Media Blathers: Governor Palin, Earmarks and the "Bridge to Nowhere"

[Special thanks to C4P contributors Rob Harrison, Tommy Report and Sinistar, as well as my friend, Erik, for helping me with this post!]

When we last left off, our liberal progressive friends at Media Matters were under our scrutiny for their misrepresentation of Governor Palin on her "death panel" remark. Today, we are going to examine one of the first major Leftist talking points about the Alaska Governor - that she lied about her role in the demise of the Bridge to Nowhere - as well as rebut the notion that she was some sort of earmark-hungry, pork barrel ice queen.

After the Governor's lauded acceptance speech at the RNC last year, Media Matters took issue with the "falsehood" in her speech regarding the Bridge to Nowhere. They said that her claim, "I told the Congress 'Thanks, but no thanks'" was a "lie". Palin's role in stopping the bridge, our friend Jamison Foser asserts, was an "exaggerat[ed]" and "false claim".

Foser would later go on to say that "what Sarah Palin repeatedly said about [the bridge] was very, very false." He also asserted that "Palin herself has a famous history of 'making things up'", like her role in killing the infamous bridge. Eric Boehlert (Remember him? I'm sorry if you do.) decided to pat Foser on the back by declaring the Governor is "a woman with a deep, rich history of making things up." Boehlert also called Palin's critique of the media "semi-coherent". Because he's classy like that.

First, a history lesson: The Gravina Island Bridge (a.k.a. the "Bridge to Nowhere") was a proposed bridge to replace the ferry that connects the town of Ketchikan, Alaska (Population: Around 7,400) with Gravina Island (Population: About 50). You can see a map of the area here. The bridge would have been nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and higher than the Brooklyn Bridge, due to the area's ship traffic. By the time it was cancelled, its total cost had ballooned to $398 million.

Ketchikan International Airport is located on Gravina Island, and Ketchikan, like many communities in Southeast Alaska, including the State capital, Juneau, is not connected to the rest of the world by roads. Indeed, Palin's support of the bridge was not for the benefit of the tiny population on Gravina Island but rather, for Ketchikan, the seventh largest city in the State.

C4P contributor Sinistar explains:

I'm not sure how much interest there is at developing the area of Gravina Island across from Ketchikan, but it seems that some believe a bridge would allow that to happen. There are many in Alaska that call themselves "pro-development". These are the individuals that want Alaska to be developed and believe that economic prosperity goes hand and hand with that. For others it has to do with the notion of wanting to see "progress" in Alaska. With so much of Alaska undeveloped, the building of the infrastructure so that progress can be made is just one part of the equation. The notion of building a bridge across the Knik Arm from Anchorage is much the same way... though in that case it is more of an idea of allowing Anchorage to expand.

The Gravina Island Bridge was originally part of a $442 million earmark which included another bridge. Congress removed the earmark in 2005, and Alaska was given the funds, with no strings attached, to be parcelled out for transportation projects as they saw fit, bridges or no bridges.

As the New York Times noted:

Budget watchdog groups celebrated the reversal. "Instead of forcing taxpayers to buy a pair of boneheaded bridges, money would be freed up for much more important Alaskan transportation priorities," said Jill Lancelot, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Fast forward to the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial campaign. During her successful run for the Governor's seat, Sarah Palin did, in fact, support the Gravina Island bridge:

The money that’s been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done. This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper.

In response to an Anchorage Daily News poll asking candidates whether they would continue State funding for the bridge, Palin said:

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now – while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

Seems pretty damning, right?

Well, as we all know, Palin won the race, and the month after she was inaugurated, the Governor sent a revised budget to Alaska Senate President Lyda Green, without the bridge funding.

In September 2007, Governor Palin formally cancelled the project. At the time, Palin said:

Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. 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. 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. [Emphasis added]

C4P contributor K. Carpenter explained why fiscally responsible States should be reluctant to foot the remainder of the bill when the Federal government will not provide full funding:

For example, if a state is looking to build a $1 billion highway project, the federal government may tell that state that they are willing to pay 80% or $800 million for the project, only if the state will front the remaining 20% or $200 million. What if the state cannot afford the $200 million? Normally the state will go out and bond (borrow) for the project. This is a common practice for receiving federal dollars. There are always strings attached. States end up borrowing and spending money they do not have, along with the federal government borrowing and spending money they do not have.

Palin's communications director Bill McAllister explained why Governor Palin changed her mind on the bridge:

It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn't necessarily dead... there's still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design.

[She changed her mind when] she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it. ...I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to reevaluate situations as they developed.

So, yes, Governor Palin used to support the bridge. When she saw that the project was becoming astronomically expensive as well as unpopular, she killed the bridge. In fact, the Alaska Democratic Party gave her credit for doing so.

We have established the fact that Palin was for a bridge to benefit the city of Ketchikan, not merely a sparsely populated island. The Governor clearly saw that the project was expensive and wildly unpopular outside of the community it would have benefited. Since it was her call where the money went, Palin redirected the funds to other projects. Indeed, her other line, "If we're going to build that bridge, we'll build it ourselves" was quite accurate, insofar as the funds acquired from Congress would go to other transportation projects, not the Gravina Ice Bridge.

As Palin said in her interview with Charlie Gibson:

It's been an embarrassment, not just Alaska's projects. But McCain gives example after example after example. I mean, every state has their embarrassment. And, as I've said over and over, if Alaska wants that bridge, $300 million, $400 million dollars, over to that island with an airport, we'll find a way to build it ourselves. The rest of the country doesn't have to build that for us.

[...]

Transportation fund dollars still came into Alaska. It was our choice, Charlie, whether we were going to spend it on a bridge or not. And I said, thanks, but no thanks. We're not going to spend it on the bridge. [Emphasis added]

Palin also conceded the political reality of continuing to support the bridge:

And now obviously, Charlie, with the federal government saying, no, the rest of the nation does not want to fund that project. You have a choice. You either read the writing on the wall and understand okay, yes, that, that project's going nowhere. And the state isn't willing to fund that project. So what good does it do to continue to support something that circumstances have so drastically changed? You call an audible, and you deal in reality, and you move on. And, Charlie, we killed the bridge to nowhere and that's the bottom line. [Emphasis added]

Ultimately, the entire case against Palin's role in killing the bridge was a semantic one. It is undeniable that she had the final say in terminating the project and could have done so at any time. It is equally undeniable that Congress was not forcing Palin to fund the bridge specifically, just as it is undeniable that the Governor initially supported the project as part of Alaska's overall infrastructure development.

But Palin's opponents can not deny that Palin was ultimately responsible for making sure that the money acquired from Congress was not squandered on a bridge whose cost grew far higher than originally proposed and was not the only way to connect the people of Ketchikan to their airport.

And to those who attack the Governor's change in position of the bridge, note what Allahpundit (before he started dumping all over Palin) said on the matter:

As with so much else about Palin, the smaller, vivid, personal details undercut the political liabilities. If she’s just another fatcat phony reformer feeding from the trough, what’s up with this?

One of Palin’s first acts as governor was to sell the governor’s jet on eBay. She thought it was wasteful and, besides, couldn’t even land on many of the state’s short, gravel airstrips. (“It was for out-of-state trips,” she said, disapprovingly.) She keeps a float plane, along with some snowmobiles, in her backyard in Wasilla. At the governor’s mansion in Juneau, she got rid of the chef. The NEWSWEEK reporter asked her what working mother in her right mind would dismiss someone whose sole job was to cook for her family. She replied, “I don’t want them thinking when I’m done being governor that it’s normal to have a chef. It’s OK for them to have macaroni and cheese.”

The only real quibble those who wish to belittle the Governor have is that her "Thanks but no thanks line" might imply that Congress was somehow forcing the bridge down the State's throat and she fought them tooth and nail to reject funding for the bridge or even gave back all Federal funding.

Fun fact: She never claimed any of that. And despite explaining her actions with regard to the bridge quite honestly and fully in the Gibson interview, Media Matters continued to call Palin a liar.

