SARAH VINDICATED once again- Obama lies

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-28-2008
SARAH VINDICATED once again- Obama lies
84
Sun, 09-14-2008 - 11:34pm

CCAGW: BRIDGING THE KNOWLEDGE GAP ON THE “BRIDGE TO NOWHERE”


(Washington, D.C.) - The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today released a backgrounder on congressional funding for the bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island in Alaska, better known as the “Bridge to Nowhere.”  The material addresses some of the questions raised about the history of the bridge and its ultimate demise.


“There has been much debate and even more speculation about how funds for the Bridge to Nowhere were first provided, Congress’s role in changing the nature of the funding, and the various options the state of Alaska had to build the bridge,” said CCAGW President Tom Schatz.  “Many in the media and the public are providing an opinion when they should be providing the facts.  We intend to continually update this document on our website as additional verifiable information becomes available.”


The Bridge to Nowhere was first funded in August 2005 through the 2005 SAFETEA-LU Act through a $223 million earmark inserted by then-House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska).  In October, 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) offered an amendment to the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act to transfer $75 million in funding for the Bridge to Nowhere, along with money for the Knik Arm Bridge in Alaska, to support the rebuilding of the Twin Spans Bridge in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.  His amendment was defeated by a vote of 15-82.  Senators Biden (D-Del.) and Obama (D-Ill.) voted against the amendment; Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) was not present for the vote.


In November, 2005, Congress included language in the final version of the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act that allowed the state of Alaska to either spend money on the two bridges or on other surface transportation projects.  In October, 2006, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski included $91 million for the Gravina Island Bridge in his budget submission for fiscal year 2007.  As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge, particularly about how the project would be funded.  As governor, she submitted her budget on January 17, 2007 without any money for the bridge.  On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.”  Governor Palin said in a statement that “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.”


“Media reports that Congress killed the Bridge to Nowhere are not accurate,” said Schatz.  “The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward.  Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no.  Any discussion about the project should begin with facts.”


The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594


 


Sarah is vindicated once again by the non-partisan group Citizens Against Goverment Waste which states she killed the Bridge to Nowhere not Congress.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 5:10pm
The money wasn't earmarked.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 5:16pm

Ah, so when said tells a national audience "I told Congress thanks but no thanks" she is really saying "I told the three congressional delegates from my state thanks but no thanks"??

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 6:20pm

*** Ah, so when said tells a national audience "I told Congress thanks but no thanks" she is really saying "I told the three congressional delegates from my state thanks but no thanks"??

Actually it was probably just a generic "no thanks" to a Congress that sent Alaska non-earmarked funds but, in all likelihood, expected that the money would have been spend on the project for which it was originally intended.

*** I'm missing the strong reform, pork resisting language here -- perhaps you or chilly can point out the words that show us her "thanks but no thanks" sprit??

Sure...it was in the part that said "we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project." When the cost of the project doubled, she viewed the project as unreasonably expensive, and found another solution.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-27-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 6:53pm

>>That timeline merely comfirms what we've been saying all along, that Palin isn't being honest in her speeches about that bridge and the part she played in it.<<


Sarah herself said she told Congress "thanks but no thanks".


Of course she's not being honest.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 7:01pm
Um... It proves she didn't lie. You can keep hoping that people stay ignorant about it if you wish, but I don't think it's going to work with the voters who matter. The Democrat party faithful with believe she lied no matter how many times it is proven otherwise. But they wouldn't vote for her anyway.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 7:06pm
The data confirms she is the one who killed the bridge project and that she didn't lie. You either don't understand it, or just out of hatred for her or whatever, refuse to see it. I'm tired of going round and round. I know you will follow this with something else, but you can have the last word. Anyone with an open mind who is really interested in all the facts will see it for what it is.


Edited 9/16/2008 11:24 am ET by chillychillychilly
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 7:08pm

>>Actually it was probably just a generic "no thanks" to a Congress that sent Alaska non-earmarked funds but, in all likelihood, expected that the money would have been spend on the project for which it was originally intended.<<


They might well have thought just that considering that the congressional delegation was united in their desire for the bridge, along with their gubenatorial candidate, who only because a bridge to nowhere "reformer" after she realized Congress wouldn't fund enough money to build the thing.


However it still makes

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 7:32pm

It really should be easy enough to answer when she told Congress "thanks but no thanks" or perhaps WHAT she told Congress "thanks but no thanks" for as *they* had already rejected the bridge to nowhere long before SHE did.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 7:41pm

>>Actually it was probably just a generic "no thanks" to a Congress that sent Alaska non-earmarked funds but, in all likelihood, expected that the money would have been spend on the project for which it was originally intended.<<

*** They might well have thought just that considering that the congressional delegation was united in their desire for the bridge, along with their gubenatorial candidate, who only because a bridge to nowhere "reformer" after she realized Congress wouldn't fund enough money to build the thing.

Actually, she’s said that when the bridge was a $200M project, the cost to benefit ration was acceptable, but when it doubled, she felt another solution had to be found.

*** However it still makes no sense -- as they weren't asking her to build a bridge to nowhere and did not earmark the funds,

The funds were originally earmarked for the bridge. The earmarks were removed in the hopes that a portion of the funds could be redirected to Katrina victims. When that bill was shot down (by Obama and Biden as well) the funds were sent to Alaska without earmarks…but the original intent had never changed.

*** she wasn't taking some sort of high moral ground stance with Congress to not spend the money on something they'd already rejected as reasonable.

Congress never rejected the project as unreasonable.

>>Sure...it was in the part that said "we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project." When the cost of the project doubled, she viewed the project as unreasonably expensive, and found another solution.<<

*** The federal government won't give me enough money for this project therefore we can't build it translates to mavrick fiscal reform?

I believe that the original allocation was supposed to cover most if not all of the project, but when Palin became governor she audited the project and realized that it had grown into a $400M project…ad killed it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-27-2008
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 10:56pm

Um, she lied.

 

Pages