Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (188922)	12/7/2006 11:09:06 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793632

I agree with that, but I'll bet a hat that there is plenty of pork in Florida. Doesn't the Corps of Engineers build those big rock breakwaters to save the beaches?

To: DMaA who wrote (188922)	12/8/2006 1:40:30 AM
From: Snowshoe	Respond to of 793632

>>why is it right to coerce a fellow in Florida into paying for a bridge enjoyed by someone in Alaska.<< Alaska gets back a much higher proportion from federal motor fuel excise tax than it pays out, because it's a pioneer state and still in the early stages of building out its transportation infrastructure like roads, bridges, ports, and airports. Because of the rugged and remote location, and severe weather extremes this construction is typically much more expensive than in the continental US. This infrastructure is not merely "enjoyed" by someone in Alaska, but supports the US national economy and defense in various ways, such as... 1) Developing and transporting Alaskan resource products including oil and gas, minerals, salmon, and timber to the rest of the US. And shipping food and manufactured products to Alaska from the rest of the US. 2) Enabling tourism from the rest of the US, and migration of people to Alaska from elsewhere in the US. 3) Supporting the large contingent of US military in Alaska. 4) Etc. In a modern integrated and dynamic economy like the USA, I think it's reasonable to shift transportation funding around as needed. As I stated when the "Bridges to Nowhere" controversy erupted, the real problem is the Congressional "earmarking" system that allowed certain senior politicians to wield excessive power, and that is exactly what the reformers zeroed in on. Now that the earmarks have been removed, I hope and expect that these big bridge projects will soon be killed off by the newly-elected Alaska Governor and Legislature. Most of the money that was earmarked for the bridges comes from Alaska's pre-existing fuel-tax allocation, and is really needed for other smaller projects. We don't need a couple of huge edifices named after Don Young and Frank Murkowski. Of course if you'd rather choke off the funding and not develop Alaska, that's fine with me. I like it wild! ;>)