There's a lot more to this story than what the media has written. I published this diary before and updated it with an editorial from today's Anchorage Daily News.
There were 2 bridges in that earmark and there was a separate earmark for a road.
The media also gets the sequence wrong.
In my opinion Palin's position on the Bridge has been too easily explained as a flip-flop.
The timeline makes you wonder who did she tell "Thanks but no thanks." Smoke and mirrors?
This is the tale of 2 bridges and a road - all going nowhere. We mostly hear about only the Bridge-to-Nowhere. Now for the rest of the story. It's a long one.
The Timeline in Brief:
November 2005- The earmark originally provided funding for 2 bridges - the Gravina Island Bridge that we know as the Bridge-to-Nowhere, and the Knik Arm Bridge, which has been officially named "Don Young's Way."
Congress changed the language of the earmark and removed the requirement for the funds to be spent on 2 specific bridges but allowed Alaska to still receive the money.
November 2006 - Sarah Palin is elected Governor. She supports building the Bridge-to-Nowhere during her campaign. However, the designation of funds for the bridges had been removed from the earmark a year prior to her election.
September 21, 2007 - Governor Palin issues a press release canceling the Bridge-to-Nowhere. Work on the Knik Arm Bridge continues.
The Timeline Details:
November 2005
The language of the earmark was changed in November 2005 as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 17, 2005.
You may recall that Stevens had a temper tantrum and threatened to resign from the Senate if the earmark for the bridge was rescinded. But the bridge was becoming a political hot potato. To make it go away, Congress reached a compromise with Stevens
"Lawmakers in the House and Senate decided to drop the project after it was derided by critics as "pork-barrel spending" on "the bridge to nowhere."
And Stevens’ reaction:
"I said I'd resign if they took the money from our state," Stevens said, noting that Alaskans will still see the federal dollars -- even if they aren't for the bridges.
The explanation of what Congress did:
Under a compromise transportation spending bill, Alaska would still get the federal dollars -- but the money would not be specifically designated for the two bridges. As a result, Alaskan lawmakers and other officials would decide where to spend the money -- and they could opt to fund other transportation projects.
So this was how Alaska was able to keep the money from the bridges earmark and the designation was changed before Palin became Governor. Who was she saying "No thanks" to? And her "No thanks" didn’t mean "here’s your money back." It didn’t even really mean "No thanks" since they got to keep the money.
On the campaign trail besides saying "No thanks" she leaves the impression that the earmark was still funding that bridge and she was being a good steward, a champion of the wise use of taxpayer money.
I suppose Alaska could decide to still use the funds on the bridges and be within the intent of the revised language but it seems like slight-of-hand by Congress and the Alaska congressional delegation.
November 2006 - Palin is elected Governor of Alaska.
We know "she was for the bridge before she was against" so I won’t detail that.
You might want to check this article - Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans
Palin was elected in November 2006 and the bridge designation was removed from the earmark a year prior. She should have known during the campaign that the language of the earmark was changed - surely it was publicized in Alaska and talked about in political circles.
When she was in favor of the bridge during the campaign, was she planning on still using the earmark funds to pay for it even though the earmark language was changed? Like I said before, slight of hand - smoke and mirrors.
Meanwhile, in the Lower 48 we thought Congress had killed the Bridge-to-Nowhere. It seems the Bridge wouldn't die.
She’s now the Governor and learns that the cost of the bridge has increased and now exceeds the money available from the earmark and Alaska would have to make up the shortfall. The cancellation of the Bridge is announced September 21, 2007.
September 2007 she announces cancellation of the project
From her September 21, 2007 Press Release
"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," Governor Palin added. "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."
Ah, there was a shortfall on the money and the political climate was not conducive to going back to the trough.
From Transportation Watch:
Transportation Watch:
The governor made the decision "simply because the project wasn't a prudent use of state funds," said Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow.
So it isn't that this bridge wasn't built because she's a reformer, a maverick, a steward of taxpayer money, it wasn't built because Alaska didn't want to spend it's own money - some of that $5 billion surplus. It wasn’t until state money would have to be used because the costs had increased beyond the funding from the earmark that the Bridge was no longer "prudent." It was a great idea as long as federal money was paying for it. Federal money couldn't be moved from other projects because like this original earmark, the earmarks were for specific projects. Congress would have to change language in other earmarks to move money around. It is certainly doubtful that Stevens and Young could convince Congress to allocate more money that could be used on the infamous bridge.
But let's not forget that the bridge designation was already removed from the earmark.
"So I told Congress thanks but no thanks on that bridge. If Alaska wants a bridge we’ll by build it ourselves."
Evidently Alaska didn't even want to build part of the bridge themselves.
Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young’s Way)
This was the other bridge in the original earmark. Work is continuing on this bridge. Actual construction hasn’t begun but the preliminary work continues.
From the Anchorage Daily News, June 9, 2008:
The Knik Arm bridge would be an 8,200-foot span connecting mostly undeveloped land near Point MacKenzie to Anchorage through Government Hill.
In 2005, Young inserted more than $200 million seed money for the Knik Arm bridge in a spending bill. But Congress later pulled the earmark amid criticism of the Anchorage project and of a proposed Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan.
The state still got the money but didn't have to use it on the bridges.
