How did the bridge to nowhere happen?

[wacki]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002574136_spending21.html

Seriously, I want to know how do you become so powerful that you can make a move like that? What was his leverage? Why did nobody else in the Senate vote against this? What is going on?

Please, if you are going to make a worthless post that so and so is a scumbag... all republicans are scum.... all blah blah blah...just don't even bother posting. I don't care who is scum. i just want to know how he managed to get this bill passed. In otherwords, what was his secret weapon? What tactics did he use?

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
Please, if you are going to make a worthless post that so and so is a scumbag... all republicans are scum.... all blah blah blah...just don't even bother posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disclaimers trying to direct replyers how to reply are very annoying. If you can't handle free speech and stupid comments, you shouldn't post here.


As for your question. Stevens is the senior Republican, and like Byrd (the Senior Democrat) he can get all the pork he wants.

Seniority babe. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

As for your question. Stevens is the senior Republican, and like Byrd (the Senior Democrat) he can get all the pork he wants.

Seniority babe. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I really doubt seniority is the only reason. What are his motives for building the bridge. The people of alaska don't even want the bridge.

Basically what I'm trying to find out is:

1) Motivation for building the bridge
2) Motivation for senators not to trump it.

[jt1]

He probably has a financial interest on the island or knows someone who does.

If you expect people in power to look after the common good you're setting yourself up for continual disappointment. Politicians and corporate giants didn't get their positions of power because there nice guys. I don't believe that nice guys necessarily finish last, but they don't finish first....unless first is measured by your own happiness.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
He probably has a financial interest on the island or knows someone who does.


[/ QUOTE ]

probably? probably!!? If you want I can make up facts too!!!

It's so much fun!!!

[Arnfinn Madsen]

If it is any comfort, from my homeplace the world's longest bridge of that kind (cable-stayed) was built to connect 1,000 citizens:

http://koti.japo.fi/~aapisku/mosvik/bridgenight.JPG

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
probably? probably!!? If you want I can make up facts too!!!

It's so much fun!!!


[/ QUOTE ]


Do you expect someone to actually research this senators financial dealings b4 he/she posts a reply. I'm just saying that if I had to guess, I would say that he has some financial interest on the island. No one is making up facts.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Motivation for building the bridge

[/ QUOTE ]

Power.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Motivation for senators not to trump it.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't want to rock the boat. They have pork bills, too, and they don't want to give someone else a reason to vote against their stuff.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Motivation for building the bridge

[/ QUOTE ]
Money. Any big contract like this usually results in "fundraisers" for the legislator who got it passed.

[ QUOTE ]
2)Motivation for senators not to trump it.

[/ QUOTE ] Not to sound like a broken record, or to reiterate pvn's statement, but also...money. The more money you secure in pork for your state, the more the recipients of that money are going to reward you for your favorable governance.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you expect someone to actually research this senators financial dealings b4 he/she posts a reply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since alaska is getting a half a billion dollar check they don't even want I expect some reporter out there to do the homework. All i want to know is if anyone has seen an article showing the details.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying that if I had to guess, I would say that he has some financial interest on the island. No one is making up facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok lets review: You are guessing financial interest on the island of 50 people, and nice guys finish last.

You really helped me out there!

[natedogg]

It's the sytem itself wacki. The system is designed for this. The "bridge to nowhere" is just a very visible and notable instance of what goes on all the time with congressional appropriations.

natedogg

[jcx]

Stevens is the chair or a senior member of several committees, including commerce and transportation. If he doesn't get his pork, he'll make sure your bill dies in committee. This could have been the start of something great if he got pissed off and started a pissing contest in the Senate (and put a halt to a lot of superfluous spending). But since only 15 Senators had the balls to vote against him, this is unlikely. I would have loved to see his bluff called on his promise to resign if his bill was defeated. Chances of him resigning = less than zero. Someone with an ego big enough to waste hundreds of millions of $$ on a useless prestige project is not going anywhere, but the spectacle would have been fun to watch.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Motivation for senators not to trump it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Poker players (and economists) should recognize it as collusion. As Senator Coburn found out the hard way, Dems and Reps both want their pork and will pass each other's [censored] in the knowledge that the other guys will do the same.

[etgryphon]

I believe that Stevens has the chair of of the Commerce Committee. They have this procedural rule called "Filling the Amendment tree". Which basically means that the chairman is in charge of "assigning" spots to possible amendments that the committee can vote on. Now there are two tactics that you can take: 1) fill your amendments at the front of the tree and have many so you are willing to loose some but get some through, 2) fill the amendments at the end of the tree so you can slip them out of the committee. I believe that Stevens used the latter because he really wanted this particular amendment to pass...

Now the great vehicle that is the highway bill has been one of the easiest things to attach pork too. The senators have a "gentleman's agreement" that they will allow "everyone" to get a little pork and not specifically try to target specific peices of pork. The problem here is that since it made it through the committee with Stevens amendments that carries a lot more weight and tougher to get stripped. One it make it to the floor, there is another "amendment tree" that need to get filled. Frist is in charge of this one. But First gives deference to the chairman of the committee that the bill came through. So now Stevens is a gatekeeper for all other people's "pork" to make it on the bill. So he is in prime position to remind and influence with this priviledge.

If you want the motivation, it has less to do with who lives on the island, it has everything to do with the money that is coming to the state. All the jobs and profits for the constructions. He gets to tout that he has brought all this "business" to Alaska.

The only reason that we are even talking about this particular one is because the actual "pork" is ostensibly only helping 50 people. So the rest of the country, us, look at it and say "WTF? You are giving 500 million to benifit 50 people?" We technically don't care or notice the jobs and the profit to Alaskan citizens or companies.

Stevens then gets bent out of shape becuase Corbin wants to attack "specific" earmarks and thus breaking the "gentleman's agreement". The other senators don't want go against Stevens because if he loses his "pork" he will remember it the next time that he gets to "fill the amendment tree". The Commerce Committee is one of the more powerful committees in the Senate so it is best not the piss the chairman off if you want to get money.

An interesting note...Reagan vetoed a Highway Bill because it had too much pork. Count: 152 items. Current bill passed with 6,371 items and $24 Billion price tag.

-Gryph

Seriously, wacki, like some have already replied, it's the money. Every pol "owes" his successful election to people/groups who donate to his campaign war chest. These people/groups all have their causes/special interests and they want an "ear" in office. OK, a few exceptions to the every. But too damned few.

Engineering firms, land use experts and construction companies are very likely on his donor list. And they find ways to donate more than small amounts. The payoff is contracts for projects that aren't always needed or wanted. The "spin" is usually about the benefit(s) to the community and the district/state getting their tax dollars returned.

Donations will always be needed. Big donations come with perks for the donor and debts for the pol. Every time we see "Campaign Finance Reform" legislation and think maybe, just maybe, some sanity is on the horizon, the pols are busy finding the loopholes.

Also, it's been pointed out how the "tit for tat" line of thinking plays. "You pass my pork and I'll pass yours." It's collusion, plain and simple.

The last two sessions passed, I think I remember correctly, two of the largest omnibus spending packages ever. And they were both done at the end of the sessions. Damned near every member of both houses piled on every friggin' thing they wanted. Too bad GWB went along and signed off.

They all talk about cutting back this/that and saving here/there, but they don't seem to do it. Again, if my memory serves, Reagan commissioned a group of business people and they put together the "Gray Commission Report" (?). It was enormous. And a few pages of it were acted on. Very few pages.