During his career, he unapologetically supported earmarks as a way to bring home projects and build up infrastructure in a geographically huge state where communities range from big cities to tiny villages. Critics deemed earmarks as pork.
Umm, yes. Wasn’t he part of that Bridge to Nowhere thing? Or was that one of the Senators?
No doubt he was involved, as the House has the power of the purse, but the name most associated with the bridge to nowhere was Sen. Stevens.
You have to spend some time in Alaska to appreciate the very real need for what outside observers might deem “pork barrel” infrastructure projects. It’s a huge piece of land, sparsely populated and with a wide variety of very challenging climates and terrain. Lots of small, isolated communities that cannot be reached by land routes. Lots of supplies delivered by boat. Lots of doctors and dentists flying from community to community over vast expanses. One of the first things you notice about Alaska is how many airplanes you see. Not jets, mind you, but small to smallish props and turboprops. That’s how you get around in a large part of the state.
Not saying they don’t get pork there, it’s just that you have to have seen the place to understand its needs.
…it’s just that you have to have seen the place to understand its needs.
But does not explain why citizens who have had the common sense to settle in less challenging and more rewarding environs (Ohio or Iowa, say) should be paying for it.
You’re reminding me of Heinlein’s ‘The Moon is a Harsh Mistress’ dcardno. It did at least offer a reasonable argument for someone paying to colonise the moon.
Ripped off of course from the Brits reasons for colonising Oz, or the Russkies colonising Siberia.
Penal colony with a (semi)lethal environment outside of the compound? 😉
Well the environment around Sydney Town wasn’t too lethal. If you got on the right side of the abos you could survive indefinitely. But the food’d be even worse—well just as bad—-as convict rations.
Suppose Siberia was much the same. Except for those dreadful winters.
But does not explain why citizens who have had the common sense to settle in less challenging and more rewarding environs (Ohio or Iowa, say) should be paying for it.
Those in Ohio and Iowa need many things they cannot source (in the required quantities) locally. Things such as oil, nickel, bituminous minerals and fish. Which is why you have people with common sense occupying Alaska. And why people with common sense in Ohio and Iowa understand the necessity of paying for shit to get done in Alaska.
And paying taxes to provide services in Alaska (including the dead-weight loss of government operations) to reduce the cost of extracting materials is more efficient than simply paying the cost to make the extraction profitable?
Pull the other one, Dennis.