« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Watchdog group lifts the fog from Alaskan bridge

Sarah Palin is vindicated

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), a non-partisan, non-profit organization on a mission to eliminate waste, mismanagement and inefficiency in the federal government, has published a background report on Alaska’s infamous “bridge to nowhere” which finally clears the air surrounding what has become the poster child for federal pork projects.



In a press release dated September 11, Tom Schatz, the president of CGAW’s lobby arm, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, stated:

There has been much debate and even more speculation about how funds for the Bridge to Nowhere were first provided, Congress’s role in changing the nature of the funding, and the various options the state of Alaska had to build the bridge. Many in the media and the public are providing an opinion when they should be providing the facts. We intend to continually update this document on our website as additional verifiable information becomes available.

Indeed, many critics of GOP vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin have been misrepresenting the facts about the bridge and her part in the process which led to the cancellation of the project. CGAW’s background report vindicates Palin and shows that it was she, not congress, who should be given credit for killing the bridge. Schatz explains:

Media reports that Congress killed the Bridge to Nowhere are not accurate. The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward. Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no. Any discussion about the project should begin with facts.

The report also clarifies Palin’s position on the project before and after her election to the Alaska governorship:

As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge, particularly about how the project would be funded. As governor, she submitted her budget on January 17, 2007 without any money for the bridge. On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.” Governor Palin said in a statement that “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.”

CGAW also details the genesis of the project and the attempt by Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn to take the money which would have financed the Alaska bridge and apply it instead to a project of higher priority – a badly needed bridge rebuilding project in Louisiana:

The Bridge to Nowhere was first funded in August 2005 through the 2005 SAFETEA-LU Act through a $223 million earmark inserted by then-House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska). In October, 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) offered an amendment to the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act to transfer $75 million in funding for the Bridge to Nowhere, along with money for the Knik Arm Bridge in Alaska, to support the rebuilding of the Twin Spans Bridge in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. His amendment was defeated by a vote of 15-82. Senators Biden (D-Del.) and Obama (D-Ill.) voted against the amendment; Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) was not present for the vote.

The CAGW report clearly vindicates Gov. Palin and shows that her actions were prudent and responsible to her state’s taxpayers. In her own words, she had always spoken of a link, not necessarily an expensive new bridge, between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. This link could have included a new ferry capable of carrying more vehicles than the current one or a less expensive bridge than the one proposed by Young.



This report should silence the anti-Palin forces at least on the issue of the “bridge to nowhere.” Unfortunately, given the irrationality of many of her critics, the facts will not impress them. The truth will, however, impress the majority of voters, most of whom see the relentless attacks on Sarah Palin for what they are – sheer propaganda with no basis in fact.



- JP

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • sewaneepat

    so she did not save you any money. And she built an access road to nowhere for 20something million dollars to go to the bridge. I had assumed that this road would go to the ferry but apparently not, just to an empty beach. She did this because this money was earmarked and she would have had to return it to the federal government had she not built the road.

  • Ranger

    OK, she initially expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge, based on how it would be funded.

    How did she want it to be funded initially?

    “On Januaray 17, 2007 she submitted a budget without any money for the bridge.”

    Was she for or against the bridge on this date? If she was still for it, shouldn’t one assume that she wanted someone else to pay for it?

    “On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that ?The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ?bridge to nowhere? project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.?

    In other words she felt the heat, and gave up on the bridge.

    You say that Palin was responsible because her actions were “prudent and responsible to her state’s taxpayers.”

    How about the nation’s taxpayers?

    • Moe_Lane

      Your privilege, of course.

      • Rod_Patrick

        Let us now assess the performance of Barack Obama in his Annenberg Challenge and in his miraculous Garden.

        Hope you can give us details of the financial utilization too.

        Goodluck in your search.

        • Jack_Savage

          My wife and I have a budget. In this budget, there is no line item for a new car.
          Question:
          Are we FOR buying a new car or AGAINST buying a new car? Take your time.

