# Holding lawmakers accountable



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Pretty simple and to the point.

*Holding lawmakers accountable *

Congress moved last week, as it periodically must or else risk undermining the credit of the United States government, to raise the national debt limit. The new threshold is a truly astounding $9 trillion, or about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

The new limitation will hold for only about one year, when Congress will have to go through the motions of raising the debt limit once again. In the last five years under Republican leadership, the debt limit has been raised $3 trillion, reflecting an unwillingness to make real choices among spending priorities.
Surely the same electorate that put the supposedly more fiscally conservative of the two major parties in control of the White House and both houses of Congress could not have expected to witness such a massive increase in the national debt. Voters should remember that come election time.

Fiscal discipline seems to be utterly lacking in today's Washington, D.C. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter in recent days even offered the ridiculous assertion that a modest measure to reduce the rate of increase in federal spending would "cut" not merely to the proverbial bone but all the way to "the marrow." President Bush has done nothing to contain the spendthriftiness of the legislative branch, managing to become the first president in nearly 200 years to fail to issue a single veto.

Rather than make choices in spending - prioritizing national security post-9/11 and actually eliminating other things to offset the new costs, the Republican-led Congress and the Bush administration have simply piled on new spending, some of it indefensible.

There are a few voices of fiscal responsibility on Capitol Hill, but they certainly are not a majority. This year voters should carefully consider the need to rein in spending and hold candidates accountable, unless trillion-dollar debt increases are to become the norm.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I heard John McCain talking the other day and he mentioned that when Ronald Reagan was president he once vetoed a spending bill because it contained something like 150 ear marked spending projects. Then McCain went on to say that this years budget contained over 6,000 ear marked projects. I don't think I would be to quick to point the finger at just the Republican congress. Appears the all have a hand in this mess and from what I read a lot of Democrats are complaining about not being able to spend more. McCain pointed out the Alaska Port MacKenzie bridge project that will cost 2 billion dollars and serve only 50 residents living on a island as a example that was pushed through by Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, both Republicans. You can go through the list and see these kind of projects that are being crammed down our throats from both sides.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> Alaska *Port MacKenzie bridge project *that will cost 2 billion dollars and *serve only 50 residents living on a island *as a example that was pushed through by Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, both Republicans.


That's totally false the Dems want people to believe that so as usal they started SPINING the STORIES.



> Fact and Fiction about the Bridge to Nowhere
> 
> Recently there has been a lot of talk and a lot of writing about the effects of the Transportation Bill in Alaska. A couple of bridges for Alaska made it into the Bill and at least one of them has been knicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere."
> 
> ...


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Thanks ABBK!

I'd been hearing a lot about the famous bridge to nowhere, nice to see some facts on the subject.

Anyone know about the ROAD to Nowhere? Its cost is supposed to be in the billions, and as such, only services a few family members rights to visit a graveyard. Trouble is, the government promised to make the road, and we may end up having to keep that promise.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Gun Owner said:


> Thanks ABBK!
> 
> I'd been hearing a lot about the famous bridge to nowhere, nice to see some facts on the subject.
> 
> *Anyone know about the ROAD to Nowhere? Its cost is supposed to be in the billions, and as such, only services a few family members rights to visit a graveyard. Trouble is, the government promised to make the road, and we may end up having to keep that promise.*




That's most likly the same as the bridge to nowhere, liberal SPIN to a ROAD that's needed; POPPY COCK!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Gun Owner said:


> Thanks ABBK!
> 
> I'd been hearing a lot about the famous bridge to nowhere, nice to see some facts on the subject.
> 
> Anyone know about the ROAD to Nowhere? Its cost is supposed to be in the billions, and as such, only services a few family members rights to visit a graveyard. Trouble is, the government promised to make the road, and we may end up having to keep that promise.


Here's some info for ya!
http://www.westernncattractions.com/roadto.htm


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

ABBK, you have your facts wrong. The town of Ketchikan on the main land has a population of 8,000. The Gravina Island that the bridge it will connect to has less than 50 people living on it. I was wrong also, the cost is 231 million dollars but that is still a lot of money for a bridge to serve 50 people. The last time I checked McCain was a Republican. So to answer your question, no I don't think it is okay to spend that kind of money to serve less than 50 people. It is just that kind of thinking that allows the congress to push through these pork projects at our expense. However it is really moot now as I've learned Republicans, not liberal spinsters, killed the bridge, actually both bridges.

