Alaskans question Palin’s account of bridge

[struggle4progress]

Infamous “road to nowhere” project haunts Palin’s pursuit of the White House

By ERIKA HAYASAKI
Los Angeles Times
Friday, September 19, 2008

GRAVINA ISLAND, Alaska — ...

Crews are working to finish it. But no one knows when anyone will need to drive it.

That’s because the $26 million road was designed to connect to the $398-million Gravina Island Bridge, more infamously known as the “bridge to nowhere.” State officials thought federal money would pay for the bridge, but Gov. Sarah Palin killed the project after it was ridiculed and Congress rescinded the money. Plans for the road moved forward anyway ...

“Here’s my question,” said Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein. “If Sarah Palin is not being truthful on an issue like the Gravina bridge project, what else is she not being truthful about?” ...

.. Weinstein, who backed the bridge project, said that Palin should have redirected the money. “If the bridge was canceled, give the money back, or get the earmark removed, or redesign the road so it’s better for development,” he said. “Especially if you’re opposed to earmarks, and now you’re telling the world you’re opposed to earmarks” ...

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/09/19/palin_alaska_bridge.html

[Oregone]

1. Thanks for the info, but no thanks!

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. I can't keep track of Palin's lies. Latest lie: I cut my pay as mayor and governor... not so. LIAR

[MidwestTransplant]

3. She's against the bridge to nowhere but for a road to nowhere?

[piedmont]

5. Now, you're just unfairly characterizing her position.

She's for a road to somewhere. That somewhere just happens to be a non-existant bridge to nowhere.

[dmr]

4. Those are good questions. Alaskans and all of us deserve answers

The money was not hers to squander. I just wonder if she and greedy developers thought she could resurrect the financing for another bridge to be built at another time in the near future. If so, this could be why she had that road built before anyone asked for any serious answers.

Who knows, she and her cronies are sneaky and slippery.

[Jim Lane]

6. I can give you one answer, though you may not like it

The money WAS hers to squander. When Congress removed the earmark for the Bridge to Nowhere, it left the total amount of the transportation grant to Alaska intact. That meant that Alaska could keep all the money and spend it however it pleased.

This illustrates that the much-derided earmarks aren't all bad. An earmark means that Congress is providing funding because a particular project has been deemed worthy of federal funding. With no earmarks, there's no Congressional oversight. Corrupt local politicians may spend the money in ways intended primarily to enrich campaign contributors, reward supportive communities, woo swing voters, or generate favorable publicity, rather than addressing the state's genuine transportation needs.