Some include this bridge when talking about the Bridge-to-Nowhere. From the CSM, July 2006:
Actually, the "bridge to nowhere" refers to two bridges. One is the Knik Arm Crossing, which would connect Alaska's largest city with a little-used port on the other side of a glacier-fed channel that drains into the Pacific. The other is a span that would link Ketchikan, Alaska, to sparsely populated Gravina Island.
The Anchorage Daily News reported in June that costs so far were $41.5 million. The bridge is beset with problems. Palin is beginning to ask questions according to this report but so far has not said "No thanks."
Not everyone is supportive of this bridge. Here’s a list of Q&A’s about the bridge. People believe there are alternatives but you might guess, based on the official name, things are very political with this particular bridge.
One of the Q&A’s is:
Who will pay for the bridge?
The bridge is likely to cost anywhere from $600 million (Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority estimate, 2005) to over $1.5 billion (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities study estimate, 2003).
In the summer of 2005, the U.S. Congress granted a $231 million earmark for the bridge. After overwhelming national criticism over spending massive amounts of federal tax dollars on "bridges to nowhere," Congress removed its mandate to spend the $231 million on the Knik Arm bridge project. The State of Alaska still has the option to use much of this funding on the bridge, however the funding comes at the expense of other improvements to make Alaska's existing road system safer, smoother, and less congested.
Tolls likely will account for an additional $200 million. The remainder will be made up with "creative financing," including using State General Fund dollars (money that could instead be used to pay teachers or reinstitute revenue sharing with communities), increasing the state motor fuel tax and/or instituting a local motor fuel tax, and local property tax increases.
A poll was conducted March 10-12 by Hays Research Group for 3 groups critical of the bridge. The results were released April 22 and showed that more than 70 percent of people surveyed said the money should go to local roads.
Which brings us to the Gravina Access Highway.
This is really the Road-to-Nowhere although the official name is the Gravina Access Highway.
This project was funded with a separate earmark. The language of that earmark wasn't changed by Congress. If Alaska didn't build the highway, the money had to be returned to the federal government.
This highway is under construction. It's a 3 mile long $48 million road that was supposed to connect to the Bridge-to-Nowhere. But there isn't a bridge to connect to so the Gravina Access Highway is terminating at an empty beach.
From a McClatchy article about Palin's flip-flop:
Meanwhile, Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone -- because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government.
and this:
Meanwhile, work is under way on a three-mile road on Gravina Island, originally meant to connect the airport and the new bridge. State officials said last year they were going ahead with the $25 million road because the money would otherwise have to be returned to the federal government.
Leighow said the road project was already under way last year when Palin stopped the bridge, and she noted that it would provide benefits of opening up new territory for development -- one of the original arguments made for the bridge spending.
The Gravina Access Bridge Mega-Project
This nearly $400 million project was cancelled by Governor Palin on September 21, 2007. As of fall 2007, however, the state is continuing to build the 3-mile Gravina Access Highway on lightly-populated Gravina Island using funds from a $48 million dollar federal earmark. This "highway" will end at a beach, where the bridge is not scheduled to be built. The Alaska Transportation Priorities Project urges Governor Palin to either return the earmark money to the federal government to demonstrate her fiscal responsibility or to ask Senator Ted Stevens and Congressman Don Young to agree to reprogram that money for sensible transportation purposes, including road upgrades in Ketchikan.
So not everyone supports this highway. Here's a grassroots group Tongass Conservation Society that opposed the bridge and the highway. Lots of links to information.
If Palin wanted to say "no thanks" to something, it should have been the Gravina Access Highway - the Road-to-Nowhere. "No thanks and I'm returning the taypayers' money." Saying no to this highway would have made her claims of maverick, reformer, steward of taxpayer money more credible.
But, of course, that didn't happen. Instead the McCain campaign is constructing the Myth of Sarah Palin.
I don't know why the Obama campaign doesn't hit them harder with that second bridge and the Road-to-Nowherr as well as the fact there wasn't anything to say "No Thanks" to since the bridges were removed from the earmark.
Update
The Anchorage Daily News has an editorial on September calling for Alaska to cancel the Knik Arm Bridge:
Work on the bridge already has soaked up more than $40 million in federal money. That's money that would have been better spent on commuter bus/van/rail service between Anchorage and Mat-Su, more bus routes in Anchorage, Glenn Highway upkeep and repairs or even planning for the Glenn-to-Seward highway connection in Anchorage.
End pursuit of the crossing for now, and Southcentral Alaska still stands to gain between $50 million and $60 million for other, more pressing needs.
The Assembly resolution would be just the first step in calling a halt to the project. Federally required public hearings would add another three to six months before the crossing could officially disappear from Anchorage's list.
Local and state officials need to make sure we can scratch the bridge without having to repay the $40 million-plus in federal money. Cost and controversy are generally reason enough for the feds to forgo repayment. The Knik Arm Crossing provides both in abundance.
The editorial goes on to detail Palin's support for the Knik Arm Crossing during the campaign for governor.
Gov. Sarah Palin campaigned for governor in 2006 as a supporter of two controversial bridge proposals, in Ketchikan and across Knik Arm, both pursued with massive federal appropriations.
On the team now with anti-earmark presidential candidate John McCain, Palin is making hay with her later decision to reject the Ketchikan bridge.
But she still has not pulled support for the Knik Arm Crossing, like the Ketchikan bridge a stunningly expensive project that serves a largely empty area.
The Knik Arm Crossing, meant to connect Palin's home territory in the Susitna Valley with Anchorage, is now estimated to cost $700 million to $1 billion.