Washington -- Fiscal *conservatives* in Congress won a rare victory Wednesday when lawmakers scuttled plans to spend $230 million to help build "the bridge to nowhere," a span that would lead to an Alaskan island populated by about 50 people.

The money -- *championed by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the powerful head of the Senate Appropriations Committee* -- was earmarked to help construct a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island in the Alaskan Inland Passage in the southeastern corner of the state. A ferry boat now provides transportation between the two points.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate decided to drop the project after it was derided by critics as "pork-barrel spending" on "the bridge to nowhere."

*They also decided to ax $229 million for a bridge between Anchorage and the sparsely populated Knik area of Alaska. That span has been named "Don Young's Way"* after Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who, as chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has helped send federal dollars to the bridge.

Under a compromise transportation spending bill, Alaska would still get the federal dollars -- but the money would not be specifically designated for the two bridges. As a result, Alaskan lawmakers and other officials would decide where to spend the money -- and they could opt to fund other transportation projects.

Stevens on Wednesday blamed weeks of bad publicity for the decision by House and Senate lawmakers to drop the bridge projects. Stevens said his colleagues asked him in the midst of the outcry, "What are you going to do about this?"

A flood of newspaper and magazine editorials attacked the projects, and they were lampooned on Comedy Central's "Daily Show."

Budget hawks in Washington and some *Alaska residents said other projects around the nation were more deserving*. Critics suggested using the dollars to help rebuild the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast.

"It was a symbol of federal spending" that's out of control, said Sen. John Cornyn, *R-Texas*. "There's not going to be a lot of tears shed for the bridges to nowhere."

Stevens had argued that the bridges were needed to spur economic development on Gravina Island and in Knik. The proposed Gravina Island bridge is not a "bridge to nowhere," Stevens said Wednesday; "it's the bridge to the future."

When Sen. Tom Coburn, *R-Okla*., tried unsuccessfully last month to cut funding for the two bridges, an angry Stevens declared that he would resign his Senate seat if the bridge funding was dropped.

On Wednesday, Stevens said he didn't plan on leaving the Senate after all.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Gohon said:


> ABBK, you have your facts wrong. The town of Ketchikan on the main land has a population of 8,000. The Gravina Island that the bridge it will connect to has less than 50 people living on it. I was wrong also, the cost is 231 million dollars but that is still a lot of money for a bridge to serve 50 people. The last time I checked McCain was a Republican. So to answer your question, no I don't think it is okay to spend that kind of money to serve less than 50 people. It is just that kind of thinking that allows the congress to push through these pork projects at our expense. However it is really moot now as I've learned Republicans, not liberal spinsters, killed the bridge, actually both bridges.
> 
> Washington -- Fiscal *conservatives* in Congress won a rare victory Wednesday when lawmakers scuttled plans to spend $230 million to help build "the bridge to nowhere," a span that would lead to an Alaskan island populated by about 50 people.
> 
> ...


Fact 
The Anchorage bridge would be located in a large city of nearly 270,000 people. The Ketchikan bridge would serve the state's fifth largest city of 8,000.

Doesn't matter anyway, we still got the money but lost the earmark status to shut-up the Dem's.

We are getting our needed bridges :beer:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Doesn't matter anyway, we still got the money but lost the earmark status to shut-up the Dem's.


