![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
missroseroseFor those who haven't heard yet, here's the context: a week or so ago, Senator Ted Stevens threw an absolute hissy fit when a younger senator tried to take away funding aimed at building a bridge in Alaska. Here's a (relatively) unbiased article about the whole debacle.
As you might expect, this is causing all sorts of hoohaw in the "Letters to the Editor" section of local newspapers; the Juneau Empire has recently published a couple of letters from places as far away as Pennsylvania and Salt Lake City. However, none of them seemed to reflect my take on the situation, so I figured I'd send in my own. Here's the text of the letter I sent to the Empire; the copy I sent to the Anchorage Daily News was shorter (due to their stronger restrictions on word count) but the gist was essentially the same.
There's been an awful lot of controversy lately about money earmarked for the bridge in Ketchikan. Many of the articles and letters I've seen regarding it have been bandying about a lot of loaded terms - "discrimination", "bridge to nowhere", "fiscal irresponsibility", and "pork barrel spending", just to name a few. The situation seems to have been brought to most people's attention through Senator Ted Stevens' temper tantrum (to use a loaded term myself) when one of the other senators tried redirecting the funds to rebuilding one of the many highways damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
While I may not be proud of our senator's attitude, the fact is that a lot of people don't realize how hard it can be to get around in Alaska. Several outside news articles pointed out that we have the highest per capita rate of federal spending; what they don't say is that Alaska, as a frontier state, regularly has to deal with weather, terrain, and wildlife challenges that most people elsewhere wouldn't even imagine. As a result, I don't think we can measure our fiscal responsibility by the same standards as other places. Although Senator Stevens acted childishly, he truly wants to help Alaskans overcome the obstacles presented by living here.
On the other hand, logic dictates that money should go to where the need is greatest; and it's certainly arguable that the (albeit temporary) need of thousands of people in New Orleans outweighs the needs of a few Alaskans. Ketchikan seems to have been waiting for this bridge for some time; it's possible that they can wait a little longer.
So here's my proposition - why not let the Ketchikan residents decide? The money will most directly benefit them; it's already marked for their use, so they should be the ones to decide where it goes. It seems to me like the most fair thing to do at this point would be to hold a poll among the residents of Ketchikan and Gravina Island, and let them decide if the money should go to building their bridge or helping to rebuild the highway in New Orleans. If, in this highly-publicized instance, they can find it in their hearts to give up an immediate benefit to them in order to help many more others, perhaps the government will later be more understanding towards seemingly large amounts of money directed at making Alaskans' lives easier.
And now, for lunch...all this talk of pork is making my mouth water.
As you might expect, this is causing all sorts of hoohaw in the "Letters to the Editor" section of local newspapers; the Juneau Empire has recently published a couple of letters from places as far away as Pennsylvania and Salt Lake City. However, none of them seemed to reflect my take on the situation, so I figured I'd send in my own. Here's the text of the letter I sent to the Empire; the copy I sent to the Anchorage Daily News was shorter (due to their stronger restrictions on word count) but the gist was essentially the same.
There's been an awful lot of controversy lately about money earmarked for the bridge in Ketchikan. Many of the articles and letters I've seen regarding it have been bandying about a lot of loaded terms - "discrimination", "bridge to nowhere", "fiscal irresponsibility", and "pork barrel spending", just to name a few. The situation seems to have been brought to most people's attention through Senator Ted Stevens' temper tantrum (to use a loaded term myself) when one of the other senators tried redirecting the funds to rebuilding one of the many highways damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
While I may not be proud of our senator's attitude, the fact is that a lot of people don't realize how hard it can be to get around in Alaska. Several outside news articles pointed out that we have the highest per capita rate of federal spending; what they don't say is that Alaska, as a frontier state, regularly has to deal with weather, terrain, and wildlife challenges that most people elsewhere wouldn't even imagine. As a result, I don't think we can measure our fiscal responsibility by the same standards as other places. Although Senator Stevens acted childishly, he truly wants to help Alaskans overcome the obstacles presented by living here.
On the other hand, logic dictates that money should go to where the need is greatest; and it's certainly arguable that the (albeit temporary) need of thousands of people in New Orleans outweighs the needs of a few Alaskans. Ketchikan seems to have been waiting for this bridge for some time; it's possible that they can wait a little longer.
So here's my proposition - why not let the Ketchikan residents decide? The money will most directly benefit them; it's already marked for their use, so they should be the ones to decide where it goes. It seems to me like the most fair thing to do at this point would be to hold a poll among the residents of Ketchikan and Gravina Island, and let them decide if the money should go to building their bridge or helping to rebuild the highway in New Orleans. If, in this highly-publicized instance, they can find it in their hearts to give up an immediate benefit to them in order to help many more others, perhaps the government will later be more understanding towards seemingly large amounts of money directed at making Alaskans' lives easier.
And now, for lunch...all this talk of pork is making my mouth water.
