« A Different Kind of Bailout | Main | Apparently, I’ve Upgraded to WordPress 2.6.2 »
Crossing the Bridge to Nowhere
By Brian | September 19, 2008 | Share on Facebook
As you are no doubt aware, we have moved into that phase of the campaign where anything either candidate says is a “bald faced lie” and the “a new low in presidential campaigning.” I ignore most of these stories because they usually turn out to be just as untruthful (if not moreso) than the incident they’re describing, and both campaigns have figured out that no one ever gets eviscerated for lying about their opponent’s lying.
The one story that caught my eye, though, was the “Bridge to Nowhere” story. Each side has their talking point slogan (Democrats: “She was for it before she was against it,” Republicans: “I told Congress ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ on that Bridge to Nowhere’), and of course, each side is shocked…SHOCKED!! at how untruthful and negative the other side has become. But isn’t this an easy thing to check out? After all, we’re not talking about some abstract position on an issue that someone changed their mind about, we’re talking about the allocation of dollars from party to party and how/when it was spent. What a strange thing to lie about then, no?
Anyway, I checked it out. What follows is, in my humble opinion, an excellent case study in how politicians (on both sides of the aisle) lie.
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED (Source)
- 2005: Alaska senators Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski propose building a bridge from the Alaskan town of Ketchikan to Gravina Island, a small island in southeast Alaska that contains roughly fifty residents and the Ketchikan International Airport. (TANGENT: the bridge was not, as others have subsequently claimed, primarily for the benefit of the fifty people that already live on the island; it was to provide easier access to the airport for the thousands of people for whom this is the closest airport, but inaccessible by car. In Alaska, driving a long way to the airport can be extremely problematic, due to cold, wind, blizzard, and the occasional avalanche, so it’s not as crazy an idea as we have been led to believe).
- 2005: Congress approves a $223 million earmark for the bridge.
- 2005: A bill is introduced to Congress to redirect this money (and other funds) to Hurricane Katrina-related repairs in Louisiana. Barack Obama votes against the bill. John McCain abstains. The bill is defeated.
- 2006: Running for governor in 2006, Sarah Palin says that Alaska should take advantage of free flowing federal money to improve Alaska’s infrastructure, which is badly in need of repair. This includes the Gravina Bridge project.
- 2006: In the run-up to the 2006 congressional election, rampant spending on earmarks garnered national attention, and the Gravina Bridge became the poster child for such spending. This is when it was given it’s infamous nickname, “The Bridge to Nowhere.”
- 2006: Bowing to public pressure, Congress removes the earmark from the bill, but allocates the money to Alaska anyway to be used for “unspecified transportation uses.”
- 2006: Then governor of Alaska, Frank Murkowski, allocates $113 million of the $223 million for the Gravina Bridge project (TANGET #2: Frank Murkowski is Lisa Murkowski’s father. He was an Alaskan senator when he was elected governor in 2002, and appointed his daughter to replace him in the senate.)
- 2006: Over time, portions of the $113 million are allocated elsewhere, leaving just $36 million allocated to the bridge project. The cost of the project also increases to $398 million, but still, the project lives on.
- 2006: Sarah Palin defeats the incumbent Frank Murkowski to become Alaska’s governor
- 2007: In preparing the Alaskan state budget, Sarah Palin shuts down the bridge project on the grounds that it is now $329 million short of funding. Here are some quotes: “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. It’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on [this] bridge.” “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.” She directs the DOT to prepare a list of projects across the state where the $36 million could better be used, including a more affordable answer for Gravina Island access.
There now, that wasn’t so bad, was it? Not exactly a sound bite, but if you’re willing to read 6,000 pages of Harry Potter, you can probably skim through ten bullet points to understand what really happened here.
Now, let’s look at all the accusations about lying:
Was Sarah Palin for the bridge before she was against it?
Well, she made a campaign promise to improve infrastructure, and cited the bridge as an example of that. As governor, though, she saw the project as inefficient and overly expensive, cancelled it, and took other steps to improve infrastructure in more cost effective ways. At best, I think we have a case of a politician over-promising during a campaign (“Dog Bites Man! Film at eleven…”), although she did keep her broader campaign promise to focus on infrastructure.
Did Sarah Palin take all that earmark money, despite claiming she’s against earmarks?
No. Her predecessor took the money. She didn’t give it back, but she did re-allocate it to what she thought best served the people of Alaska.
Did Sarah Palin “Tell Congress ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ on the Bridge to Nowhere?”
No. Her predecessor told Congress “Thanks,” and then she told her state legislature “Thanks, but no thanks.” So, points to her for cancelling the project, but deductions for over-stating her involvement at the federal level.
All in all, this wasn’t nearly as sinister as everyone’s making it out to be. If our next President (or Vice President, or the next mayor of Wasilla for that matter…) is as fiscally responsible as Sarah Palin seems to have been here, I think we’re in pretty good shape. That said, this is an example of good money management, not an example of broad-based reform as she’s now claiming on the campaign trail.
One other thing: the Associated Press is reporting this week that while Sarah Palin may have said “No thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere, she is still funding a $600 million bridge from Anchorage (Alaska’s biggest city) to Wasilla, her hometown (population: 7,000). (via).
Check out the map. Anyone believe this is a bridge to Wasilla? Good. When the Democrats make a campaign ad about it, you’ll be prepared.
Topics: News and/or Media, Political Rantings | No Comments »