          Later, my in-laws said that they would provide a new car for us for free if we would pave our driveway. We could use a new car, but can also do fine without one.
          Question:
          Should we pave our driveway?

          After we paved our driveway, our in-laws said they weren’t going to provide a car for us after all.
          Question:
          Who are the jerks – my wife and I for believing our in-laws and paving our driveway, or our in-laws for yanking the offer of the free car?

          • Ranger

            I would have told them no IMMEDIATELY.

            Forget the driveway and the car, if I didn’t really need them.

            If they wanted to help me out, and were in a position to help financially, I’d ask instead for help in paying for support services and for my special needs child.

          • Moe_Lane

            …not the ones that you wanted him to ask.

            Yes, I’m being perfectly serious.

          • Achance

            have to be appropriated as well. By not including it in the budget, she was saying she intended that neither State nor federal funds would be expended on the KTN bridge.

          • Josh_Painter

            I’m a Missouri taxpayer; she was (and stil is) governor of Alaska. her responsibility was to the people of her state, not to me.

            CAGW is a nonprofit, non-partisan group which looks out for taxpayers. They have vindicated Palin, so you’re just going to have to deal with it. That page of your DNC talking points are woefully out of date. Better call HQ ASAP!

            • JP
  • gamecock

    and endured the wrath of several regular posters here. Thanks for providing the hard evidence to this site.

    • dbecraft

      have no problem understanding the truth…

      It still seems that too many of the Redstate posters still get there information for the N.Y. Times, the Boston Globe, or other non-serious sources.

      Just how many times do these sources have to be not only wrong, but biased does it take before individuals take notice!

      • dbecraft

        might change dramatically when all it known (read lots of blogs). Such is the problem with the MSM, they only want you to know “their” facts…

        • gamecock

          approaches…

          • sewaneepat

            but that does not change the fact that she is inferring that she is a big saver of taxpayer money and that is not the case. And the fact that she built a road to nowhere doesn’t show me that she is a good steward of our money. Are you saying that fiscal responsibility and honesty are DNC talking points?

            I read the report you linked to and it does not dispute what I said.

          • Moe_Lane

            Links, please. Next post – oh, and format them properly. If you don’t know how, learn. It’s not hard.

            Moe

          • rbdwiggins

            “Are you saying that fiscal responsibility and honesty are DNC talking points?”

            The last remaining Washington Democrat with those qualities was forced out of the Party.

          • Vegas_Rick

            Oh, but, she saved the tax payers who elected her in Alaska a great deal of money.

          • sewaneepat

            to the Anchorage Daily News article of August 31:

            http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

            I don’t see a link on here as to how to format a link so if this is not correct, please direct me to the directions. Thanks.

          • sewaneepat

            but that’s not reform; that’s business as usual.

          • Moe_Lane

            There is a Preview Comment feature. Both of them work. Figure it out.

            Moe Lane

            PS: Seriously, I have better things to do with my time than to get you up to minimally acceptable standards.

          • Jaded

            or are you being a snotty piece of crap inserting a baby into your arguement?

          • sewaneepat

            I was looking for a link somewhere that had posting rules.

            I guess “be respectful” doesn’t apply if you disagree with my comments. Or do you think being sarcastic is respectful? Or maybe you don’t want older people who don’t know all the technology on here. In any event I will try to be up to minimal acceptable standards.

            So here’s the link again -
            [http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html]

            using the link button although it made me hit it twice so I did take off the duplicate.

  • Mike_Dugas

    She declined the expensive bridge and saved that money but she still said that Ketchikan would need some sort of improved method of reaching the airport, whether a cheaper bridge or larger ferry. You still need a ROAD to access this future form of transportation. She chose to build it then while there was money available to do it so that when the time came to choose ferry or cheaper bridge access would already be there. If you have ever seen the facilities that the Stikine and Prince of Wales(current ferry’s) work out of you would see that they are at capacity as far as space for a larger ferry and the facilities to run it.
    By building the road now she ensured that whether it’s a bridge or ferry access for workers etc is already in place and will enable the future cost of either to be that much cheaper.
    Smart eh.

