| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40272 Activity:low |
10/25 What Congress Did Is Disgusting
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_26_05_JS.html
\_ Google maps image of where the bridge would go:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=ketchikan,+ak&ll=55.355648,-131.711569&spn=0.041162,0.147749&t=h&hl=en
http://tinyurl.com/bqr2f (maps.google.com)
More info on the Gravina bridge
http://www.taxpayer.net/Transportation/gravinabridge.htm
\_ Something liberals and conservatives can agree on. -emarkp
\_ This seems made up: "Last week, Alaska's other senator,
Lisa Murkowski, said it would be "offensive" not to spend your
money on her bridge. When she first became a senator, I asked
her if Republicans believed in smaller government. She was
unusually candid: 'We want smaller government. But, boy, I sure
want more highways and more stuff, whatever the stuff is.'"
\_ It's john stossel. don't expect too much.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2005/09/07/155361.html
http://csua.org/u/du4
Price gouging saves lives!
\_ Soo soo sook! |
| 5/24 |
|
| realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_26_05_JS.html Print This Article October 26, 2005 What Congress Did Is Disgusting By John Stossel What Congress did is disgusting. You heard what the Senate did to Tom Coburn's attempt to impose some san ity on spending. Years ago, interviewing economist Walter Williams for a show ABC News ca lled "Greed," I was perplexed when Williams said, "a thief is more mora l than a congressman; when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him." That was silly hyperbole, I thought, but watching Congress spend, I see that I was naive and Williams was right. Robert Byrd about wasti ng our money on "Robert Byrd Highway"-type projects in West Virginia. H is answer was as arrogant as he was: "I would think that the national m edia could rise above the temptation of being clever, decrepitarian cri tics who twaddlize, just as what you're doing right here." Are you not at all embarrassed about ho w much you got?" Byrd glared at me in silence, and finally demanded, an grily, "Are you embarrassed when you think you're working for the good of the country? They're going to shrink government and take away yo ur favorite programs!" The Republicans got e lected, but if the Democrats' goal was to expand the government, they w ere the real winners. Once Republicans were in power, they started spending money even faster than the Democrats did. Big spender Ted Stevens responded to Coburn's good suggestion to kill a "Bridge to Nowhere" with a tantrum on the Senate floor: He threatened t o resign and "be taken out of here on a stretcher." Unfortunately, Congress has an unwritten code: "Don't threaten the other congressmen's loot." The Senate reprimanded Coburn by voting 82 to 15 to save the Bridge to Nowhere. The Ketchikan, Alaska, bridge is particularly egregious because it's a b ridge to a nearly uninhabited island. Yet it will be monstrous -- highe r than the Brooklyn Bridge and almost as long as the Golden Gate. Last week, Alaska's other senator, Lisa Murkowski, said it would be "off ensive" not to spend your money on her bridge. When she first became a senator, I asked her if Republicans believed in smaller government. But, boy, I sure wa nt more highways and more stuff, whatever the stuff is." There are certain basic th ings that you've got to have." If people want to live i n remote areas of Alaska, why can't they pay for their own sewers and w ater, through state or local taxes, or better yet, through private busi nesses? Why should all Americans pay to run sewer lines through the vas t, frozen spaces of Alaska? Alaska has so much money, it has no state income tax o r sales tax. Instead, it gives its citizens money from something called the Alaska Permanent Fund. Stevens, Murkowski and Don Young, who once told critics of the Bridge to Nowhere that they could "kiss his ear," are not unique. Republican pol iticians talk about limited government, but the longer they are in powe r, the more they vote to spend. |
| maps.google.com/maps?q=ketchikan,+ak&ll=55.355648,-131.711569&spn=0.041162,0.147749&t=h&hl=en Link to this page Link t o this page JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to use Google Local in standa rd view. However, it seems JavaScript is either disabled or not supporte d by your browser. |
| tinyurl.com/bqr2f -> maps.google.com/maps?q=ketchikan,+ak&ll=55.355648,-131.711569&spn=0.041162,0.147749&t=h&hl=en Link to this page Link t o this page JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to use Google Local in standa rd view. However, it seems JavaScript is either disabled or not supporte d by your browser. |
| www.taxpayer.net/Transportation/gravinabridge.htm Stossel's Commentary in Manchester (NH) Union Leader Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is trying to sell America's taxpayers a $315 millio n "bridge to nowhere" in rural Alaska. As Chairman of the House Transpor tation and Infrastructure Committee, he is in a very good position to ge t his way. Young should be stopped from using his political clo ut to force federal taxpayers to pay for a bridge that is ridiculous in its scope, unjustified on its merits, and far too expensive for taxpayer s to swallow at a time of record federal deficits. Young succeeds, tiny Ketchikan, Alaska, a town with less than 8,0 00 residents (about 13,000 if the entire county is included) will receiv e hundreds of millions of federal dollars to build a bridge to Gravina I sland (population: 50). This bridge will be nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the Brooklyn Bridge. The Gravina Bridge would replace a 7-minute ferry ride from Ketchikan to Ketchikan Airport on Gravina Island. Project proponents tell the public that the bridge is a transportation necessity, though the ferry system a dequately handles passenger traffic between the islands, including traff ic to