Bridge money's nice, but public support is, too

In his 37 years as an Alaska senator, Ted Stevens has done much to improve Alaska. The billions of federal dollars he's secured for the state have funded projects that advance the infrastructure, economy and other facets of our state.

In his zeal to bring home as big a piece of the federal funding pie as he can, however, Stevens sometimes hurts more than he helps.

Case in point, his behavior in a Senate meeting last week.

Tom Coburn, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, challenged federal funding of the proposed Knik Arm bridge and a span connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island - the so-called &#8220bridges to nowhere” that have garnered national attention and condemnation of late.

Coburn was elected to the Senate vowing to cut government, especially &#8220pork-barrel” spending.

A vendetta against pork set up an inevitable clash with &#8220Uncle Ted” Stevens, who is the acknowledged master of securing funds for his state.

The clash came when Coburn proposed a measure to cut about $450 million for the Alaska bridges and divert $75 million to fix a Louisiana bridge damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

With the country's debt ballooning, Americans' constant fear of higher taxes and national shock over the destruction wrought by Katrina, the suggestion was not unreasonable.

Stevens' reaction was. He acted as though Coburn had proposed forcing Alaska out of the union.

The measure was &#8220an offense, a threat to every person in our state,” Stevens said. He also is quoted as saying he would resign and &#8220be taken out of here on a stretcher” if the funding was cut.

Coburn's proposal to ax the bridge funding and his efforts earlier in the meeting to cut funding for other projects, including a $500,000 sculpture park in Washington, broke an unwritten rule that a senator doesn't threaten projects pursued by another senator. The implication is an Oklahoma senator has no business telling an Alaska senator what their state needs money for.

Though Coburn's faux pas rankled his fellow senators, there is an overall national good that trumps unwritten Senate rules. That is the ideal Stevens should have appealed to in defense of the bridge funding, instead of taking the measure as a personal attack.

When people in the Lower 48 question why Alaska is getting $450 million to build the bridges, the answer they should hear is that the projects are crucial to economic development in a state that badly needs it. Instead the message people got was, &#8220because Ted Stevens will resign if he doesn't get his way.”

If the bridges are built, it should be because they stand on their own merit, not because Stevens bullied the Senate into it.

There are enough misconceptions out there about Alaska - like the state is full of igloos and environment-haters. We don't need our senator fostering another misconception - that we're money-grubbing or care more about ourselves than the rest of the country.

As always, Stevens should be applauded for his efforts to bring federal funding our way. It would just be nice if he could bring public support with it.

This editorial originally appeared in the Sunday edition of the (Kenai) Peninsula Clarion.