Want To Buy A Bridge To Nowhere?
By Phil Kerpen
September 10, 2008
Page 2 of 2
The governor of Alaska at that time, Frank Murkowski, was clear about his intentions, saying through a spokesman: "We don't know what the next governor is going to do, but we believe it's appropriate to move forward on the project. (web site) It's something we've been trying to get moved forward for the last four years." Murkowski's last budget included a $91 million down-payment on the bridge (the most available to him under state-federal funding formulas) and set the planning process in motion in an attempt to lock Governor Sarah Palin (who up-ended him in the Republican primary) into building the bridge.
The New York Times ran an article on March 6, 2007, "Alaskan Bridge Projects Resist Earmarks Purge," (web site) that bemoaned the fact that the bridge would still likely be built because of Alaska pork-barrel politics. The Times apparently assumed that Palin would buckle under pressure from Senator Stevens just as Obama, Biden, and most of the U.S. Senate had done. The Times wrote, pessimistically:
"Regardless of the ridicule about the bridges as a pork-barrel binge, there are political facts that have kept hope alive for those who believe the projects are necessary for Alaska to grow economically. To direct the federal financing to other projects, for example, would require action by Gov. Sarah Palin, a Republican, and the State Legislature. It would also mean undoing the work of the powerful Congressional delegation, led by Senator Ted Stevens."
They must have been surprised when Palin stood up to Stevens and pulled the plug on the bridge on September 20, 2007. We at Americans for Prosperity (who had actually visited (web site) the proposed bridge site) celebrated. (web site) Taxpayers for Common Sense, the group which first discovered the earmark, declared "Ding dong, the bridge is dead," and they noted: "Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), our new favorite Governor, pulled the plug on this project and committed to finding a more 'fiscally responsible' approach." (web site)
When it mattered, Governor Palin stood up to Senator Stevens and dealt the bridge its death blow - something Congress had failed to do and Senators Obama and Biden had refused to do.
While McCain has always opposed pork-barrel earmarks, Obama, Biden, and Palin have not. But when it counted, Palin, unlike Obama and Biden, did the right thing and stopped the most egregious example of earmark abuse. Now Palin has followed McCain in calling for an end to earmarks. Isn't it better to come around to the right position than to keep being wrong?
---
Mr. Kerpen is director of policy for Americans for Prosperity.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA. >> Back -- Page 1 2
++ Discuss this topic in The Forum
Current rating:  5.0 out of 5.0 (11 total votes)
| 
