CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Sept. 9, 2008 – 12:05 a.m.
Four Things You Need to Know About the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff
One of the most arcane elements of the lawmaking process has burst into presidential politics as the two campaigns wrangle over earmarks – the narrowly-targeted spending and tax breaks lawmakers include in legislation, usually to help local constituencies foot the bill for projects.
The overwhelming majority of the projects in any given year are not controversial. In the past, that has been because so many are for widely-acceptable causes such as medical equipment at hospitals and because there was often a great deal of attention paid to concealing those that might become controversial.
Although Congress’ appetite for earmarks has drawn increasing criticism in recent years, very few of them ever became the subject of vigorous public debate, and the infamous “bridge to nowhere” at the center of much of the current presidential campaign is one of a kind in terms of notoriety. Though anti-earmark crusaders have mostly focused on appropriations bills, the largest earmarks have often been written into tax or authorization bills. The “bridge to nowhere,” for example, was in a highway authorization bill.
The presidential campaigns have been trading barbs over earmarks lately because Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin , Republican John McCain ’s vice presidential running mate, has been patting herself on the back for “stopping” the “bridge to nowhere,” and the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama has cried foul because she once supported the project.
Here are four things to keep in mind when you hear about the “Bridge to Nowhere”:
The Story of a Bridge Too Far
The planned $223 million bridge connecting Ketchikan to the tiny population on Gravina Island was originally included in a 2005 reauthorization of the nation’s surface transportation laws. It was one of two bridges that were initially referred to as the “bridges to nowhere.”
The bill’s chief author was Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young , who was chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee at the time. The two bridges, totaling nearly half a billion dollars, were not the only goodies for Alaska.
Young rewrote the formula by which the Alaska Railroad gets mass-transit subsidies and hid the new language under a section headed “technical amendments.” Instead of getting money based on its passenger load, as other mass-transit systems do, the Alaska Railroad now gets federal cash based on the number of miles of its track – a formula that will be more costly to the federal government over time than the onetime installment of the “Bridge to Nowhere” and which encourages Alaska to build more miles of track to get more federal money. An untrained reader of legislation would have had trouble deciphering the language.
The “bridges to nowhere,” however, were plain to anyone who bothered to look at the legislation. That must not have included the many lawmakers who voted for the transportation bill only to later raise an uproar over what they deemed to be wasteful spending.
Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma moved to strip funding for the bridge from an appropriations bill later in 2005 but was stymied by Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens and most of the rest of the Senate. Despite the negative publicity, the Senate decided the project should move forward.
But that decision was reconsidered by a House-Senate conference committee a few weeks later.
Ultimately, the negotiators struck a deal later that year in which Alaska would still get the money but it would no longer be “earmarked” for – or specifically directed to – the “bridges to nowhere,” either the one connecting Ketchikan with Gravina Island that remains famous or one in Anchorage called the Knik Arm bridge. Instead, under the law, that money would be “made available to the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for any purpose eligible.”
Four Things You Need to Know About the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’
Palin Campaigns for It, Governs Against It
Contrary to most recent reports on the subject, Palin did not switch from proponent to opponent when Congress removed the money specifically for the bridge. In fact, she continued to say she would build the bridge in 2006 as she campaigned for governor, long after it was no longer necessary for Alaska to spend the money on the project.
It appears that she wanted to appeal to voters in that part of the state by promising to give them the money their federal legislators already had secured for them.
“Part of my agenda is making sure that Southeast is heard. That your projects are important. That we go to bat for Southeast when we’re up against federal influences that aren’t in the best interest of Southeast,” Palin said in October 2006 -- nearly a year after Congress removed the requirement that the money be spent on the bridges -- according to the Ketchikan Daily News.
“We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spin-meisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,” she added.
While Congress voted to strip the requirement that the money be spent on the bridges, it did not preclude the state from building them. However, as governor, Palin wanted the money to go elsewhere. The project met its official end in Sept. 2007.
“After taking office and examining the project closely, she consistently opposed funding the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ and ultimately canceled the wasteful project,” Palin campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella told Politifact, a fact-checking venture jointly operated by the St. Petersburg Times and CQ.
Opposition to the project certainly created an atmosphere in which it would have been an uphill battle for Palin to press forward after she took office. But ultimately it was her call to leave the bridge unbuilt.
Sending It Back? Not a Chance
Palin has said “I told Congress ‘Thanks. But no thanks’ ” with regard to the bridge. But Congress already had given the Alaska government the money to spend as it wanted. She said ‘no’ to a bridge that she wasn’t required to support. She said ‘yes’ to the money.
The Obama campaign and media fact-checkers have taken Palin to task on her claim.
