Battle over Bridges

I blogged about this earlier, but KTVA reported Alaska's senior senator was the forefront today of a clash of generations and political philosophy. Ted Stevens, a 37-year Senate veteran, told freshman colleague Tom Coburn of Oklahoma that he would resign and "be taken out of here on a stretcher" if the Senate killed funding for two Alaskan bridges.

Stevens called Coburn's measure - quote "an offense, a threat to every person in my state." Coburn's measure would have eliminated some 450 million dollars in federal funds for Alaskan bridges and shift 75 million dollars to a Louisiana bridge damaged by Hurricane Katrina. The measure failed on an 82-to-15 vote.

The dispute temporarily brought the Senate to a halt as Republican and Democratic leaders sought to intercede between Stevens and Coburn. Coburn targeted two Alaskan bridges that were cited by fiscal hawks as the worst examples of unwarranted spending in the massive highway bill signed by the president this year.

This news item is from a TV station in Anchorage Alaska, and it includes a poll "Are you for or against the bridges?" At the time I am posting this they have received 176 votes: 5 votes in favor, and 171 votes against the bridges. I can't guarantee all votes were from Alaskans (in fact I know that one was not, because I voted No)

GOP Bloggers blogged What Exactly is a Republican Senate For? What were the amendments about?

The Coburn amendments would have repealed $500,000 previously authorized for a sculpture park in Seattle, Washington, $200,000 to build an animal shelter in Westerly, RI, and $200,000 to build a parking lot in Omaha, Nebraska, and re-directed the funds to help pay instead for Hurricane Katrina recovery.

If a Republican Senate cannot kill a sculpture park, then we need new Republican Senators who are actually conservatives because this inside-the-Beltway crowd has no idea what federalism or limited government mean. It's so bad that porkmaster Ted Stevens has petulantly threatened to resign from the Senate if the measures passed (good riddance to someone who treats our hard-earned taxes with contempt):

"It's not taxpayer money. It's highway-user money."

Since when does a Republican say funding for pork is "not taxpayer money."

And even if we look at it as highway-user money, why should highway users all over the US pay for a bridge to an island with 50 people on it.

Of course, some Republicans think that anything done in the name of the party is unassailably virtuous, and will squawk that Republicans must be inherently immune from criticism. But why bother having "Republican" Senators if they just spend like Democrats and demonstrate the disdain for taxpayers that is typical of liberals? Oh yes, so they can confirm mediocre Supreme Court nominees who have no record of Constitutional originalism. With this attitude towards taxpayers, the GOP moves further and further from conservatism.