You really don't get it do you? You can't blame everything on the Democrats, especially when it was the good sense of some Republicans that killed the bridges, not the Democrats. That funding was merely the funds to start the building with the total cost to exceed an estimated 1.5 billion dollars upon completion. If the funding had of stood congress would have had to fund it every year until completion. And the attitude of ha ha we got the money anyway is exactly the reason things are out of control in a selfish congress. You're living in a state that has no state taxes but yet gets over $6.00 back in federal money for every $1.00 collected in federal gas sales tax and you think that is something to be proud of? Got a news flash for you...... that makes you part of the problem. Certainly nothing to hold your head high about.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Gohon said:


> > Doesn't matter anyway, we still got the money but lost the earmark status to shut-up the Dem's.
> 
> 
> You really don't get it do you? You can't blame everything on the Democrats, especially when it was the good sense of some Republicans that killed the bridges, not the Democrats. That funding was merely the funds to start the building with the total cost to exceed an estimated 1.5 billion dollars upon completion. If the funding had of stood congress would have had to fund it every year until completion. And the attitude of ha ha we got the money anyway is exactly the reason things are out of control in a selfish congress. You're living in a state that has no state taxes but yet gets over $6.00 back in federal money for every $1.00 collected in federal gas sales tax and you think that is something to be proud of? Got a news flash for you...... that makes you part of the problem. Certainly nothing to hold your head high about.


FACT: Our State needs the bridges and will get them one way or the other!
There are alot of other factors about these bridges that most don't under stand unless you lived here, Example: the bridge from Anchorage to mekenze point would allow Palmer/Wasilla residents to shorten their daily commute to anchorage (were most are employed)by about 75 miles a day freeing up the congestion on the *only* road going north out of anchorage where numerous motorist are killed every year.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

ABBK: So why should Fed govt pay for a bridge the state needs???

Sounds to me like those people need to move a little closer or the STATE needs to help prevent the congestion problems.

Just a question, but did California get Federal monies to widen their roads from 4 lanes to 6?? I am guessing most of it fell on the state and local govt. and not Washington.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

live2hunt said:


> ABBK: So why should Fed govt pay for a bridge the state needs???
> 
> Sounds to me like those people need to move a little closer or the STATE needs to help prevent the congestion problems.
> 
> Just a question, but did California get Federal monies to widen their roads from 4 lanes to 6?? I am guessing most of it fell on the state and local govt. and not Washington.


The same reason the federal gov't is building bridges and dams ect.. in all states.

Do some home work!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

really? Can you name some and how much they are getting? I want to see other states getting that kind of money put into their bridges.

Here is an interesting opinion/editorial about Alaska.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... edit_x.htm


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

live2hunt said:


> really? Can you name some and how much they are getting?


http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/ ... _NO=603847

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/? ... OC_293491&

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... HIUK91.DTL

There's alot more out there just google it and read thru it.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

live2hunt said:


> really? Can you name some and how much they are getting? I want to see other states getting that kind of money put into their bridges.
> 
> Here is an interesting opinion/editorial about Alaska.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... edit_x.htm


Yea,we know how the Dem's like Sen Ted Stevens from ALASKA; I met him for the first time when I was in Kuwait.
Dem's do a good job of making him look like a porker to outsiders.
SPIN SPIN SPIN :jammin: :jammin: :jammin:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

More insight how some politicians are shafting the rest of the country for a very few in their bid to remain in congress. Term limits or the line item veto seems to be about the only way to stop these pigs. Look at the chart real close to see who is screwing you the most.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... edit_x.htm


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

I won't disagree Democrats spend money wastefully. That is why I put the article I did out because D waste our money too. No arguements there.

As I have said before. This country wastes too much money.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

live2hunt said:


> really? Can you name some and how much they are getting? I want to see other states getting that kind of money put into their bridges.
> 
> Here is an interesting opinion/editorial about Alaska.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... edit_x.htm


Actually, all bridges, county, state, city and federal are regulated and funded by the federal gov't, and bound by the federal governments construction guidlines. The only exception could be a privately funded toll bridge.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Also, south dakota and north dakota are recipient states when it comes to the money they recieve in federal funding from the transportation bill meaning they recieve more than they pay. Almost every single road, besides gravel surfaced roads recieves some sort of federal funding also, with the state government setting up the priorities, and funding level being different for interstates, state highways, cities, and counties & townships recieving the least.

I know South Dakota recieves in the neighborhood of $1.70 to $2.00 for every dollar paid in gas taxes in the state.

Funding is given out with a particular match for a particular type of project, with interstates going with a 90/10 federal state match, state primary highways with a 80/20 match, and so on and so forth.

