Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 09-11-2008 - 4:32pm |
Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge
From http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122100927525717663.html
Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge
By JIM DEMINT
September 10, 2008; Page A15
“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.â€
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.â€
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.

Pages
What the esteemed Mr. Demint
>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.<
How is it that bike paths are considered wasteful spending? They're a safe place for children to bike and
Governors of states are there to represent the constituents in their state. It would not be in the best interest of the constituents to OVERPAY for a bridge or anything else in that state when the money would be better spent elsewhere. She DID say, "No Thanks" to the bridge, and killed the bridge. Clearly, if congress had already decided against it before she killed it, they WOULDN'T HAVE SENT THE MONEY, would they have? Her job (presently) is to serve the people of ALASKA. It also would not have been in the best interest of the people whose job she has to serve, to send the money back, when there are things that it could be spent on that were more sensible, thus, SAVING THE PEOPLE OF ALASKA MONEY.
I am ready for her to work for the rest of the people America in the same way she has been working for the people of Alaska. And I hope she convinces McCain to drill in Anwar.
Edited 9/11/2008 5:31 pm ET by chillychillychilly
I guess it depends upon how many bicycle paths would be built for 12 million dollars.
Also, it was her job to keep the money for the people of Alaska. It was also good for the people of Alaska that she was a good steward of the money.
Edited 9/11/2008 5:51 pm ET by chillychillychilly
>I guess it depends upon how many bicycle paths would be built for 12 million dollars.<
I have no idea, but since I gather part of that is the "rails to trails" program, which converts old rail beds to biking and hiking trails, I've seen what good that money really does, including increasing revenues in dying train towns that now are getting new life from bicyclists and hikers stopping in their towns on the trail.
>Also, it was her job to keep the money for the people of Alaska. It was also good for the people of Alaska that she was a good steward of the money.<
Isn't it rather contradictory to brag about saying no to a bridge but keeping the money anyways? That's not reducing earmarks in my mind...
Clearly, if congress had already decided against it before she killed it, they WOULDN'T HAVE SENT THE MONEY, would they have?
They sent the money for the "Road to Nowhere."
Congress DID rescind the specific funding for the bridge, that had already occured before Palin decided that her bridge wasn't a good idea and decided not to build it.
Care to elaborate on just how spending money for a Road to Nowhere
Pages