and from the airport. Project Costs In September 2004, the US Department of Transportation released its dec ision on the Gravina Access Project, and chose the most expensive altern ative as the preferred project. Recently, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) increased the estimate for the project by more than one-third, to $315 million. Annual operating and maintenance costs, much of which would likely be paid for by federal taxpayers, will cost an additional $110,000. In comparison, Boston's Big Dig project-a massive t unneling and highway project and the poster child of government waste-co st less than one-tenth this amount on a per resident basis (see Table 1) . Taxpayers will subsidize each trip over Gravina Bridge to the tune of mo re than $43, compared to about $4 for each Big Dig trip (see Table 2). T hat means each trip over the Gravina Bridge would cost taxpayers more th an ten times as much as a trip through the most wasteful highway project in America's history! In addition to the millions of dollars that will come from the federal go vernment, state and local sources will be responsible for approximately $63 million, or 20 percent of the project's cost. Ketchikan residents ar e understandably concerned about how this shift in government priorities will affect the area's already sparse government funding. In the winter of 2002-03 snowplowing on ancillary roads in the Ketchikan Gateway Boro ugh was discontinued due to lack of funding. Residents point out that th e area's need to match the $23 million in federal funds that were alloca ted for the Gravina Bridge in 1997 might be causing state and local gove rnments to cut back on much needed social services and road maintenance priorities. Building more major road projects will further exacerbate th e region's inability to carry out necessary infrastructure maintenance. The Gravina Access Project would purportedly improve surface transportati on between Ketchikan and Gravina Island, yet there is little indication that things will be better with the bridge. Few local residents are on r ecord complaining about the short ferry ride to Gravina, and many touris ts love the ferry ride from the airport to town. One Ketchikan resident told ABC News: "When people come to Ketchikan, that little ferry ride is what they remember." And still, despite the lack of demonstrated need, federal taxpayers will pay to construct and maintain the bridge and conn ecting roads. "When people come to Ketchikan, that little ferry ride is what they remem ber." Young is so supportive of the Gravina Bridge that he used his signif icant influence as Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructu re Committee to secure $175 million worth of earmarks for the project in last year's failed reauthorization of the six-year transportation bill. Young secured a $1 million earmark in the fiscal year (FY) 2002 appropriations bill and a $2 million earmark in the FY 2003 ap propriations bill. Young will continue his a ttempts to secure the same massive earmarks for Gravina Bridge. He shoul d be prevented from using his significant political power to support a w asteful and unjustified local pet project at the expense of federal taxp ayers. References 1 Alaska Airlines, the only commercial passenger airline that flies to K etchikan, runs seven daily flight routes in the summer and six in the wi nter. Two ferries, which run every 15 minutes in the summer and every 30 minutes in the winter, provide transportation to and from the airport. The city also maintains a third ferry in case of emergency. The two bridge design was chosen so cruise ships can freely pass th rough the east channel. For the purposes of this paper, this project is treated as one bridge project. "Gravina Access Project: Preliminary Quant ities and Cost Estimate, Technical Memorandum." Samuel's calculations for Gravina Bridge were updated using most current cost estimates. The estimation of 1,000 trips/day was attained by applying to Gravina Bridge the same ratio of vehicle trips per thousa nd local population that the Big Dig generates. In Boston, the airport g enerates 150,000 vehicle trips, or about 25 trips per thousand local pop ulation. If this ratio is applied to Ketchikan, the resulting estimate o f daily trips is 350. Samuels utilized a much more conservative estimate of 1,000 trips per day. Section 1101(13) of the Transportation Equity Act fo r the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178). |
| www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2005/09/07/155361.html A Politicians and the media are furious about price increases in the wake o f Hurricane Katrina. If you want to score points cracking down on mean, greedy profiteers, pu shing anti-"gouging" rules is a very good thing. But if you're one of the people the law "protects" from "price gouging," you won't fare as well. Consider this scenario: You are thirsty -- worried that your baby is goi ng to become dehydrated. You find a store that's open, and the storeowne r thinks it's immoral to take advantage of your distress, so he won't ch arge you a dime more than he charged last week. You continue on your quest, and finally find that dreaded monster, the p rice gouger. He offers a bottle of water that cost $1 last week at an "o utrageous" price -- say $20. But if he hadn't demanded $20, he'd have be en out of water. It was the price gouger's "exploitation" that saved you r child. It saved her because people look out for their own interests. By charging $20, the price gouger makes sure his water goes to those who really need it. The people the softheaded politicians think are cruelest are doing the m ost to help. Assuming the demand for bottled water was going to go up, t hey bought a lot of it, planning to resell it at a steep profit. If they hadn't done that, that water would not have been available for the peop le who need it the most. As Ad am Smith wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brew