That being said, state governments may choose to increase their gas tax or appropriate property tax or income tax funds to be included in their state's budget for transportation.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Since I live in Alaska, I feel like I can weigh in here a little.
Alaska is a pork state. We are the king of pork, emperor of pork, undesputed heavy weight champion of the world of pork. 
For years now, Alaska and it's congressional delegation have been abusing the United States tax payers with ridiculous projects.
In Dillingham, I just got a brand new all tide dock, courtesy of the Feds. Thank you. I have regular remodels and additions at our Indian Health Service hospital payed for by the US taxpayer. Thank you. Two summers ago I got a brand new Head Start building payed for by,.....come on now,.....sombody,......ok, I know, you get it.
The two Alaskan bridges previously mentioned in this thread have had their earmarks removed, but I believe it is correct when I say the money is still there and available. Contrary to what has been said, the bridges aren't nessisary, but they would be beneficial. Both bridges would open up valuable land for development. and that develpoment would be a boon to the economy, probably state wide. 
Having said that, I will tell you that this Alaskan thinks our Fed spending and resulting debt is out of control, and I would strongly encourage everyone that reads this post to contact your fed representative and tell them that you demand and end to the spending. In two weeks or so, I and some of the rest of us on here are going to write sizable checks to the US Treasury that shouldn't be used to pay for projects like the bridges.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

If you guys want to loose your appetite, go to John McCain's website, and look up the pork projects, specifically the ones for Alaska. The list is a travesty.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Bush never vetoes any spending bills and thats going to catch up tp the reps unfortunately the dems are worse.

As gohon stated, without a line item veto and term limits they have no incentive to look at the good for the country as a whole, its all about bringing home the pork so they will be re-elected


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

arctic plainsman said:


> Since I live in Alaska, I feel like I can weigh in here a little.
> Alaska is a pork state. We are the king of pork, emperor of pork, undesputed heavy weight champion of the world of pork.
> For years now, Alaska and it's congressional delegation have been abusing the United States tax payers with ridiculous projects.
> In Dillingham, I just got a brand new all tide dock, courtesy of the Feds. Thank you. I have regular remodels and additions at our Indian Health Service hospital payed for by the US taxpayer. Thank you. Two summers ago I got a brand new Head Start building payed for by,.....come on now,.....sombody,......ok, I know, you get it.
> ...


Alaska is the largest state in the United States in terms of land area, 570,374 square miles (1,477,261 km²). In fact, it covers more than twice as much land than the next largest state, Texas. If a map of Alaska were superimposed upon a map of the Continental United States, Alaska would overlap Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico and Colorado. Alaska has the longest coastline of any state.

Alaska is the *least densely populated state*;home of Missiles Defense and many other goodies!
Why shouldn't the FEDERAL govt help us too?
If you think we have it better than everyone else, Move to ALASKA!
If you already live here and don't like it, LEAVE!


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Ok,....... well,....... whatever.
To be sure Alaska is quite large, I think I saw a map of it somewhere. And also to be sure, Alaska provides many benefits to the Nation. 
However, in the face of balooning debt that it reasonable to assume someone other than any Alaskan is going to have to pay for, it seems practical to tighten the belt and do without some of the frills, subsities, and endowments that Alaskans don't pay for.
Maybe I'm way off, but I see taxes as user fees for services recieved.
Oh, hey, attention all federal tax payers, get a load of this, Federal tax dollars were used to construct a 7 mile bicycle path in Dillingham. I've got snow and ice on it 8 months per year, and yep it's there, all payed for by federal tax dollars. Again, thank you.
I'd hate for you all to think I'm not appreciative.


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

> Why shouldn't the FEDERAL govt help us too?


Sounds like a typical liberal response!! What ever the situation requires, right?!?


