The U.S. Congress overwhelmingly approved a bill to allow the construction of a $700 million bridge spanning the St. Croix River between Wisconsin and Minnesota. The bridge had
to gain a special exemption from Congress due to its violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

The bridge, which would be located a few miles south of Stillwater, Minn., is supposed to ease congestion in Stillwater, where an archaic yet majestic lift bridge resides in the center of town.
Repeatedly omitted from the various discussions on the issue is the fact that I-94 crosses the
St. Croix only six miles south of the hypothetical bridge’s site.

To summarize: The bridge mars the landscape protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, which seeks to keep beautiful areas beautiful; it costs the tax payers of Wisconsin and Minnesota $700 million collectively and it is a superfluous addition considering the six-lane highway
bridge six miles to the south.

Yet, there was unanimous agreement in the U.S. Senate, and
a very large majority in the House of Representatives voted in support of the bridge. It is hard
not to agree with Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and his characterization of the project as a flagrant example of
congressional earmarking.

One of the most vivacious proponents of the bridge was Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., erstwhile Republican presidential primary hopeful, in whose district the bridge would be built and whose residents would reap the economic benefits. Bachmann has made a national
image for herself condemning the excesses of big government and decrying
unsustainable government spending.

But a $700 million eyesore bridge connecting
the small town of Stillwater to the smaller town of Oak Park Heights, Minn., is, apparently government
operating efficiently.
The millions invested could be spent shoring up the enumerable deficiencies in the
existing bridges across Minnesota and Wisconsin, but the reasoning for not doing so is obvious. The
new bridge is a tangible and concrete investment, whereas forestalling the collapse of current
bridges is not an observable achievement; if done correctly, nobody will ever know it happened.

Bachmann and all the other governmental leaders involved, including Minnesota Democrats Gov. Mark Dayton and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, now have a demonstrable “improvement”
they facilitated, which they can tout in stump speeches and campaign ads in order to woo the
electorate.

Particularly puzzling is Gov. Scott Walker’s agreement to split the costs with
Minnesota, despite its hefty price tag. Walker rather publicly rejected an $810 million project
to link Milwaukee and Madison by way of passenger train, a train that could then be extended
to Minneapolis and Chicago, linking the whole Midwest. An $810 million cost to connect Wisconsin’s
two biggest cities, with the promise of greater development to come – all of which was federal
stimulus money – was too much government. In contrast, $700 million to connect two already
connected areas with an ugly, redundant structure was a project Walker could support.

If nothing else, this charade elucidates the willingness of politicians on both sides
of the aisle to come together and make horrible decisions for the sake of their reelection.
Bipartisanship isn’t dead, it’s just narcissistic.

Vincent Dumas ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and philosophy.