Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Um, I think if you go back and read it, you'll find that the quislings in the House merely removed the name of the bridge to nowhere from the bill, so that they could claim some nobility, but (sneakily enough!) left the money in, and told Alaska "spend it as you see fit."
Effing snakes. All PR, no substance.
|
What bizarre about all the earmarks is that it's the same way for all of them. They divvy up a pot, and different congressmen specify projects. The state would get the money either way. For some reason, they feel this is more effective than having it go into general transportation funds, which the state government could spend as it sees fit. I suppose the reason is that it's a lot more impressive to cut a ribbon on a big bridge than to point out how smoothly the Town Car rolls down the freshly paved highway.