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

I don't have the time, and really, I don't think I have the brains either, but Gohon, or some of you others, if you have time, look up the amount of federal money that goes to HUD, and other like minded programs in Alaska, and then look up how much money the state has in it's oil account, (Permanent Fund,) and what kind of budget surplus we're running this year due to the high price of oil.
Now don't do this on a full stomach, you'll waste your meal. Uhh, on second thought, don't do it on an empty stomach, the dry heaves are terrible.........Ok, I don't know when to tell you to.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I think ABBK misses the point. No one is picking on Alaska in and of itself or the good people of Alaska. It's the representatives of Alaska that are abusing the system which we call Pork. Without question there are other congressmen that do the same thing. Robert Byrd comes to mind as one that that has done it for years. When I see a chart that tells me my state gets back .88 cents on the dollar and Alaska gets back $6.60 on the dollar I know something is out of whack. Sure I could say my state representatives aren't trying but I know better. Colburn is one of the Senators that is trying to stop some of the pork but being a junior senator he hasn't much weight to push with. Colburn wanted to shift that bridge money to the I-10 highway repairs which is in need of repairing and which serves all of the states, not just one state. After all this was the Highway Transportation bill that this item was attached to. All states including Alaska deserve and need federal dollars. Senator Inhofe of my state has been caught slipping in some pork of his own. Not on the scale of Stevens but pork is pork whether it be one dollar or one billion dollars it has to stop. Why not just freeze the discretionary budget for one year? Hell freeze the entire budget for a year or two which would probable balance the budget. Would it really hurt anyone?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

arctic plainsman said:


> Ok,....... well,....... whatever.
> To be sure Alaska is quite large, I think I saw a map of it somewhere. And also to be sure, Alaska provides many benefits to the Nation.
> However, in the face of balooning debt that it reasonable to assume someone other than any Alaskan is going to have to pay for, it seems practical to tighten the belt and do without some of the frills, subsities, and endowments that Alaskans don't pay for.
> Maybe I'm way off, but I see taxes as user fees for services recieved.
> ...




I guess the Federal gov't paid for a useless bike path that no one ask for and all the residents called Sen Stevens and TOLD him they didn't need it :eyeroll: but got stuck with it just to have a pork project. Yea, that's how the system works :eyeroll: 
I totally agree with you, I think the BUSH gets way too much State and FED money for what they provide too.

I'll do you a favor and pass on your concerns to Sen Stevens :beer:


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Ok, good! I think that was what I was hoping for.
Oh, wait, actually, I suggested that in an earlier post.
Glad to see you're with us.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Politicians should only serve two terms, One in office and one in jail.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Sort of hard to argue with ADokken.
As I have mentioned before, I serve on the local city council, (midway thru my first term,) and am very disenchanted with being directly involved in politics. Unbeknownst to me, even on a local level, what you say isn't what you mean, what you do wasn't intented, and the direction you take is at least 90 degrees if not 180 from what you aimed at. 
The impression I get of influence pedaling, deal making, vote purchases, and the like on all levels of govt, I believe all stem from a lack of honesty and integrity. 
I wish we would elect people, I wish we could get more folks to stand for election, that believed in and stick with, basic principles like honor, responsibility, ethics, duty, etc,.....
If the candidates we elect had these values at one time, why do they lose them? I know there are obvious answers, but it bothers me that we do not seem to retain the Washington's, Roosevelts, and Adams.
I believe that nothing is more important than your word. If our elected officials believed that, then Rep Randy "Duke" Cunningham would have,.............


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

arctic plainsman said:


> Sort of hard to argue with ADokken.
> As I have mentioned before, I serve on the local city council, (midway thru my first term,) and am very disenchanted with being directly involved in politics. Unbeknownst to me, even on a local level, what you say isn't what you mean, what you do wasn't intented, and the direction you take is at least 90 degrees if not 180 from what you aimed at.
> The impression I get of influence pedaling, deal making, vote purchases, and the like on all levels of govt, I believe all stem from a lack of honesty and integrity.
> I wish we would elect people, I wish we could get more folks to stand for election, that believed in and stick with, basic principles like honor, responsibility, ethics, duty, etc,.....
> ...