But from a practical standpoint, no governor in his or her right mind would take a $400 million-plus blank check for transportation projects -- a funding level determined in large part by a formula designed to ensure that each state gets its fair share of federal highway money -- and send it back to Washington rather than spend it on higher-priority plans. Technically, such projects are treated more as a line of credit than a check, but that’s a little beside the already highly hypothetical point.
From a legal standpoint, it would be difficult to take the money out of Alaska. It would require an act of Congress -- as it did to de-earmark the money and make it a general fund for use by Alaska rather than a specific earmark for the bridges.
Four Things You Need to Know About the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’
Occasionally a state or locality will give up project money because, for one reason or another, the project is clearly no longer necessary or viable. When that happens, Congress must act to take the money and put it into another project, often as part of a “technical corrections” bill, for it to be used by another jurisdiction. Otherwise, the money goes unused.
The state or locality could not simply use it to build a different road, because the law dictated that it be spent for the project originally specified.
The money for the “bridges to nowhere” is unique in that it is available to Alaska for any project. Even if Palin could turn the money back to the Treasury -- and it is unclear that she has any explicit authority to do that -- it would simply get parceled out to projects in other states.
Most of the money comes from Alaska’s share of a carefully crafted federal formula intended to ensure that states get their fair share of transportation money.
Flip-Flop Yes. Lying About Opposition? No. Lying About Stopping the Bridge? No.
The Obama campaign, columnists and fact-checking organizations have had a field day ripping Palin alternately for flip-flopping or for not opposing the bridge. Of course, both can’t be true.
Late Monday afternoon, the Obama campaign released an ad, called “No Maverick,” quoting a New Republic blog that called Palin’s claim that she “stopped the bridge to nowhere” a “naked lie.” The phrase was part a two-sentence post on the New Republic’s Web site with no back-up for its claim that it was a lie.
Earlier in the day, the Obama campaign was calling Palin a flip-flopper.
“Reality: Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it,” said a fact-check document produced by the campaign.
However, logic suggests she was either against it at some point or she couldn’t have flip-flopped. While Palin did flip-flop, she ended up firmly against it. And while there may have been other contributing factors, it is not inaccurate for Palin to say she “stopped the Bridge to Nowhere.”
Comments
Well, the other interesting thing about this particular flip-flop is, she flipped the CORRECT way. Barack Obama didn't. Barack Obama and John McCain promised the nation's voters that they would both abide by McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform restrictions. BHO changed his mind. I don't remember the media giving HIM this hard of a time about that flip-flop, which was also on a REFORM measure, and one that was bipartisan, and co-authored by one of the candidates himself. BHO's flip-flop was THIS year, in THIS election, in THIS campaign between these two candidates. They are both talking about reform, but then Barack Obama flip-flopped on reform -- for political expediency. Why would the media give the GOP VP candidate a harder time than the DNC's P candidate, when we have a perfect way to answer the question of which *P* candidate is the reformer versus which *P* candidate says anything to get elected? I still can't get over how Barack Obama appears to believe he's running against Sarah Palin! Presidential candidate John McCain never flipped, and has never taken ANY earmarks. (VP candidate) Joe Biden has taken tons of earmarks. Presidential candidate Barack Obama flipped on his campaign promise the WRONG way. (VP candidate) Sarah Palin flipped on her campaign promise the RIGHT way. The difference should be striking to any good journalist. Why no hoopla about the Democrats' PRESIDENTIAL candidate flip-flopping on McCain-Feingold for political expediency? In contrast, this sounds like a pretty damn good executive to me: "After taking office and examining the project closely, she consistently opposed funding the 'Bridge to Nowhere' and ultimately canceled the wasteful project," Palin campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella told Politifact
This article is ridiculous, especially the last part. "The Obama campaign, columnists and fact-checking organizations have had a field day ripping Palin alternately for flip-flopping or for not opposing the bridge. Of course, both can't be true." Of course both can be true. Clearly, Palin did support the bridge as long as it was popular to do so. Then, when it did no longer matter because the money had been secured and the public opinion changed, she flip-flopped and opposed it.
This analysis obscures the central (dare I say obvious) point of criticism of Palin on this issue. The McCain campaign is attempting to craft a mythical picture of Palin as a great crusader against earmarks, when in reality as mayor and governor she actively sought and happily benefited from them.
Commendations on this article. I am a pro-Obama person, but I thought he should have left it to his underlings to criticize Gov. Palin on her "flip flop" on the bridge to nowhere. He actually said that you can't just go around "making things up." I think he was getting on dangerous ground there, calling her a liar, and it gives people the idea that the Campaign is panicking; they have plenty of time to get the numbers back up. He is running against McCain not Palin.
