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
You're doing it again.
>>She did save the taxpayers of Alaska money. That was her job. Her job was NOT to save U.S. taxpayers money.<<
The taxpayers of Alaska aren't US taxpayers?
Some of us don't think pretty public places are the responsibility of the government, but of the people. Some of us actually find the government's role to be a more historically-based one of protecting our borders, supplying our military, enforcing the laws of the land, and not a whole lot more.
It's not as ridiculous as you make it sound. In fact, if you look at what the role of our government was when it began, it sort of makes creating pretty parks and museums seem really REALLY absurd as a government function.
*** No mistake. Congress pulled the funding for the bridge.
No they didn't, they just removed the earmarks.
*** It just neglected to pull that amount from the overall amount which they'd decided to allocate to Alaska in general.
Oops...hey Joe, why didn't you pull the bridge money? Sorry Bob, I thought you were going to pull the bridge money. Oh crap! thanks Joe, there goes the bridge money. Could have spent that on Katrina, ya know! That's ok, Bob...Biden and Obama weren't going to vote to help Katrina victims anyway. I know, I know...I don't know what it is about those two.
*** The money still got to Alaska, and still got spent by Palin, earmarks and all.
No again. The earmarks were removed prior to the money being sent to Alaska...in fact, prior to Palin becoming governor. But it is true that the money was spent on silly things like the state infrastructure.
*** She merely reversed course in the face of general outrage over the project and decided to spend the money elsewhere. She certainly didn't save the taxpayers any money, nor did she tell Congress "No thanks" when it came to the money.
Once governor and fully assessed the still unfunded project, she put a halt to it. I'm sure that the national public outrage played a part. As governor, it's part of her job to "care" for the image of her state, just as it is to get Federal funds to help with the upkeep and growth of the state. But if you were to look at the situation honestly, you couldn't come to the conclusion that there was anything even mildly inappropriate in what she did or that the money was spend on frivolous projects, like many earmarks are...I did say "honestly" didn't I?
Same thing in the end.
>Some of us don't think pretty public places are the responsibility of the government, but of the people. Some of us actually find the government's role to be a more historically-based one of protecting our borders, supplying our military, enforcing the laws of the land, and not a whole lot more<
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. Bike paths provide for public safety. In the absence of bike paths & sidewalks, bicyclists use roads to get from point A to point B. More bicyclists on the roads means more bicyclists getting hit by cars. This is bad.
Bike paths aren't about pretty public places. They're about providing a safe way for folks to use this form of transportation. The Washington and Old Dominion Trail is used by thousands every day to commute to work. And this number is increasing with the price of gas.
I'm not sure what you mean by feeling that pretty public places are the responsibility of the people. Let's be honest--park spaces don't make enough money for it to be worthwhile for private companies to create them. If you think that the National Mall (you know, with the Lincoln Memorial on one end and the Capitol on the other) is something that would be better if private corporations ran the venture, well, I hope you didn't think that lovely view from either end was worth preserving. That land is prime real estate and private corporations would absolutely LOVE to put office buildings, restaurants, and stores right there.
Sounds to me that she did what any sane Governor would do for their state. The whole issue with earmarks has to do with those who are handing out the money, not the folks receiving it.
The money was for infrastructure improvements. The weather conditions in Alaska make infrastructure an expensive proposition. Any federal help is very much appreciated. When the bridge cost estimates went out of sight, it became apparent that the money could be better spent elsewhere; especially if it was a bridge to nowhere. Is that too hard to understand?
Pages