C-J lays the wood to Hal Rogers' desire to lay pavement

In recent months, the C-J seems more strategic in picking issues and more forceful in trying to exert influence and sway public opinion and lawmakers. Since October, they've thrown their weight around on the library referendum, young earth creationism and Clarence Thomas.

Now, they've picked a far stronger target: Rep. Hal Rogers (R-5th district) avid support for an I-66 corridor in Eastern Kentucky-- an "interstate" highway that would only appear in Kentucky. They ran feature/front-page articles on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. (I was surprised that today's op-ed piece on roads did not address the issue. Perhaps that's coming later this week.) I'm not sure their position is consistent with their broad advocacy of government spending, but at least in this case, I must commend them on their very effective work!

First, the fiscal irresponsibility angle-- from R.G. Dunlop's piece on Sunday...

The article's two sub-titles are a useful summary: Politics drive Kentucky road project that other states have rejected" and "Rep. Hal Rogers funneling millions to keep interstate route alive, putting other priorities at risk".

U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers has funneled nearly $90 million in federal funds toward a proposed interstate highway in Kentucky that likely will never cross the state, much less stretch beyond its borders.

Despite the substantial expenditure of funds, not a single shovelful of dirt has been turned on Interstate 66, conceived nearly two decades ago as a coast-to-coast corridor that would run through Southern Kentucky. Since then, it has been abandoned by every other state as unnecessary or too expensive.

We try not to build roads that don't lead anywhere," said Brent Walker of the West Virginia Department of Transportation, which has never seriously pursued I-66.

Nevertheless, Kentucky continues to push forward, urged on by I-66 supporters, including local politicians and economic-development officials, and driven by Rogers' powerful influence as a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee...

Second, the environmental damage angle-- Dunlop's article on Monday...


Third, reiterating the opportunity cost of spending money on I-66 (as enumerated in the first article) may mean that monies are not available for other, more worthy, projects (again, not something that seems to concern the C-J very much)-- from James Carroll's piece on Tuesday...