This article is premised on the same logic that justifies the teaching of creationism and which questions global warming. The author really failed to make a logical statement. Really.
There is not requirement in the McCain-Fiengold act that states that a candidate has to take public financing. How about getting the facts straight. There is no soft money being used in either campaign and that is the main componet of the McCain-Fiengold act.
Not to move the subject away from the article itself, but in relation to Obama's quote that "Words mean something; you can't just make things up," the important part is the first. [Disclaimer: I'm strongly pro-Obama] He genuinely believes that words mean something. All the Republican criticism of him being all talk, I don't buy it. Talk substantive; talk tells us who you are; talk, compared to the facts, tells us how ready you are to be truthful and transparent with the American citizenry. So, to get back to the article, the last section parsing the precise truth-value of the McCain campaign's claims about Palin being a "maverick reformer" should be the most damning part of this. That it even needs to exist speaks to the politics-as-usual approach by the Republicans, where they'll say everything they can technically get away with. (It wasn't a lie! She did oppose it in the end!) At best, it's vague; more accurately, it's misleading and dissimulating, hardly the kind of "straight talk" John McCain has claimed he's about.
Let's see-- a bridge proposed by Republicans, strongly supported by Republicans, then criticized by Republicans, then used by Republicans as an example of waste! Oh now i get it-- do some stupid things and blame the government for your stupidity. What do they think we citizens are stupid?
Speaking as a voter (Obama) from rural central Ohio I want to add this tiny bit of awareness to your great article. The Maverick ad suggests these two are a version of the old dude and youthful dragon slayer fairy tale. That is what I think when I see it anyway. That said, however, the perception seems to be fixed in folks minds that the McCain Palin team will change Washington. When I ask my Republican friends what change they are looking for, not one person has mentioned earmarks. So it doesn't matter that Gov. Palin inflates her role in the bridge to nowhere process well beyond her actual responsibility. It doesn't matter because the voters don't care about this subject. What the maverick image does is give Republican voters a reason to not feel guilty about voting for Republicans. McCain promises to change Washington, and in reality all he will succeed in doing if he is elected President is give the party a new image, which will be as hollow and false as the compassionate conservative image G. Bush created in 2000. I live for the day when lies won't be enough to get you elected President.
Proposed, supported & approved by Republicans!Then criticized and used by Republicans as an example of wastw. Mmmmmm
I think calling her a liar is a great idea. When you support something in a political campaign then later claim to have said "thanks, but no thanks, we can pay for things ourselves" after the money has been allocated to you, you are lying. And it behooves the Democrats and the press to keep pointing this out. Palin and McCain are making this a big part of her story, how she personally turned down the money and stopped the bridge. In fact, she didn't/couldn't turn down the money and promised to build the bridge after Congress had said it shouldn't be built. I disagree with the articles interpretation and I think she and McCain should be the ones who have convince the American people that her story makes sense.
Enjoyed this article, but a few comments: First, it is misleading to describe the bridge as merely connecting Ketchikan to the tiny population on Gravina Island. The bridge was to connect the city to an international (not municipal) airport which happens to be on the island. The airport is far more important than the permanent residents of Gravina. Second, it is interesting that Obama and Biden voted for the "earmark," and when it was suggested that the money be reallocated to hurricane Katrina relief, they voted against the reallocation. Hmmmm.
How is this a flip-flop any way? Palin still got the money, $400 million, and no longer has to even spend it on the bridges. She says she said no, but actions speak louder than words.
Palin stoped the bridge: TRUE Palin campaigned and won re-election on a promise to build the bridge: TRUE
The fact that Palin ultimately rejected the Bridge to Nowhere in no way makes it okay. She still kept the earmarked money. This is pork whether it was spent on the bridge or something else. Calling herself a reformer is ludicrous.
I didn't know that flopping in the "correct" way included GIVING OUR MONEY TO ALASKA CITIZENS. You realize that they KEPT the money AND that they GAVE EVERY ALAKSAN $1,654 in 2007? That's up $500 from the year before and it's all due to Palin being willing to spend federal (our) tax money, but not Alaska's money. Well, except when billing them for time spent at home. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088.html?hpid=topnews
Yes, the governor did keep the funds, in her stump speaches and at their convention she implies that the state returned the funds to the feds. What about the airplane, she said that she put it on e-bay (true) she put it on three times and it didn't sell, so she ended up selling it to a private buyer for 2.1 m which was a 500-600 thousand loss for the state, plus the buyer is seeking 50,000 for repairs to the plain. I think that Palin and McCain streach the truth to their advantage...how sad. We need to realize that this election is about our future, not a political game, as most of the cable commentators seem to think. Citizens that vote on a candidates (s)personalities alone need to rethink their possitions.
