A Bridge Too Far

By Alexander Schwab

The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is a win-win for the Americas.

By opening Latin American markets to U.S. exports, it provides a boost to domestic industries while broadening Third World access to a higher quality of life.

By offering us cheaper goods, it enriches American citizens of all rungs of the economic ladder, allowing even the poorest families the opportunity to purchase a variety of different goods.

By improving the financial state of Latin American society, it stems the causes of the drug trade and illegal immigration.

And, by widening the overall labor pool on which the United States can draw, it even weakens the political clout of labor unions, long the bastions of protectionism and the enemies of progress.

The only disappointing aspect of CAFTA’s passage was the thin margin by which the House passed it — only two votes. In fact, revelations of last-minute lobbying and shady negotiations may transform CAFTA into a pyrrhic victory, as Americans increasingly learn the hefty cost of congressional collusion: pork barrel spending.

It is more than an auspicious coincidence that the contentious trade agreement passed shortly before the most flagrant and outrageous highway bill of all time. With stupefying heights of earmarked spending — often for near-uninhabited locales — the $286.4 billion legislation illustrates the importance of congressmen in high places. Just ask Bill Thomas, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who garnered more money for Kern County in his district than went to Los Angeles County, with its 10 million strong population. If you know of Kern County, you also know that it probably does not need $722 million in federal funds; if you haven’t heard of Kern County, then that just strengthens the point.

Or consider Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young, the only member of the House from Alaska. Though 48th in population, Alaska is fourth in pork received via the highway bill. Crowning this offering to the inefficiency gods is a six-mile bridge connecting an island of 50 occupants to mainland Alaska. The purpose: eliminating the inconvenience of a ferry ride. The cost: $231 million — or more than $4 million for each islander.

As Thomas and Young (both Republicans) prove, the GOP and Democrats are not waging this war on party lines. But this was not really a fight so much as a massacre — only eight House members out of 435 voted against the transportation bill. President Bush, meanwhile, has yet to invoke his veto power to prevent a single piece of legislation from becoming law during his White House tenure.

What happened to the days when old-fashioned congressional bickering halted the Washington spending machine?

As vital as issues like the Supreme Court and the War in Iraq are, debate about excessive spending deserves its own place in the spotlight. Transportation legislation is not as exciting as gay marriage and stem-cell research, but it impacts the average citizen at least as much. We laud bipartisanship, but forget that liberal-conservative alliances present downsides. Legislation must be unambiguously necessary or egregiously detrimental for both major parties to favor it. Bet you can easily guess which category this bill falls under.

If Republicans continue down this road to calamity, Democrats may one day fill the void of the party of “smaller government.” But with majorities in both parties feverishly committed to wasteful spending, such optimism is a bit premature.

The roads funded by this transportation bill are certainly paved with good intentions. But where do they lead?

Alexander Schwab is a research assistant at the Center for Individual Freedom.