    • Mike_Dugas

      I have no idea why this posted so many times. My apologies. I wish we could delete our own posts…maybe a new function?

      • Mark_Kilmer

        And Moe won’t let me carry a wand. Go figure.

        • Flagstaff

          and the answer is no, she isn’t implying that, not in the sense that you are posting.

          Whatever you are inferring from what you’re reading, what she has been saying is that she killed a gigantic public works project because it wasn’t the best use of the money. You may not agree with her, but I suspect you are mostly peeved because you and the Dem talking points are simply on the wrong side of the issue.

          You can’t make a big thing about a state governor not returning money sent to her state by a graft-laden process in the Federal government, even by calling it “business as usual.” Business as usual is jut fine as long as the business is ethical and legal and considered and appropriate under the circumstances. Almost all business is business as usual. Almost any voter knows that. Even Democrats.

          Business as usual is bad when it entails bribery, too many rent-controlled apartments, re-using postage stamps, obtaining real estate under “special” circumstances, sucking up to a “former” terrorist because he can help your political career, forgetting to claim all your income on tax returns and other important documents, and/or lying under oath.

          Oh, and to not build the “road to nowhere,” as you folks like to call it, would have been an irresponsible act by any Governor. It will eventually serve part of the same purpose the bridge was supposed to accomplish, and that leaves more funds available for the less expensive alternative to the bridge.

          • gamecock

            5

          • sewaneepat

            I should have said imply.

            When someone is running against “business as usual” and earmarks and federal “pork” though, then acceptance of same is not change. Personally, I don’t have a problem with much of what is called pork, but it is McCain and Palin who are running against it.

            As to the road to nowhere, I was surprised when I found out that it was not to the ferry. As to building a road for some undetermined future use in Alaska – where I assume winters are harsh – it seems rather silly to me as I think it will probably degrade significantly before it is ever used.

            I have voted republican, democratic, and independent in my lifetime. I watch Fox and MSNBC. I try to look up and verify information I find on any site – liberal or conservative. More than anything else, I respect the truth and dislike hypocrisy. That’s where I am coming from.

          • Moe_Lane

            Preview. Your. Comments.

            And all complaints about site moderators should be sent via email to the Directors.

          • Rod_Patrick

            If I make a list here of wasteful spending in Illinois, Chicago and Delaware made by Obama and Biden … the whole RS will collapse.

          • sewaneepat

            and I am previewing this time.

            Okay I asked you politely how to do it but you wouldn’t say, apparently beneath your pay grade. I’m a 62 year old woman and as I said learning how to post. I’ll try again.

            bridge and road to nowhere

            Seems to me it would have taken less time to just tell me how to do it. And I don’t have an official complaint against you, just thought you weren’t respectful, and believe you would have been had I said something you liked. Maybe not.

          • Moe_Lane

            Lying politicians are one thing; lying commenters are another.

            Shoo.

          • sewaneepat

            and he is not writing this. My name is Pat and I am indeed a woman. Your research is somewhat out of date; my son graduated from college in 1997. He is 33 and I was 29 when he was born. We do grow organic vegetable in Tennessee.

          • Moe_Lane

            I’m at your family’s website right now.

            And I guess that I didn’t click the “turn off your account button,” after all. Easily fixed.

          • Tempered_Steel

            N/T

          • Ranger

            As I have indicated here before, I have a child with autism.

          • Ranger

            Your screen name really fits you.

          • Flagstaff

            you have to be able to recognize something, even truth or hypocrisy, before you can like or dislike it.

            Truthfully, there is nothing hypocritical about taking one tack as a candidate, especially a qualified tack, addressing the issue differently as a governor (as you get more information and options), and to then take credit for those acts as a candidate for higher office. She did nothing unethical as either candidate, governor, or candidate, nor did she lie about any of it, so where is the hypocrisy?