I've never posted on an article like this before but this article gets it so wrong, I had to do it. What the Obama campaign is criticizing is Palin saying she "stopped the bridge to nowhere." That's a LIE. Congress stopped the bridge to nowhere which Palin supported. That's the simple fact. All this analysis just obscures the issue.
Jan, you've missed the point. Palin is a huge lying hypocrite for saying she was AGAINST earmarks, when she actively campaigned FOR them, claims it is the WILL OF GOD that she receive them, and KEPT the money once she got them. That's the issue: a candidate who straight-up lies to America. Biden never said he was campaigning to stop earmarks, so it doesn't matter if he took them. Palin says she's a fiscal conservative, but put a suberb of 5000 people $22 million in debt in only 2 years! She wants $30 billion of federal money for a gas pipeline - no wonder she can afford to give tax rebates to Alaskans, their whole infrastructure is being paid for with tax money from the Lower 48. On public financing: Obama's goal was to break the grip of special interests. His campaign has proved you can do that better by using the internet and appealing to small donors all across America than by relying on public financing for a brief window just before the election. It's not a flip-flop to change a tactic so that you can better achieve your real goal, which in this case was to return power to "the little guy" and take it away from lobbyists.
Trish, Thanks for joining in the discussion. I think there may be some confusion over how the process worked in this case. In a 2005 highway bill, Congress earmarked money for the "Bridge to Nowhere" -- essentially writing into law a requirement that Alaska build the bridge. Later in the year, Congress wrote a new law that said the money could be used for any transportation project, including the "Bridge to Nowhere." Congress chose to leave it up to local officials whether to use the money for the bridge or for other projects. At the time, many Alaska officials said they would go ahead and use the money to build the bridge anyway. Though she campaigned on building the bridge, Palin decided not to use state or federal money to continue the project -- except a portion that Congress had granted with the requirement that it be used on an access road, which has been dubbed the "Road to Nowhere" by its critics.
An internal CQ reader writes in to note a fifth thing you need to know about the "Bridge to Nowhere:" Barack Obama and Joe Biden both voted against an amendment to redirect $125 million from the two Alaska bridges to rebuilding a bridge connecting New Orleans and Slidell, La., after Hurricane Katrina. They also voted for the original legislation approving the bridges on its first trip through the Senate and as a conference report. John McCain did not vote on the amendment that would have shifted funds to Louisiana, which failed, 15-82. He voted twice against the bill that earmarked money for the bridges.
I don't care what anyone says, there is no correct way of flip-flopping an issue no matter how you slice it. The bottom line is Sarah Palin doesn't know whether she is coming or going on certain topics. A strong stand against abortion and abstinence, but still allowed her oldest daughter to get pregnant. Claims to end government waste, but requested over 20 earmarks to U.S Senator Ted Stevens (who is now indicted by the FBI in case anyone has already forgotten). Have the gall to blast those who would prefer to raise taxes, when she had already done that as Wasilla Mayor and now Alaska Governor-AFTER saying she won't go there. And to top it off-she and her husband joined of group of separatists called the Alaskan Independence Party which would have made Alaska no longer a part of the United States, a different national anthem, a different Constitution, and a different flag-and she dared to question Barack and Michelle Obama's patriotism along with other Republicans. At least Barack and Michelle Obama never joined up with a separatist political party-so lay up that subject about loyalty to this country already!
fact: obama voted for the bill
And your point, kls?
Anybody want to hear what Palin has to say in more than just one interview, perhaps by someone who isn't as obviously sympathetic to her cause? There is a petition to this effect to pressure the McCain camp into making her more available to the press: http://www.petitiononline.com/B9AE83R/petition.html
Pork? Some people don't seem to know what pork really is. Federal funding for transportation progjects is allotted to all 50 states proportionately. Where do you think the Fed. Gov. gets its money? They get it from the states and the taxpayers of those states. To turn down legitimately re-distributed revenue for your own state that your citizens have paid for with their tax money so that it goes to some other state is quite frankly nuts and irresponsible if you've been entrusted by your citizens to look out for your state's interests. On all accounts Gov Palin's near record high approval rating by the citizens whom she serves combined with a budget surplus in times when most states are showing deficits is the best mark of success and good governance.
Mary you're missing the point. It's not the keeping of the money. It's the attempt to appear as though she's not. As though she actually DID something when in fact she did nothing. THAT is the point.
EXACTLY Tim! It is the McCain-Palin campaign who used the "Bridge to Nowhere" to try to bolster Palin's standing as a fiscal conservative, when the fact of the matter is, Alaska still got the money. If they hadn't used the issue in this way, it would have been a non-issue. As governor, she should have kept the highway money for her state. Why didn't they just say so?
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: