U.S. Gives Anchorage $1.5M for Bus Stop
 |
James Joyner | Thursday, May 19, 2005 |
The city of Anchorage, Alaska is faced with an unusual problem: How to spend $1.5 million in federal money for a bus stop.
U.S. Gives Anchorage $1.5M for Bus Stop (AP)
Tom Wilson is faced with a problem many city administrators would envy: How to spend $1.5 million on a bus stop. Wilson, Anchorage’s director of public transportation, has all that money for a new and improved bus stop outside the Anchorage Museum of History and Art thanks to Republican Sen. Ted Stevens â fondly referred to by Alaskans as “Uncle Ted” for his prodigious ability to secure federal dollars for his home state.
[...]
We have a senator that gave us that money and I certainly won’t want to appear ungrateful,” he said. At the same time, he does not want the public to think the city is wasting the money. So “if it only takes us $500,000 to do it, that’s what we will spend.” That is still five to 50 times the typical cost of bus stop improvements in Anchorage.
The money was contained in a $388 billion spending bill passed by Congress last November, when Stevens was head of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Citizens Against Government Waste has ranked Stevens No. 1 every year since it began calculating lawmakers’ proficiency at bringing home pork in 2000. In 2005, Stevens brought home more than $645 million, or $984.85 for each Alaskan, the group says.
Robert Byrd would have won that title more than a dozen times in his day. Indeed, the outrage isn’t so much that we’re paying 150 times the going rate for a bus stop–although that’s admittedly a bad thing–but that we’re paying for a bus stop at all. How in the world is that related to even a loose interpretation of the responsibility of the federal government?
Further, even if one thinks the Feds should be in the business of handing out largess, one would think Anchorage would have better uses for $1.5 million. Surely, it has bridges that need rebuilding, roads that need building or refurbishing, schools that need roofing, and so forth. Some of those things even involve interstate commerce.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Caption Contest Winners
- What’s the Opposite of Schadenfreude?
- Posse Comitatus? Its a Stupid Law Anyways
- Obama’s Short National Security Team
- Wire Politics
- 10 Funniest Political Quotes Of 2008 -
- Memeorandum Beats Google News
- US in Recession Since December 2007
- Sex Offender Registry Stupidity
- Jim Jones Outstanding National Security Advisor Choice
- Say Anything linked with Another Reason To Veto The Transportation Bill
How in the world is that related to even a loose interpretation of the responsibility of the federal government?
Are you saying that the Feds should only be involved in transportation projects that occur between state borders?
A functional, multi-modal transportation system is essential for the economic health of the country.
The main problem with our transportation policy is that there is no cohesive national strategy. As the Anchorage project suggests, our transportation "policy"--for decades--has merely been a free-for-all pork fest where members of Congress bring federal money to their districts without regional--let alone national--coordination and a serious debate about what the US transportation system should look like.
Of course transportation is, in reality, a function of land use. Land use is regulated at the municipal level; but it is not a stretch to argue that one of the reasons our post-War suburbs look the way they do has been because municiplaities have develop policies with a view to get fdereal money.
A functional, multi-modal transportation system is essential for the economic health of the country.
Doesn't necessarily make it a constitutional expenditure. Just because something's a good idea doesn't mean the Constitution allows it.
In fact, that confusion right there defines the battle over judicial nominations.
McGehee-
The constitutionality is an interesting question. The intersate highway system--probably the greatest public works program in US history and the origin of the mroe recent transportation bills--was conceived by Eisenhower as a "national defense" strategy.
I am not sure if there is any case law challenging the constitutionality of federal transportation spending.
Actually the interstate highway system was first concieved by FDR as a way to improve national commerce and provide jobs. It never got off the ground until Ike repackaged it as an issue of national defense.
I am not sure if there is any case law challenging the constitutionality of federal transportation spending.
Who's going to go to court to stop the money spigot?
Kappiy,
You skated right by the important part of the. The feds are going to be spending 1.5 million dollars to build a simple @$^&*% bus stop.
Comments are Closed
