employees to fund their retirment and in this example the people of the state of Alaska. Yet that makes us parasites? Interesting viewpoint considering his political positions.
Click to expand...

He just rambles. He literally pulls shit out of his ass and throws it at the board. Which is why an ever increasing number of his posts have little or nothing to do with the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top