Bridge to Nowhere?

[jgaffney]

We're going to hear a lot in the next couple of weeks about Gov. Sarah Palin's support of, then opposition to, the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." The Wall Street Journal has a good summary of the issue, but I think there are a couple of important points that have gone missing in the rush to smera the governor with anything that comes to hand.

First, the claim is made that the bridge would serve an island with only 51 people on it. If you take the time to look at Ketchikan on Google Maps, you will see that the city is on one side of the Tongass Narrows, an arm off of the Pacific Ocean, and the city's international airport is on the other side. Currently, the only service between the city and the airport is by ferry, so the argument can be made that a bridge is justified to provide a more reliable connection.

Second, the original flap over the earmark came because nearly $300 billion was being directed to one project. Even with this federal earmark, the project was still nearly $400 billion short of the money needed to go to construction. Gov. Palin will be blasted because, after she turned down the earmark, she redirected the funds to other projects in the state. Why is this bad? Doesn't Alaska deserve to get some money out of the Highway Bill, just like Woolsey's $20 million earmark for Port Sonoma.

I'm not arguing here for or against Paulin. My argument is that the Highway Bill is often criticized for the earmarks it contains. But, how else should Congress allocate the money to the various states? The money was collected, in the form of gas and other user taxes, to fund highway improvements. What's so bad about spending it on highways and bridges?

[bolverk]

Nothing, if you believe our taxes should go to the projects they were intended for. And, the people of Sonoma County should understand this, since our highway funds are often diverted to places like Los Angeles and our highways suffer. Look how long it took them to fix US 101, especially over the Cotati grade. It took the death of a motorcyclist to get things moving, he was killed because of the poor state of the roadway, nothing else.

Yep, Governor Palin did the right thing. Which, of course, is not the left thing, so she will be attacked.

[Mink]

There is nothing wrong with spending money on highway and/or bridges at all. There is a problem with lying.

[jgaffney]

Mink, let me make sure I've got this straight. You were ready to march off the cliff with John "I actually voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry, but, if Gov. Sarah Palin changes her position on a federal earmark, you brand her as a liar?

This must be great for you. You get to recycle all your old "Bush Lied" bumperstickers, just changing the name to "Palin." Let's see how far that campaign strategy takes you.

[jgaffney]

Dragging this thread back on track (nice try, Mink), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has this:

"But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up." -- Barack Obama, Sept. 6, 2008

In politics, words are cheap. What really counts are actions. Democrats and Republicans have talked about fiscal responsibility for years. In reality, both parties have a shameful record of wasting hundreds of billions of tax dollars on pork-barrel projects.

My Senate colleague Barack Obama is now attacking Gov. Sarah Palin over earmarks. Having worked with both John McCain and Mr. Obama on earmarks, and as a recovering earmarker myself, I can tell you that Mrs. Palin's leadership and record of reform stands well above that of Mr. Obama.

Let's compare.

Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."

Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.

Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.

Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.

Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

Mrs. Palin has proven courageous by taking on big spenders in her own party. In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."

Mr. Obama had a chance to take on his party when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a sham ethics bill, which was widely criticized by watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste for shielding earmarks from public scrutiny. But instead of standing with taxpayers, Mr. Obama voted for the bill. Today, he claims he helped write the bill that failed to clean up Washington.

Mr. Obama has shown little restraint on earmarks until this year, when he decided to co-sponsor an earmark moratorium authored by Mr. McCain and myself. Mr. Obama is vulnerable on this issue, and he knows it. That is why he is lashing out at Mrs. Palin and trying to hide his own record.

Mrs. Palin is one of the strongest antiearmark governors in America. If more governors around the country would do what she has done, we would be much closer to fixing our nation's fiscal problems than we are.

Mrs. Palin's record here is solid and inspiring. She will help Mr. McCain shut down the congressional favor factory, and she has a record to prove it. Actions mean something. You can't just make stuff up.

Sen. DeMint is in a positon to know, being a budget hawk since he was elected. Yes, indeed, let's have a conversation about Obama's reforms and earmarks.

[bolverk]

Sept 9, 2008 20:41:16 GMT -5 Mink said:

There is nothing wrong with spending money on highway and/or bridges at all. There is a problem with lying.

Flip flopping is not a lie.

And, by the way, since you are bringing up the lying issue again, how about some of Obama's whoppers.

"I will not disenfranchise the voters." First thing he did when running for state office, disenfranchise the voters via lawsuits to challenge signatures on the nominations of other Democrat candidates. It was not that they could not prove they were real, they did not have the money or the time to meet the challenges. Result, disenfranchising the voters.

"I will not run for President without experience." Yet, as a junior Senator, he breaks that promise right away, running for office with less then a full terms experience.

"I do not have Lobbyists." Yet he did raise aoubt $115,000 dollars from lobbyists by March of 2008.

"I am tough on terrorism." Yet he missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism. Hillary didn't and she was actively campaigning as well.

[Mink]

Bloverk: "Dragging this thread back on track (nice try, Mink), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has this:..."

I was staying on topic. I said "There is nothing wrong with spending money on highway and/or bridges at all. There is a problem with lying." That was in response to gaffney. If anyone is trying to change it, is you talking about Obama's earmarks......sheesh

[subdjoe]

Mink, since that bridge is an icon of classic pork barrel earmarks, I think that earmarks fall within the topic. In fact, you will note Gaffneys reference to earmarks, in fact, his closing paragraph segued into earmarks as the general subject.

Do be careful about being too literalist about topics, you have a tendancy to bring almost any subject around to "Bush lied."

[bolverk]

Sept 10, 2008 19:34:15 GMT -5 Mink said:

Bloverk: "Dragging this thread back on track (nice try, Mink), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has this:..."

I was staying on topic. I said "There is nothing wrong with spending money on highway and/or bridges at all. There is a problem with lying." That was in response to gaffney. If anyone is trying to change it, is you talking about Obama's earmarks......sheesh

Gink, you have the wrong name up for your quote. Also, don't rail against flip-flops and call them lies and then turn around and support a liar. I will point it out everytime.

Try the quote feature, included in every post for you to use in a reply. Not only will it help you in making sure to quote the proper person, it will make sure you get the spelling correct as well. Gink.