Sounds like to me, that your city gov't has the corruption problem; asking the Fed gov't for things that aren't needed! Then when the Fed gov't delivers what you ask for, you say it was a waste of tax payers $ :eyeroll:

I don't really think you believe Sen Stevens goes and fights for things that were not ask for along with justfication letters to support the need for said pork projects...........So make sure your putting blaim where it belongs. :beer:


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

ABBK,
Your personal attacks are un warranted, untrue, and dissapointing. I think your arguments would hold some credence if you would refrain from said, and instead base them on fact and logic.
I don't think any intelligent person would really think that the fed's, Stevens or any of the rest would force Pork projects on Dillingham or anywhere else. Instead, I think most realize that said Pork projects are popular with most of the recipients inspite of their warrantless value. 
Question for you, would you so readily click on the two happy faces clinking beer mugs icon if some truly fiscal conservatives slashed federal spending, eliminating pointless and needless pork projects, and reduced or eliminated our federal deficit?


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

To clarify, no matter who here in Dillingham asked for it, The Feds constructed a 7 mile long bycycle path that is covered in snow and ice 8 months per year. Can any federal tax payer on this Forum justify that? I live here and I cannot. This kind of spending needs to stop! We are in Federal debt as much as we are because of this kind of pork spending!


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

I'm just out of church, and am headed to work to help pay my share of the debt. I'll check back later.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

arctic plainsman said:


> ABBK,
> Your personal attacks are un warranted, untrue, and dissapointing. I think your arguments would hold some credence if you would refrain from said, and instead base them on fact and logic.
> I don't think any intelligent person would really think that the fed's, Stevens or any of the rest would force Pork projects on Dillingham or anywhere else. Instead, I think most realize that said Pork projects are popular with most of the recipients inspite of their warrantless value.
> Question for you, would you so readily click on the two happy faces clinking beer mugs icon if some truly fiscal conservatives slashed federal spending, eliminating pointless and needless pork projects, and reduced or eliminated our federal deficit?





> Your personal attacks are un warranted, untrue, and dissapointing. I think your arguments would hold some credence if you would refrain from said, and instead base them on fact and logic.


What personal attacks? :huh:



> Question for you, would you so readily click on the two happy faces clinking beer mugs icon if some truly fiscal conservatives slashed federal spending, eliminating pointless and needless pork projects, and reduced or eliminated our federal deficit?


Yes I would, like you I hate wasting money on stupid stuff that doesn't pass the common sense test, however where do these request come from? Mostly local gov't officials trying to look good for the voters.
I know how you feel, we have a Mayor that's a big spender but he' a likes to take the credit for all the projects he gets money for; after getting cought by Stevens for lying about the money he NEEDED for MUST HAVE projects, Oh by the way he's a Democrat go figure!
He told on the request forms and such that he needed 2.5 mil for a bus depot, instead it was for bus stops. Begich is our Mayor in Anchorage now.

"


> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Tom Wilson is faced with a problem many city administrators would envy. How to spend $1.5 million on a bus stop?
> 
> When done, the bus stop next to the Anchorage Museum of History and Art will be like no other in the city, said Anchorage's director of public transportation.
> 
> ...


Don't worry the voters will take care of him. :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> What personal attacks?


The very attacks that I was supposedly the root of in other threads. One more example supporting my case.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > What personal attacks?
> 
> 
> The very attacks that I was supposedly the root of in other threads. One more example supporting my case.


What was the personal attack?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

arctic plainsman said:


> ABBK,
> *Your personal attacks are un warranted, untrue, and dissapointing. I think your arguments would hold some credence if you would refrain from said, and instead base them on fact and logic.*I don't think any intelligent person would really think that the fed's, Stevens or any of the rest would force Pork projects on Dillingham or anywhere else. Instead, I think most realize that said Pork projects are popular with most of the recipients inspite of their warrantless value.
> Question for you, would you so readily click on the two happy faces clinking beer mugs icon if some truly fiscal conservatives slashed federal spending, eliminating pointless and needless pork projects, and reduced or eliminated our federal deficit?


I apologize if you feel like it was a personal attack, that wasn't my intention.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Than you ABBK, it was very gentlemanly of you to say so.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

If anyone would like to have a good laugh at me, do an internet search for Dillingham spy cameras, or something close to that. 
Here's the story. A year ago, our police chief suggested applying for a grand that would help us secure our public property a little better. Without to much thought, the rest of the city council and I voted for it, sure, why not?
Well, read the results of your search and you can laugh your head off at me.


----------

