# She was only for it before she was against it, but she'll spend the dough anyways **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 4, 2008, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966 "2008-09-04T09:40:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/1 "2008-09-04T09:40:08Z")
Pardon me for trying to move the debate on Palin from her personal life to her actual political record, sparse as it might be. [Linky linky](http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3125537020080901) According to the sources quoted in the Reuters article, she said she was all for building the bridge when she was running for office, but canceled the project once in office. Let’s just say that the people who supported the project in the state feel like they’ve been stabbed in the back. Her first big speech with the whole country watching, and she gets a great response from the crowd of folks by donning the Responsible Spender robe. She told those congress critters, “‘thanks but no thanks’ on that bridge to nowhere.” Except that Alaska still took the money. Congress had already removed the earmark, instead offering the funds for “transportation priorities.” Somehow I thought that “no thanks” would result in not yanking the funds out of Congress’ hands so fast the bills now have skid marks. So, the money would be spent on other Alaskan transportation priorities. What priorities, might you ask? How about priorities like building a road to the bridge to nowhere? Sure, the bridge won’t be built, but you’ll get to the nonexistent bridge in half the time it would normally take if you are among the handful of people on Gravina Island. How else has she reformed Alaska’s government? ---
**Author:** ![ASAKMOTSD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@ASAKMOTSD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASAKMOTSD)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/2 "2008-09-04T11:04:38Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > How else has she reformed Alaska’s government? Apparently, she wants to reform it by leaving it now. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/3 "2008-09-04T11:20:17Z")
Why are you being such mysogynistic haters and Obama lackeys? This is because she’s a woman, isn’t it? A _tough_ woman who ain’t afraid to take not only her own life in her hands, but an unborn baby’s life as well. Who isn’t afraid to expose to the world her down to earth, everyday faults and foibles, and those of her minor children too! You ain’t never et a mooseburger, have you? Wall, there ya go. [Contemptuous sputtering noise with lips.] ETA: Lest I be accused of going off topic, the foregoing paragraph represents the McCain campaign’s specific and precise rebuttal to the OP’s question, who obviously doesn’t put our country first. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/4 "2008-09-04T12:10:48Z")
You don’t really seem to understand how the whole transportation funding thing works. The transportation authorization bill originally contained the “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark. That earmarked part of the funds that were going to Alaska based on the transportation funding formula. It wasn’t extra money for the state. So when you remove the earmark the same amount of money goes to Alaska. The only difference is that Alaska transportation officials have the authority to spend that money as they see fit. It makes no sense to say they should have “refused” the mony. It’s money that goes to them, as it does every other state, based on the federal formula. It would have made no sense for them to turn it down. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/5 "2008-09-04T12:20:01Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > It makes no sense to say they should have “refused” the money. In which case it makes no sense to claim you told Congress “Thanks but no thanks”. Even less so when you publically lament that Congress wouldn’t give you even _more_ pork to build the bridge and that’s why you need to cancel the project. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/6 "2008-09-04T12:23:28Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > In which case it makes no sense to claim you told Congress “Thanks but no thanks”. > > Even less so when you publically lament that Congress wouldn’t give you even _more_ pork to build the bridge and that’s why you need to cancel the project. No, the people of the state can say that they don’t want that specific earmark. The Bridge to Nowhere was inserted by Stevens or Young (I forget which, although they both possibly cooperated on it) into the transportation authorization bill. Their colleagues in Congress generally defer to them as representing the interests of their state. However, if somone like the Governor says that this earmark isn’t desired, then it undercuts the home state delegation’s efforts to preserve that earmark. So she’s being accurate. You can reject the earmark but that doesn’t mean you get less money. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2008, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/7 "2008-09-04T12:29:39Z")
