[Vision2020] pork

[Chris Storhok]

Roger,
I agree about selling some of the federal land.  Just around the Fairbanks
area is plenty of BLM land that is not beautiful wilderness, will never be
mined, and frankly belongs in the free marketplace.  On the other hand,
there are certainly parcels of land around Denali National Park that should
be in the hands of the feds...
With federal spending, I really do not see an end to massive spending
anytime soon, neither party can, nor is willing, to cut the power and scope
of the federal government.  The $34 billion spent on transportation in 2005
is just a fly speck compared to defense, entitlements, and the national
debt.  
Chris



-----Original Message-----
From: lfalen [mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 2:29 PM
To: Chris Storhok; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] pork


Chris

Good response. I still feel that there is away too much pork every where,
Idaho is no exception. Some time in the future maybe some federal land can
be sold.
-----Original message-----
From: Chris Storhok cstorhok at co.fairbanks.ak.us
Date: Tue,  8 Nov 2005 15:45:41 -0800
To: 'lfalen' lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] pork

> Roger,
>  I would love to bit on this one.  First I do have to explain how the
> highway bill works.  It is really easy to point to projects in the bill
and
> scream pork, your two bridges below are a great example.  But..and this is
> the big but...this money would have gone to Alaska anyway as part of the
> state's allotment from the Federal Highway Trust Fund that receives
revenue
> from the federal gas tax.  What the Taxpayers From Common Sense will not
> openly share with you and the nation is that federal highway projects are
> one many items that has its own funding source.  Other federal budgets
with
> their own dedicated funding sources include the FAA of which all aviation
> projects are based on revenues from federal aviation fuel taxes; all
boating
> infrastructure programs, paid out of taxes on marine fuel collected under
> the Dingle-Johnson Act;  and you naturally know of social security,
Medicare
> and so forth.
> 
> Up until the early 1990's Congress did not dedicate highway funds to
> specific projects, it was assumed that state governments would take care
of
> the mechanism to divide highway funds throughout the state.  Pork
barreling
> highway projects began in earnest under the Clinton Administration (and I
am
> not blaming either party for this) when rural communities in mid-eastern,
> western, and southern states started to complain that highway money was
not
> flowing their direction.  As you may remember, IDT was just as guilty of
> this sin, remember the completion of unneeded freeways around Idaho Falls?
> Twin Falls?, and the famous Flying Y intersection on Boise?  Can you
recall
> Governor Andrus complaining to IDT and the state GOP that Highway 95 was a
> goat trail?
> 
> This type of behavior within state government lead us down the road of the
> creation of the "High Priority" list within the various highway bills.  If
> you read the law (and I guarantee that TFCS, and other eastern
organizations
> that really hate spending in the west will not tell you this) the dollar
> amount of "High Priority" projects is subtracted from the state's formula
> allotment.  For example, in 2005 the Federal-aid highway and highway
safety
> programs will be funded at $34,422,200,000 and this is regardless of the
> existence of any pork projects, or other lists.  Of that only
$2,966,400,000
> (8.6%) is assigned to High Priority projects in 2005.  If the High
Priority
> list did not exist, that $2,966,400,000 for 2005 would have been spent
> anyway elsewhere.  
>  
> The real issue is how the state allotment works, large rural states like
> Alaska, Idaho, and Montana receive far more in highway funds than we pay
> into the trust fund; smaller urban states like New Jersey, Ohio, and the
> like pay far more into the  Highway fund than the receive back.  But
> remember history, at one point the U.S. Congress funded projects such as
the
> National Road, the Erie Canal, and so forth to open up development of the
> former colonies and the then western territories. These developments
> consumed a large part of the federal budget in their day (far larger as a
> percentage than today)  Really, the question to TFCS is, why will you not
> allow younger frontier states (that unlike their eastern partners are
mostly
> owned by the federal government) to construct the highways, airports, and
> ports that our eastern brethren were allowed to construct using federal
> money?
> 
> On to the two bridges:  the bridge at Ketchikan has been proposed to
satisfy
> a outside corporation (Princess Cruise lines) who would like to start and
> end more of their cruises in Ketchikan.  Currently, if you cruise Alaska
you
