Four Things to Know About The Bridge To Nowhere

Here is a story I was just reading at Yahoo News, by Jonathan Allen and the "four things you need to know" when talking about the "Bridge To Nowhere".
Have a good day!!
p.s. It is Day two in O.J. jury selection in his Robbery/Kidnapping trial :)

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."
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.
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."

And that is the story of the "Bridge to Nowhere"!!