Tennesseefree.com
Tennessee News and Politics

Tennesseefree.com

Bridge to Nowhere: the Executive vs. the Legislative

September 10th, 2008 . by Serr8d

Jeff G posts a clarifying e-mail he received from  UC-San Diego economics Professor Garey Ramey. Excerpted…

“…In the end, she chose the radical option of removing the project from the capital budget, precluding any future funding allocations or construction. Her claim to have “stopped the bridge” is entirely truthful.”To justify her decision, she argued that the bridge project had become too expensive, and that the state should investigate more cost-effective alternatives. In political terms, her decision was viewed as a blow to the state’s Republican establishment, which had strongly championed the project. Without question, the episode buttresses Palin’s reputation as an executive who “stands up to her own party.”

“It is important to note that Palin has worked to overhaul the earmark process, in parallel with Congressional efforts to limit the practice. Alaska’s earmark requests have fallen from 54 last year to 31 this year, with only four new requests. Total requested funding has dropped from $550 million to $200 million. Clearly, Governor Palin has made strong progress in reducing the use of earmarks in Alaska.”

Interesting to note that Senators Obama and Biden voted for the first Senate bill containing this earmark.

Oh, earmarks closer to home: Bart Gordon in 2008  sponsoring an ‘Intermodal Transportation Hub’ at MTSU, for $200K. See Table 1, here, for more MTSU ‘Federal Initiative requests’ (earmarks) for FY 2007.

From that document…

“Eight different faculty groups having related or complementary research interests have been invited to thematic brainstorming sessions for the purpose of fostering dialog aimed at forging collaborations that result in the development of a potential ‘earmarking’ idea. These were followed up with the submission of a number of two-page proposals suitable to be included in a collection of such proposals. These meetings have resulted in several innovative earmarks that have been presented to the MTSU Congressional delegation.

“Dr. Allen has presented a set of these proposals to lobbyists in DC and to
Congressman Bart Gordon and his staff. The strategy of the OoR is to gain a few earmarks in niche areas where MTSU has strengths and use that success to demonstrate competitiveness and thus increase the chances for success in competitive proposals submitted to federal and state funding agencies.”

It’s a virtual pig trough, MTSU.

I didn’t see an earmark request for guitar picks. Prolly buried in the “Center for Physical Activity in Youth” request. Heh.


Oh. Speaking of MTSU, and a certain Professor (who represents MTSU to, you know, the world…)

Go rape your daughter. Palin want you to increase your family for jesus

Nice, William.

Dr. Allen would be so proud..

For the public vetting !!!1!!1111!!1!!



5 Responses to “Bridge to Nowhere: the Executive vs. the Legislative”

  1. comment number 1 by: Jeffraham Prestonian

    The actual timeline of events:

    Actually, Congress put the kibosh on the Bridge to Nowhere back in November 2005. Since Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was then head of the Senate Appropriations Committee he was able to force a compromise in which the earmark for the bridge was killed but Alaska got to hold on to the money — some $442 million of federal tax dollars.

    Fast forward to November 2006. That’s when Sarah Palin was running as a staunch supporter of the Bridge to Nowhere — that is, after the feds had themselves already said ‘No Thanks.’

    In 2006, the Democrats took over both houses of Congress. So by the time Palin got into office it was clear that not only was the first Bridge earmark killed but that Congress was not going to be ponying up any more money. That meant that Alaska was going to have to pick up the tab all on its own. So since she couldn’t pay for it with the federal pork barrel, in September 2007, Palin officially halted the project which was then a state project since Congress had said ‘Thanks. But no thanks’ two years earlier.

    She couldn’t say ‘No Thanks’ because Congress had already said ‘Forget It’.

    Still with me?

    So the money Palin sent back to Washington? Well, she didn’t. She kept the money for other bridges and roads in Alaska.

    So, to boil it all down, Congress pulled the plug on the Bridge to Nowhere in 2005. Palin was still for it in 2006. And when she finally ended the project because Congress had cut off funding, instead of saying ‘No Thanks’ she actually said ‘Thanks!’ because instead of sending the money back to Washington she kept it all in Juneau.

    .

  2. comment number 2 by: nedwilliams

    Ha. “The Feds” . . . “Congress”had said “thanks, but no thanks.” Apparently not all “Feds,” right JP?

  3. comment number 3 by: Jeffraham Prestonian

    Apparently not all “Feds,” right JP?

    Right. Ted Stevens (R-AK, under indictment) fought to keep the pork, and it was kept. It just wasn’t earmarked for the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
    .

  4. comment number 4 by: Captain Brainstorm

    If you’d bothered to read the link, it was the Alaskan legislature that she struck the bridge funding from.

  5. comment number 5 by: Jeffraham Prestonian

    If you’d bothered to read the link, it was the Alaskan legislature that she struck the bridge funding from.

    AFTER the earmark was removed in the federal spending bill, yes.
    .

Leave a Reply

Name

Mail (never published)

Website