> will either start in Bellingham, Wa, or up on this end.  The cruise from
> Bellingham, by definition, has to pass through Canadian waters to get to
> Alaska, guess what? Starting January 1, 2007 passports will be needed to
> cross this path.  So the cruise lines are really interested in developing
> Ketchikan has the southern base of operations.  The runway is great,
Alaska
> Air serves the airport well, but the airport is a ferry ride away from the
> port.  Add in the need to construct hotels to support the cruise ships (on
> the same island as the airport) the poor weather which lead to frequent
> delays in the ferry and you have a need for a bridge.  Remember the whole
> Tongess anti-logging movement?  The end of wholesale harvest from Tongess
> has forced Ketchikan into developing an alternate economic base, tourism
is
> it and a southern base of operations for the cruise lines will really
help;
> so what do you want, a $400 million bridge and a thriving tourist based
> economy or wholesale logging in the Tongess? 
> 
> On to Anchorage..some factors: 
> 1) as you may know development of Anchorage has filled in all of the
> non-federal land in that basin, there is nothing left;
> 2)the Corps of Engineers spend millions each year dredging the port of
> Anchorage to try and keep it operational; however the many species of
whales
> that live in Knik Arm within the shallow and fertile waters of Anchorage
do
> not like the operation that much;
> 3) Pt. McKenzie is a natural deep water port that does not silt in like
> Anchorage does - no dredging needed;
> 4) The thousands of acres around Pt. McKenzie is permafrost free and
> relatively dry (easy to develop);
> 5) Pt. McKenzie is only a mile from Anchorage.
> Thus the need for the Knik Arm Bridge.  Granted the bridge right now would
> take you to nowhere in a hurry, within a few years of the completion of
the
> bridge there will be a somewhere to go. 
> 
> One other point Roger, all those other projects you mention (with the
> exception of the paint job) have similar projects within the confines of
> Idaho...who paid for the new ag building at Idaho? (the feds)  How about
the
> millions of $ of fed pork heading to the Lionel Hampton School of Music?
> The 4 lane highway 95 from Moscow to Lewiston?  Agriculture research at UI
> and WSU? WSU grizzly bears?  I know you just copied the text from the
TFCS,
> however I think we all should be reminded that western states really are
> sucking tax revenues from eastern states; the TFCS wants that to stop - it
> is a New York organization.
> 
> Hope all is well,
> Chris
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of lfalen
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 12:19 PM
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] pork
> 
> 
> The following is from an article by Stephen Spruiell in the November 7,
2005
> issue of National Review. Any typo's are mine.
> 
> Rep. Don Young stuffed two bridges in to the highway bill recently passed
> into law. Combined the bridges will cost taxpayers $454 million just
> slightly less than the amount Alaska will give away in PFD checks this
year.
> Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) checks are paid to Alaskans out of state'd
> royalties on oil and gas. This year the state will distribute roughly $510
> million to Alaska's 600,000 residents or about $845 apiece. Alaska has no
> stae personal income tax or sale tax.
> 
> On top of this payment they are getting two unneeded bridges. one is
> designed to connect the town of Ketchikan  (population 8,000) to its
airport
> on nearby Gravina  Island (pop. 50), supplanting a ferry service that
> currently makes the trip in about seven minutes for a fare of $5 t0 $6.
The
> other is the infamous bridge to nowhere. It is a bridge between Anchorage
> and a small rural area called Point MacKenzie ( pop. 11). Citizens Against
> Government Waste ranks Alaska firs in per capita pork spending. 
> 
> Here are just a few of the goodies Young and Stevens have steered toward
> alaska in recent years: $1.8 million for berry research; $1.8 million for
> sea-otter recovery; $10 million for a pyschiatric treatment facility; $48
> millions subsidies for the timber industry; and $500,000 to paint a giant
> salmon on an Alaska Airlines jetliner. 
> 
> A study by Taxpayes for Common Sence revealed that the $285.5 billion
> highway bill contained 119 special projects for Alaska, totaling almost $1
> million. Of the $24 billion worth of pork in the bill Alaska got 4%. Don
> Young compared it to hunting. " i'm always looking for a bigger Head" He
> said about Ted Stevens " i'd lkie to be a little oinker, myself. If he's
> cheif porker i'm upset."
> 
> My comment: I thought Robert Byrd was bad. These guys make him look like a
> piker. Maybe Chris would loke to comment on Alaskan politics
> 
> Roger
> 
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