Howdy Oatrice,
The "Bridge to Nowhere" was widely covered, and here are just a few of the
articles that were written on the story that developed over late 2005.
The Washington Post - "For a Senate Foe of Pork Barrel Spending, Two Bridges
Too Far" by Shailagh Murray.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001931.html
"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."
The above article references a paper entitled "The Bridge to Nowhere: A
National Embarrassment" by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D. which can be found on the
Heritage Foundation website.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm
"The bridge has become an object of national ridicule and a symbol of the
fiscal irresponsibility of many in Congress toward the money entrusted to
them by the taxpayers."
U.S. News and World Report - "A bridge (Way) too far" by Bret Schulte.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050808/8highway.htm
"The proposed bridge would be nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and
high enough for cruise ships to pass underneath. It's being paid for in part
by $223 million worth of designated funds, so-called earmarks, included in
the $286.4 billion federal highway and mass transit bill getting wrapped up
by Congress last week."
The Gravina Island project got "defunded" in late 2005. "Alaska 'bridge to
nowhere' funding gets nowhere" by Jennifer A. Dlouhy in the San Francisco
Chronicle covers this aspect of the story.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/17/MNGF5FPI7N1.DTL
"Fiscal conservatives in Congress won a rare victory Wednesday when lawmakers
scuttled plans to spend $230 million to help build 'the bridge to nowhere,' a
span that would lead to an Alaskan island populated by about 50 people."
But, as this Wall Street Journal "OpinionJournal" column points out, the
project might go forward. It also speaks to the potential of people close to
the sponsors of the project possibly profiting from their relationships.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007930
"Consider the controversy that just the Alaska congressional delegation has
managed to stir up with the intricate web of ties between its earmarks and
various relatives of the members.
...
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the much-ridiculed earmark was removed from
the transportation bill, although Alaska was allowed to keep the broader pot
of money to spend as it saw fit. Gov. Murkowski promptly decided to build the
bridge anyway, proposing a down payment of $91 million--the most he could
provide under federal-state spending formulas.
...
The Anchorage Daily News reports that Art Nelson, Mr. Young's son-in-law, is
part owner of 60 acres of what he described as 'beautiful property' on land
that will be opened up to development by the bridge."
The San Francisco Chronicle article describes "Mr. Young" as "Rep. Don Young,
R-Alaska, who, as chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has helped
send federal dollars to the bridge."
As noted in the articles cited above, these kinds of "deals" are called "pork
barrel" projects. Here is the Wikipedia explanation of the phrase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel
"Pork barrel, in a literal sense, is a barrel in which pork is kept, but
figuratively is a supply of money; often the source of one's livelihood."
The searches noted below will provide many more articles on the bridge.
If you need any clarification, please feel free to ask.
Search strategy:
Google search on: "pork barrel" bridge Alaska
://www.google.com/search?q=%22pork+barrel%22+bridge+Alaska
Google search on: "Gravina Island" Young friends OR relatives
://www.google.com/search?q=%22Gravina+Island%22+Young+friends+OR+relatives
Looking Forward, denco-ga - Google Answers Researcher |
