The aftershocks of the national debate over Alaska's two costly
proposed bridges -- the Gravina and Knik Arm "bridges to nowhere"
-- stretched far beyond the state. The cavalier attitude toward
taxpayer money shown by the Alaska congressional delegation proved
to Washington politicians that there is a taste barrier beyond
which the public will revolt, and that a small number of determined
activists could effect change in a nation of 300 million.
As a result, Congress removed the earmarks for the two bridges
in 2005 and, in early 2007, new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
de-funded more than 10,000 other earmarks left over from the
previous Congress. The new Congress also is on course to enact
lobbying/earmark reform legislation, and several months ago Sens.
Tom Coburn and Barack Obama convinced both houses to enact sweeping
legislation on earmark transparency.
None of this would have happened without Alaska's proposed
While Washington is moving to address its earmark problems, a
mopping-up operation remains in Alaska regarding the Gravina
Bridge. Taxpayer funds will be spent this summer to build a gravel
"access" road to this nonexistent bridge. It turns out that Alaska
received approximately $24 million in federal earmark funds to
build this "access" road, which will end at a beach.
Why is the state building this road? Simply because $24 million
in federal money is available. Regardless, the project lacks merit
-- and unless Gov. Sarah Palin decides to do otherwise, this
wasteful "access" road will move forward.
Let's analyze what's wrong with this situation. First, Congress
earmarked (and subsequently de-earmarked) federal money for the
unnecessary and expensive Gravina Bridge project.
Second, even though the state Legislature canceled the bridge
component of the project, the state plans to proceed with this
relatively small portion, which has highly questionable need but
which retains federal funding.
Third, the state will knowingly ignore the fact that, at $8
million per mile, this 3-mile gravel road will be an extremely
expensive use of taxpayer money with little to no measurable
benefit (except to the road contractor, of course).
There is an alternative, however: Gov. Palin could return the
money for the gravel "access" road to Washington, perhaps even with
a request that the money go to rebuild hurricane-ravaged Louisiana
and Mississippi. While Alaska, or any state for that matter,
naturally is reluctant to return money to the federal government,
doing so is the responsible and ethical thing to do and likely
would benefit Alaska in the long run. Currently, officials from
other states resent Alaska because the state in recent years
received the highest per capita level of federal spending. This
fact, coupled with the state's "bridges to nowhere" reputation for
wasteful spending, makes elected federal representatives from other
states more than happy to vote to reduce Alaska's federal
Because returning money to the federal government is so unusual,
Gov. Palin and the state of Alaska inevitably would reap enormous
amounts of good publicity nationally. If she returned the federal
money, Palin would be signaling to the rest of the country that,
under her administration, Alaska will carefully handle taxpayer
dollars responsibly. There's no better way for the governor to
build bridges, metaphorically speaking, with the rest of the
Ronald Utt is the
Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage
First appeared in Anchorage Daily News
The aftershocks of the national debate over Alaska's two costly proposed bridges -- the Gravina and Knik Arm "bridges to nowhere" -- stretched far beyond the state. The cavalier attitude toward taxpayer money shown by the Alaska congressional delegation proved to Washington politicians that there is a taste barrier beyond which the public will revolt, and that a small number of determined activists could effect change in a nation of 300 million.
Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow
Read More >>
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam(R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2013, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973