Quote:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer,"

---

Quote:

They also decided to ax $229 million for a bridge between Anchorage and the sparsely populated Knik area of Alaska. That span has been named "Don Young's Way" after Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who, as chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has helped send federal dollars to the bridge.

Under a compromise transportation spending bill, Alaska would still get the federal dollars -- but the money would not be specifically designated for the two bridges. As a result, Alaskan lawmakers and other officials would decide where to spend the money -- and they could opt to fund other transportation projects.

---

supernovasky said:

Quote:

Perhaps she didn't want it.

---

LOL!

Quote:

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

---

Quote:

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

---

Quote:

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

---

You crack me up Zappa.

---

zappaisgod said:

As the Governor of Alaska is it not her job to get as much money back from the federal government for her constituents as possible?  Why yes, it is.  When she did get the money did she build the bridge?  Why no, she didn't.  Kostroll.

---

Quote:

And I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that "bridge to nowhere." If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves.

---

supernovasky said:

Quote:

They didn't strip it at all.  They got back exactly the same amount of money, it just wasn't earmarked for the bridge.  And guess what, it aint built.  Nor is it likely to be built.  Keep trying.  She had the opportunity to build it and didn't.  Did you miss this part:

---

No. She did not have the opportunity to build it, and I did not miss that part. Instead, she only took offense to the bridge to nowhere after it became synonymous with government waste, and after congress stripped the earmark:

Quote:

So she was very much for the bridge and insisted that Alaska had to act quickly—the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, shifting the money back to the state's general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn't allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state's list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress.

---

She only said that quote, about how she wasn't going to build the bridge, AFTER congress stripped away the offending earmark and shifted it back into the state's general fund.

Before congress did that, she FOUGHT for the earmark, even used it to get elected governor, telling the people of Ketchikan that they were not "nowhere" to her and that she would not stand in the progress of that bridge, and that it was important to build it sooner rather than later.

---

johnm214 said:

zappaisgod said:

As the Governor of Alaska is it not her job to get as much money back from the federal government for her constituents as possible?  Why yes, it is.  When she did get the money did she build the bridge?  Why no, she didn't.  Kostroll.

---

Okay, fine.  This is pretty much what ron paul said, only he also votes against the bills generally- something she can't do.  I can understand this poistion, but I feel like I'm being lied to.


Where has she explained such?  All I have is inaccurate portrayls of here and the bridge funding.

Quote:

And I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that "bridge to nowhere." If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves.

---

Given that her opposition surfaced after they came short of the money they needed, and given that it came a year later after much public opposition, I think her statements are misrepresentations.


Untill she says "yes I was for it but I think earmarks are abusive processes that are unneeded and I would have opposed the bridge earmark had I had the chance" then she just thinks I'm too ignorant to realize she's lieing.

---

johnm214 said:

Again, she brought this up, and it seems like she's lieing.  Her motivations might be acceptable, but then why doesn't she explain that?  As it is she's saying she was against the bridge and that isn't an accurate depiction of her past.
She was all for it untill she got criticized and the money wasn't enough so she got the money untied from the project so she could do whatever she wanted with it.

---

Quote:

  (which is incredibly stupid.  I'm sick of the feds taking state money and then deciding who and for what to give it back for.  Why the hell do we need federal grants at all, given that the money is coming from the states' residents almost entirely?  Let the states either tax or not and if they tax they can surely decide what to do with it better than some federal government that won't even spend amounts proportional to that state's share of the taxes.)

---