Indeed, Congress is not some faceless monolith which wantonly doles out money to every wasteful project it can. It is made up of real people with real agendas, including the Alaska Congressional delegation.

This brings us to another important part of the Governor's legacy: Her fierce opposition to frivolous earmarks. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) tied Palin's role in ending the "Bridge to Nowhere" with her overall anti-earmark campaign.

DeMint noted the fact that former "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."

Again, a member of the Governor's own party from her own State was "aggravated" by her "antagonism toward earmarks".

And not to ignore the other side of the aisle's role in keeping the bridge alive, DeMint also pointed out that then-Senators Obama and Biden supported it over Katrina relief.

As Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin was a fiscal conservative who reduced her State operating budget by 13.4%, the capital budget by 31.7% and the overall budget by 16.8% - that's over $2.3 billion, just between fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

Palin's record is no different when it comes to earmarks. In his last year as Governor, Frank Murkowski requested nearly $350 million in earmarks. Upon taking office, Governor Palin cut that to $256 million. The next year, she reduced earmarks to about $197 million. In her final year as Governor, Palin requested $69 million in earmarks. Those earmarks consisted of eight projects, compared to 63 in Murkowski's last year.

Of course, in the world of Media Matters, fiscal year 2010 doesn't exist. John V. Santore misled when he said, without context, "In 2008, [Governor Palin] requested 31 federal earmarks totaling $197 million." At no point did Santore explain that Palin reduced earmarks each year as Governor. Santore also claimed, "In fact, [Alaska] is the nation's number one recipient of federal earmarks, currently averaging more than $500 per person per year."

Now, math was always my worst subject in school, but here goes. The estimated population of Alaska in 2008 was 686,293. The fiscal year 2010 earmarks total $69.1 million. If I divide the earmarks by the population... Carry the one... Ah! That amounts to $100.69 per person. Santore's numbers are off by 400%. Not that we expect Media Matters' "research" to square with the facts.

As long as we're picking on Santore, let's note his spurious claim that Palin faced a "growing chorus of conservative [criticisms]". His proof is this story from the LA Times. The "conservatives" include no-name Republican strategists, as well as "veteran GOP ad man" Mike Murphy, who was critical of Palin ever since she was picked for McCain's VP and refused to endorse the GOP ticket in 2008. He is also quoted as saying that Palin is largely still discussed as a political figure due to her looks, completely ignoring her accomplishments as Governor, her compelling life story and her riveting speaking style. What a lovely fellow, that Mike Murphy.

But what do you expect from Media Matters? As Jim Treacher tweeted, they have no idea what "Left" or "Right" really is. Hell, Media Matters' own founder, David Brock, admitted that he was never really that conservative to begin with, despite writing a tell-all book titled Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative [Emphasis added]. In fact, Brock apparently can't even tell which news stations he's been on, let alone his own personal ideology.

Palin has also fought for transparency in earmark requests, as she elaborated in the Gibson interview:

Those requests, through our research divisions and fish and game and our wildlife departments and our universities, those research requests did come through that system, but wanting it to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar. That's the abuse that we're going to stop. That's what John McCain has promised over and over for these years and that's what I'm joining him, also, saying, you're right, the abuse of earmarks, it's un-American, it's undemocratic, and it's not going to be accepted in a McCain-Palin administration. Earmark abuse will stop.

I think we've made our point. Sarah Palin is a fiscal conservative. Period. She has enacted earmark reform, cut wasteful spending and fought for transparency in government and ethics reform.

In stark contrast, the current administration is on track to run up record deficits, supports bills Congress hasn't even read (but a certain private citizen has) and is largely run by unelected, unaccountable czars, whose affiliations are questionable and whose conduct is wildly inappropriate (I'd say Van Jones calling Republicans "a**holes" is a tad ruder than Joe Wilson accusing Obama of lying, yes?).

So, Media Matters is 0 for 2. We'll be back with another Media Blathers post, so stay tuned.

Update: My friend Wyatt at Bulletproof Diction notes Alaska's unique role as a mostly Federally owned and managed State.