Democrats squawk over $690 million bridge

[alp227]

Source: Wash. Post

With House Republicans laboring to find ground for compromise on a long-term transportation bill, the House on Thursday quietly approved a single piece of legislation to spend money on a bridge that may cost up to $690 million.

It is very much a bridge to somewhere — connecting two Midwestern cities — but it may as well have been the infamous bridge to nowhere from the way Democrats reacted.

“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. This is an earmark,” Rep. Nick J. Rahall (D-W.Va.) said when the bill came up for a vote on the House floor.

In that accusation lies a simple subtext to the dilemma that has turned agreement on transportation funding into an unholy mess in the House. For several decades, earmarks were the grease that got big-ticket transportation bills approved.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/democrats-squawk-over-690-million-bridge/2012/03/01/gIQA9BmMlR_story.html

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. Yeah, transportation bill 'earmarks' like the Blunt Amendment.

Its a wonder they get anything done in DC.

[nineteen50]

2. When you have property that has little value create a demand add access

[aquart]

3. How much of the $690 million goes for labor?

[Igel]

4. Yeah, well ...

When one side has a bill that consists mostly of a list of projects with stipulated amounts going for each project it's a stimulus bill and utterly kosher. When the other side has the same kind of bill, it's pork.

Every few years they swap beliefs, everybody that was keeping kosher suddenly itching for a good Czech zabijačka and the other side suddenly realizing that they were raised Haredi and need to return to their roots.

[chitowngal08]

5. The states are paying for this. Not the gov't.

MN and WI are paying for this. I guess I am too!

[high density]

6. I'd like to hear some squawking when defense spending comes up again

It makes $690 million look like pennies.