I have definitely been one to say that I am surprised there haven’t been more comments about the amount of inexperience that Barak Obama is personally bringing to his campaign. Compared to almost all other candidates, Republican or Democrat, Obama sits somewhere in the middle (just below Palin) in the “years of elected public service” category. Obama takes his non-elected service scenarios and adds them to his service record, but for that matter so could any candidate. It doesn’t bump his “service record” above Palin or anyone else. The upside of a politician not having a lot of experience is that there are less years to examine when it comes to trying to figure out their record of involvement.
Big on discussion boards is the topic of “The Bridge to Nowhere.” Here is some history for you on that project, so that you are getting a little more than spin. If someone mentions the Bridge to nowhere without knowing this info at the minimum, then they are simply riding the soundbite train like many other lemmings. Read on to get off the soundbite train.
You can judge if I am being biased or not by my perspective. Read on!
The Bridge to Nowhere project started many years ago. In fact some Alaskan state politicians have claimed to have been a part of trying to fund the bridge project for the better part of twenty years. Here is a quick overview of that story.
The island Ketchikan, has the second largest airport in southern Alaska. That part of the country only sees about $1 million in tourism dollars per years and the island itself has a population of around 50+ people with traffic of about 350,000 by ferry and 200,000 by the airport per year. The bottom line is that the island community has no chance of bolstering the local economy through the inconvenient location of the airport and tying the airport to the mainland via a bridge seemed like a good idea to increase the flow of tourism and business. The proposed bridge was to be taller than the Brooklyn Bridge, and nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge (I think a lot of people imagined a smaller bridge and tinier community, but that is neither here nor there.) From cruise ships to accommodating ships that drive through the “Alaskan Marine Highway,” this bridge would have to be tall beneath it to allow water-transportation to pass under.
Two political champions of the project were Alaskan senators Ted Stevens and Don Young. They felt it was important to pursue funding for this project on behalf of Alaska.
When Sarah Palin ran for governor in September 2006 she made remarks about supporting solving the transportation issues in that community and funding the bridge project.
Now, let’s take a step back. In 2005 Ted Stevens’ efforts to fund the bridge assisted by federal funds was nearly a reality. At about the time the bill was going to be enacted by Congress Katrina hit and the funds were reallocated from Alaska to aid recovery. So, no “bridge to nowhere.”
But wait… there is more. In October, during the election Sarah Palin was asked if she supported the continued state funded pursuit of the bridge(s). She said yes. She felt that there was good continued support in congress to send earmarked funds to Alaska in this specific infrastructure project.
Recall not too long ago bridges collapsing in Minnesota? This was a smaller bridge but it took the lives of people. I do recall people making an emphasis at that time about the importance of investing in America’s infrastructure. Again, neither here nor there. This isn’t about a transportation being a fundamentally bad need. This is about an expensive bridge partially federally funded being the wrong answer.
In December of 2006 Sarah Palin was elected Governor of Alaska. She started her Governorship continuing to talk about turning Alaska toward a more fiscally responsible set of values and financial ideals by reforming spending. Everything in the budget was going to be examined and potentially revised to match a fiscally responsible set of values.
Since 2005 Congress, who had diverted bridge funds from Alaska to help in Katrina aid decided to provide those funds to Alaska... again. The state senators were happy but a smaller contingent of Congress (much led by Senator John McCain) continued to argue against earmark funding.
A few months later in 2007 Governor Palin, in keeping with her fiscally responsible agenda, stated that Alaska would be submitting a budget that would force the state to “live within their means” and reject the $185 million earmark for the bridge project. In July of 2007 she said that Alaska would find a “better way to reach the airport” and added that “a $398 million bridge is not the answer.” She didn’t say that the need for a transportation scenario like a bridge was a bad idea. She simply said that the plan for $398 million bridge project was the wrong answer. Like she later told the nation, if Alaska needs a bridge then they will find a way to build a bridge without Federal funds. (It is worth mentioning that at the same time Palin is turning down the $185 million earmark bridge budget, Obama is earmarking around $330 million for Illinois.)
Governor Sarah Palin within six month of coming into office rectified a nearly half a billion dollar expense. That isn’t the only cut she made to the state budget plans. Government officials across the state have noted that the state’s budget runs in a surplus and continues to make cuts that match the Governor’s fiscally responsible agenda.
As a result of the cuts, are Alaskans angry at Palin and see this as a political flip-flop? A typical result of “Angry Alaskans” should show up as a negative popularity poll, traditionally. Based on the press’ coverage of the topic, one might think her state would likely despise her. Surprisingly enough popularity polls show her to be the #1 most popular State Governor in the nation with a score of 90.
So, in summary, the need in their state isn’t bad or wrong. Under Sarah Palin it was determined that the bridge was simply the wrong answer to a relevant question inside her state. Federal funding given to states isn’t necessarily wrong either. I think that generally speaking Democrats and Republicans agree that the Federal Government plays a valid role in maintaining our transportation infrastructure. So, in my estimation the Democrats and the Republicans both had it right:
Dems: Sarah Palin did support the “bridge” (project.)
Reps: Sarah Palin acknowledges the need for solving the issue of transportation in that part of Alaska, previously known as the bridge to nowhere, but feels that the bridge was not the answer when it was time for her to set a budget as the elected Governor of Alaska.
Final note: So what of Earmarks? Both McCain and Obama don’t want them? What is that about?
Obama/McCain Earmarks Quick History:
McCain has never sought earmarks for Arizona, where he is the senior Senator for the state. He has been opposed to them from the beginning. That means he hasn’t asked for an earmark in his 26 years of Congressional service. Senator McCain calls this responsible.
Obama has petitioned for $860 million in earmarks over his total of four years as a junior Senator for the State of Illinois. Last year alone he sought more than $330 million in earmarks. Obama has joined McCain in not asking for earmarks for fiscal year 2009. Obama calls this “not asking” a moratorium. Why is he not asking? Obama said, “We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project.” This isn’t too surprising coming from a junior senator with only four years under his belt.
I am not saying I don't agree. McCain himself said that if a project is worth investing in, it gets supported in a New York minute! I just think it is not at all suprising that the reason Obama gives for not supporting earmarks has to do with the fact that senators with less experience (him) don't get funded as often.
The smartest thing I have heard Senator Obama say in the last months was his desire to not put a timeframe to the war in the Middle East until he might be president and could review the situation from that vantage point with advice from on-the-ground leadership. This is what he has said. Obama is imagining how the view as President might affect his decision process. He has to imagine, because he doesn't have a parallel experience to draw from since State Senators are not empowered like that to make such decisions.
Governor Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she can make a tough decision to reverse years of poor investing to turn down millions of dollars as a result of having analyzed the situation from the vantage point of an empowered Governor. These aren’t words about change after years and nearly $1 billion of a track record in the wrong direction. She doesn't have to speculate or imagine. She has been there and made the tough decision. You don’t have to simply say something for it to be a lie. You can also just live the lie for years like Senator Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment