Bridge to Nowhere and The Welfare State

[D. Allan]

The Palin Doctrine - by Carl Pope

/dAb

[Dr. Shane]

The Huffington Post is a radical, left-wing, on-line publication. Posting links to this site is like posting links to Rush Limbaugh's or Glenn Beck's site. These are very radical, fringe commentators that are actively trying to brainwash people.

The "bridge to no where" was actually a bridge to a small island with an airport. The local town, Ketchikan, needs the bridge to have access to the airport. Palin was in favor of the bridge when the estimated cost was $233 million. She stopped supporting it when the estimated cost shot above $400 million.

[John317]

Not much objectivity there, is there? And they are right up front about who they are supporting. At least you know from reading them that they are not going to give you both sides of an issue. And they call FoxNews prejudiced.

[D. Allan]

Are they giving out false info?

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Case 1: The Bridge to Nowhere. Palin's record is crystal clear. As long as the rest of the country was going to pay the bill, she supported it. When the real hero in killing it, Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn, tried to shift the funding to restore New Orleans, Ted Stevens had to compromise. Alaska still would get the money but the earmark went away -- and it became clear that Alaska would have to pay the rest of the bill. Palin then came out against it -- she had never intended that Alaskans should pay for this boondoggle. -Carl Pope

She kept the money, without the earmark. Is that true?

[D. Allan]

I should have retired to Alaska rather than Florida!

Quote:

Alaskans, every one, regardless of how rich, receive an annual check -- her family's is $22,400 -- and pay no taxes, courtesy of a special deal by which Alaska alone gets a huge share of the revenue from federal oil and gas drilled within its boundaries. But faced with inflation, a weak economy, and higher gas prices, Palin increased taxes on the excess profits of the Alaska oil industry, and gave every Alaskan a second $1,200 rebate.

A windfall profits tax favored by Obama (and Sarah -in Alaska) - it is the only context in which Barack is mentioned.

Quote:

Now if this idea seems familiar to you, it should -- it's what Barack Obama favors. And what does John McCain think of this proposal -- he blasts it, because it would "increase our dependence on foreign oil and hinder exactly the same kind of domestic exploration and production we need." -Carl Pope

/dAab

[John317]

In October 2005, Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska became the object of strong media criticism when he opposed diverting the Gravina and Knik Arm Bridge funds to help aid recovery from Hurricane Katrina. In his speech on the Senate floor, Stevens threatened to quit Congress if the funds were removed from his state.

In 2005, Congress stripped the specific earmark allocation of federal funds for the two bridges, without changing the amount of money allocated for use by Alaska.

In August 2007, Alaska's Department of Transportation stated that it was "leaning" toward alternative ferry options, citing bridge costs, despite having already received the funds from the federal government.

The project was canceled in 2007 by bridge supporter Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who changed her view after national public opinion turned against the bridge for being wasteful spending:

“ Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.

~ AK Gov. Sarah Palin

”

The city of Ketchikan has already begun to develop roads and a small amount of infrastructure for the Gravina Island's 50 inhabitants. However, residents continue to seek funding for the Ketchikan-Gravina span.

[D. Allan]

Thanks, John. It seems to me she is taking undeserved credit for canceling the bridge, she didn't want to spend Alaska's money, but would have spent money from the 49 other states - is how I understand it. /dAb

[John317]

We all need to study all the candidates more. It is going to be interesting to see what comes out about all of them between now and the election. I'm sure a lot will also come out during the debates. I am in favor of everyone knowing as much as possible about all of them. I will respect and be OK with whatever the nation decides, although I may not agree with it. My country comes first, before any individual or any party.

[CyberGuy]

one has to be a resident of Alaska for several years before one is considered a legal resident worthy of getting Oil Revenue money. If one worked on the oil pipeline in winter one would have gotten BIG bucks. I heard tell by tour guides that the salary was in six figures for working on the pipeline in winter. Remember we are talking about howling winds at 40 to 60 below zero working outside on the pipeline. It took three years to build that pipeline and it was supposed to last 20 years. It is almost 30 years old now and needs to be repaired or rebuilt. Any takers on working on the new pipeline?

[John317]

I'd go but they'd have to guarantee that my family would be taken care of for life when I die up there. LOL

[Dr. Shane]

Palin favored building the bridge with federal funds when the price was about $230 million. When the price went up to about $400 million she stopped supporting the project and decided ferries would be a better option.

The Huffington Post article mentions the access road being built will never be used and is a waste of money. It fails to mention that instead of the bridge there will be ferries. Read the entire article. It doesn't mention that instead of building a costly bridge, Alaska opted for ferries. And, of course, people need roads to get to ferries.

This thread is another example of selective reporting by bias news organizations. The Huffington Post cannot be trusted and must be balanced out with other extreme forms of media on the other end of the spectrum. I suggest anyone reading the Huffington Post balance it out extreme conservative commentary like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

[John317]

Great points.

Yes, I do listen to those guys but I listen and read people who totally disagree with them too. Rush is a blast to listen to. A great entertainer first of all. That's really why so many listen to him. He can be so funny. He's usually been right about the elections, at least since 1988. That's a pretty good record.

[Woody]

I like Limbaugh also. Don't care much for Hannity. But I had a comin out party when I heard Limbaugh describe what it means to be a Republican. After that I knew my identity.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Palin favored building the bridge with federal funds when the price was about $230 million. When the price went up to about $400 million she stopped supporting the project and decided ferries would be a better option.

...because the Alaska would have to supply the balance, - if the US gov. would have supplied it ALL then she would have built the bridge.

do they have ferries yet? have they never had ferries?

/dAb

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Once elected governor in November 2006, Ms. Palin warned Alaskans that nationwide ridicule of the Gravina bridge would make it difficult to secure more federal money to meet rising cost projections. Last September, when Ms. Palin announced she was abandoning the project, she cited a growing financing shortfall. “It’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” she said. (Alaska was able to keep the federal money and direct it to other projects.) "Account of a Bridge’s Death Slightly Exaggerated" By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and LARRY ROHTER, NYTimes, August 31, 2008

-

I like what John McCain, himself, said about it:

Quote:

“Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country,” Mr. McCain told a campaign crowd in Ankeny, Iowa. -ibid

The Article is here

/dAb

[carolaa]

Quote:

Alaskans, every one, regardless of how rich, receive an annual check -- her family's is $22,400 -- and pay no taxes, courtesy of a special deal by which Alaska alone gets a huge share of the revenue from federal oil and gas drilled within its boundaries. But faced with inflation, a weak economy, and higher gas prices, Palin increased taxes on the excess profits of the Alaska oil industry, and gave every Alaskan a second $1,200 rebate.

/dAab

Wow, no wonder she wants more drilling in Alaska.

[Dr. Shane]

What killed the project was the rising cost of it. Alaska got the $233 million the bridge was originally estimated to cost but when the price went up to nearly $400 million the state decided it couldn't justify picking up that big of a difference. She changed her position because the circumstance changed. It is one thing to support a project when the federal government is paying for an overwhelming portion of the cost and another to support it when the state has to pick up such a large bill. There is no contradiction there. Changing circumstances changed her mind.

Now consider the tax on oil profits. Who paid that tax? We did. The consumers of gasoline paid it. As profits increased Alaska increased the taxes on the additional oil profits. The oil companies then passed their additional tax bill on to the consumer. Alaskan residents laughed all the way to the bank.

Take careful note that during the time Palin increased taxes on the oil companies these same companies reported record profits. How is tat possible if she was taking a larger share of their profits? It is possible because the oil companies pass those additional taxes onto the consumer by increasing the price of gasoline. Palin didn't care when she was governor because the increased cost of gasoline was shared by the entire country while the extra tax revenue when into the Alaskan state treasury. So basically she raised taxes on all the gasoline consumers in all of the US so boost her own state's revenues.

The President can't do that. If the President adds an extra tax onto oil company profits that will come right out of the consumers' pockets. Not Canadian or Mexican consumers. It will be Americans paying more for gas so the government can bring in revenue. He may as well just raise the gasoline tax and accomplish the same thing.

[carolaa]

I think that's just amazing how Alaska residents pay no state tax and, in fact, receive a rebate every year. They hardly put any of their own money into state projects, getting federal money to pay for them. The annual rebate is because of all the oil drilling, so of course they are in favor of more drilling - the more the better. Never mind what it does to the rest of the country, or the world. I can see now why I felt Sarah Palin came off sounding so selfish and arrogant.

[Woody]

Good Grief.

(In a respectful way to a friend)

[there buster]

The federal government owns a great deal of the land in Alaska.

[Jeannieb43]

What killed the project was the rising cost of it. Alaska got the $233 million the bridge was originally estimated to cost but when the price went up to nearly $400 million the state decided it couldn't justify picking up that big of a difference. She changed her position because the circumstance changed.

--But she kept all the money!

$233 million of OUR tax money, went to the Bridge to Nowhere.

[Dr. Shane]

The earmark was removed so the State of Alaska was free to use the money elsewhere. She was elected governor of Alaska. Does anyone elect their governors to send money back to the federal government? I don't.

[Neil D]

Remind me again how much money the people recieved from the goverment from hurricane Katrina?

[Dr. Shane]

Too much. That mistake won't be made again. I know they don't hand out money so easy now because of our experience with Hurricane Dolly this year. A lot of mistakes were made with Hurricane Katrina and handing out money without accountability was one of them.