er or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Consider the storeowner's perspective: If he's not going to make a big p rofit, why open up the store at all? Staying in a disaster area is dange rous and means giving up the opportunity to be with family in order to t ake care of the needs of strangers. Any number of services -- roofing, for example, carpentry, or tree remov al -- are in overwhelming demand after a disaster. When the time comes t o rebuild New Orleans, it's safe to predict a shortage of local carpente rs: The city's own population of carpenters won't be enough. If this were a totalitarian country, the government might just order a b unch of tradesmen to go to New Orleans. But in a free society, those tra desmen must be persuaded to leave their homes and families, leave their employers and customers, and drive from say, Wisconsin, to take work in New Orleans. If they can't make more money in Louisiana than Wisconsin, why would they make the trip? Some may be motivated by a desire to be heroic, but we can't expect enou gh heroes to fill the need, week after week; most will travel there for the same reason most Americans go to work: to make money. Any tradesman who treks to a disaster area must get higher pay than he would get in hi s hometown, or he won't do the trek. Limit him to what his New Orleans c olleagues charged before the storm, and even a would-be hero may say, "t he heck with it." If he charges enough to justify his venture, he's likely to be condemned morally or legally by the very people he's trying to help. Let the market work, suppliers come -- and competition brings prices as low as the challenges of the disaster allow. Goods that were in short supply become available, even to the poor. It's the price "gougers" who bring the water, ship the gasoline, fix the roof, and rebuild the cities. org is organizing its members to encourage Congress to keep federa l pork projects and waste taxpayer dollars, and we need your help to cou nter their attack on your pocketbook. jpg Considered, confirmed originalism is not elitism by David Limbaugh (Oct 25, 2005) Contrary to so-called anti-elitist sentiment out there, it's going to take known heavyweights to clean up that mess. |
| csua.org/u/du4 -> www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2005/09/07/155361.html A Politicians and the media are furious about price increases in the wake o f Hurricane Katrina. If you want to score points cracking down on mean, greedy profiteers, pu shing anti-"gouging" rules is a very good thing. But if you're one of the people the law "protects" from "price gouging," you won't fare as well. Consider this scenario: You are thirsty -- worried that your baby is goi ng to become dehydrated. You find a store that's open, and the storeowne r thinks it's immoral to take advantage of your distress, so he won't ch arge you a dime more than he charged last week. You continue on your quest, and finally find that dreaded monster, the p rice gouger. He offers a bottle of water that cost $1 last week at an "o utrageous" price -- say $20. But if he hadn't demanded $20, he'd have be en out of water. It was the price gouger's "exploitation" that saved you r child. It saved her because people look out for their own interests. By charging $20, the price gouger makes sure his water goes to those who really need it. The people the softheaded politicians think are cruelest are doing the m ost to help. Assuming the demand for bottled water was going to go up, t hey bought a lot of it, planning to resell it at a steep profit. If they hadn't done that, that water would not have been available for the peop le who need it the most. As Ad am Smith wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brew er or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Consider the storeowner's perspective: If he's not going to make a big p rofit, why open up the store at all? Staying in a disaster area is dange rous and means giving up the opportunity to be with family in order to t ake care of the needs of strangers. Any number of services -- roofing, for example, carpentry, or tree remov al -- are in overwhelming demand after a disaster. When the time comes t o rebuild New Orleans, it's safe to predict a shortage of local carpente rs: The city's own population of carpenters won't be enough. If this were a totalitarian country, the government might just order a b unch of tradesmen to go to New Orleans. But in a free society, those tra desmen must be persuaded to leave their homes and families, leave their employers and customers, and drive from say, Wisconsin, to take work in New Orleans. If they can't make more money in Louisiana than Wisconsin, why would they make the trip? Some may be motivated by a desire to be heroic, but we can't expect enou gh heroes to fill the need, week after week; most will travel there for the same reason most Americans go to work: to make money. Any tradesman who treks to a disaster area must get higher pay than he would get in hi s hometown, or he won't do the trek. Limit him to what his New Orleans c olleagues charged before the storm, and even a would-be hero may say, "t he heck with it." If he charges enough to justify his venture, he's likely to be condemned morally or legally by the very people he's trying to help. Let the market work, suppliers come -- and competition brings prices as low as the challenges of the disaster allow. Goods that were in short supply become available, even to the poor. It's the price "gougers" who bring the water, ship the gasoline, fix the roof, and rebuild the cities. org is organizing its members to encourage Congress to keep federa l pork projects and waste taxpayer dollars, and we need your help to cou nter their attack on your pocketbook. jpg Considered, confirmed originalism is not elitism by David Limbaugh (Oct 25, 2005) Contrary to so-called anti-elitist sentiment out there, it's going to take known heavyweights to clean up that mess. |