[McCain himself cited Palin](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,2482434.story) on his “pork list” three separate times for questionable spending. Of course, [this video](http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/31/22302/0236/926/580816) shows that Palin has made it to McCain’s other “pork list.” Watch your back, Cindy - looks like John is considering another trade-in. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/8 "2008-09-05T22:21:19Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > So she’s being accurate. You can reject the earmark but that doesn’t mean you get less money. Then what was the point of even bringing it up if not to mislead people into thinking she had taken a principled stand involving some sort of sacrifice? > [@Sarah Palin at the Convention](#): > > And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress – I told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks,” on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said we’d build it ourselves. Well, it’s always, though, safer in politics to avoid risk, to just kind of go along with the status quo. But I didn’t get into government to do the safe and easy things. A ship in harbor is safe, but that’s not why the ship is built. Contrast that with this statement, where she seems disappointed at not getting more \*federal \*support for the project: > [@Sarah Palin a year ago](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/9 "2008-09-05T22:28:46Z")
From the Anchorage Daily News practically Palin’s hometown as Wasilla is only about 20 miles or so away). Even her homeboys are calling bullshit. > [@](#): > > PALIN: “I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending … and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere.” > > THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. > > In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation, although she has cut, by more than half, the amount the state sought from Washington this year. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a “bridge to nowhere.” > > SOURCE: [http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515517.html](http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515517.html) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/10 "2008-09-05T22:39:38Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > You don’t really seem to understand how the whole transportation funding thing works. The transportation authorization bill originally contained the “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark. That earmarked part of the funds that were going to Alaska based on the transportation funding formula. It wasn’t extra money for the state. So when you remove the earmark the same amount of money goes to Alaska. The only difference is that Alaska transportation officials have the authority to spend that money as they see fit. It makes no sense to say they should have “refused” the mony. It’s money that goes to them, as it does every other state, based on the federal formula. It would have made no sense for them to turn it down. So, earmarks don’t actually cost taxpayers anything, then, since they just redirect money already spent? How is cutting earmarks out of the budget going to help McCain pay for his tax cut then - not that the total is anywhere near the tax cut he is proposing. Not to mention, given the power of the Senators in the state, why would they even bother to put the earmark in? If the state controls their share of the money, why get Congress involved at all? ---
**Author:** ![5-HT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/f19dbf/32.png) [@5-HT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5-HT)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/11 "2008-09-05T22:42:54Z")
So what’s the real deal with this? According to [this article](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17spend.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) in the NY times, Palin had nothing to do with rejecting the bridge, as the earmarks had already been removed before she even got into office. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/12 "2008-09-05T22:50:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So, earmarks don’t actually cost taxpayers anything, then, since they just redirect money already spent? How is cutting earmarks out of the budget going to help McCain pay for his tax cut then - not that the total is anywhere near the tax cut he is proposing. > > Not to mention, given the power of the Senators in the state, why would they even bother to put the earmark in? If the state controls their share of the money, why get Congress involved at all? Sorry for replying to myself, but I missed the edit window. I found the missing puzzle piece. Maybe the bridge is part of the standard funding, but the standard funding is way out of whack. A table [here](http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-05-17-alaska-edit_x.htm) shows that Alaska gets back $6.60 for every dollar paid in federal gas taxes, twice as much as the next highest (DC) and seven times as much as California. I could see it if Alaska was poor and starving for resources, but given that they get a ton from oil, it’s hard to justify. The other part of the story was how Stevens had a fit when there was a proposal to take money from the bridge and use it for Katrina relief. Bottom line, it doesn’t take a lot of courage to say no to a politically unsupportable project when the result is more flexibility in using the money. ---
**Author:** ![A\_shameful\_cracka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@A\_shameful\_cracka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_shameful_cracka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/she-was-only-for-it-before-she-was-against-it-but-shell-spend-the-dough-anyways/461966/13 "2008-09-05T23:07:45Z")
What I found pretty amazing was that, at the convention, they said that Palin became mayor because of the high taxes and government waste and she wanted to fix it herself. She increased the sales tax of Wasilla by 25% (going from 2% to 2.5%) and gave the town about 22 million dollars of debt when they had 0 debt prior to her becoming mayor. Why isn’t the MSM exposing these blatant lies?