Palin’s bridge lie (and the unabridged truth)

Sarah Palin said at the RNC on September 4, 2008:

I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that Bridge to Nowhere.

This is a simple lie, that requires a bit of a complicated explanation. For a summary, click here to skip to the end.

The “Bridge to Nowhere” Palin referred to is either one of two bridges set to receive a series of earmarks designating $327 million. Both bridges connect sparsely populated islands with mainland Alaska. The earmarks were a part of a public law 109-59 signed into effect August 10, 2005 (see the earmarks here: search for “Knik” or “Gravina”). Subsequent legislation stripped the earmarks, though the funds remained allocated to Alaskan hands for use on relevant transportation projects. From the public law 109-3058 (section 186):

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any amounts made available pursuant to Public Law 109-59 for the Gravina Island bridge and the Knik Arm bridge shall be made available to the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for any purpose eligible under section 133(b) of title 23, United States CodeProvided, That in allocating funds for the equity bonus program under section 105 of such title, the Secretary shall make the calculations required under that section as if this section had not been enacted:

Provided further, That the descriptions for High Priority Projects #406, the Gravina Island bridge, and #2465, the Knik Arm bridge, in section 1702 of Public Law 109-59 are hereby deleted and in their place is inserted ‘the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities’.

On November 30, 2005 President Bush signed the 109-3058 into law. At that point, the earmarks were gone and the funds designated for the bridge were generally released to Alaska for general transportation use.

On October 22, 2006, during her campaign for governor, Palin was asked:

Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

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.

When Sarah Palin took office December 4, 2006 the once-earmarked “Bridge to Nowhere” funds were still designated to the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Alaska could use the $327 million without restriction.

On September 21. 2007, Palin cancelled the Ketchikan bridge project, which is the bridge project most frequently referred to as the bridge to nowhere. From the office of the governor of Alaska [pdf]:

Governor Sarah Palin today directed the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to look for the most fiscally responsible alternative for access to the Ketchikan airport and Gravina Island instead of proceeding any further with the proposed $398 million bridge.

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…

At that point the one of the two bridges called a “Bridge to Nowhere” was killed. The funds still remained allocated to Alaska, per US law, but with her executive order the state plan to build the bridge was ended. There is no record of Palin returning the $327 million that had been once designated through earmark in whole or part to the federal government.

The other bridge spanned the Knik Arm is still in the works. You can read their August 2008 newsletter for updates on the project. They are still in the planning phase for the actual bridge and the:

Mat-Su Borough begins $13 million worth of construction on the Point MacKenzie Road section of the project.

So one of the two “Bridges to Nowhere” is dead, and the other (less commonly referred to as a “bridge to nowhere”, but still historically bearing that title as evidenced here) is proceeding.

So to summarize:

On 8/10/2005 earmarks were included in a signed law dedicating $327 million to build two bridges in Alaska. On 11/30/2005 another law was signed, stripping those earmarks but preserving the funds for Alaska. On 9/21/2007, nearly 2 years after the earmarks had been removed, Palin closed the project down.

Palin could not have told Congress “Thanks, but no thanks” because Congress had already removed the earmarks before she was elected as governor. Given the money was already allocated to the state when she came to office, there’s no reason to think she would ever communicate with Congress on this matter in a formal capacity. In fact, the only government entity she told to cancel the project was Alaska’s own Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. And the state kept every penny of the $327 million.

It’s a complicated story, but Sarah Palin told an uncomplicated lie.

Update: This was unintentionally posted twice. That’s been corrected. Thanks for the catch.

Tags:

7 Responses to “Palin’s bridge lie (and the unabridged truth)”

  1. David Bean Says:

    so now you guys are doubling up your entires to count as two lies. you already counted this bridge to nowhere lie as a lie on what i think was your very first post.

    so now, you count this one lie as 2 strikes up top???

  2. David Bean Says:

    yeah, in looking back just now you’re counting the bridge episode as two lies.

    perhaps we should start a column for your lies ;)

  3. Renaud Says:

    If they keep saying it over and over it should count as many times as they lie.

  4. J.R. Says:

    That’s true Bean, the McCain campaign seems to count it as about 12 truths, since that’s how many times I have heard it mentioned.

  5. eric Says:

    It really bothers me that Palin can continue to repeat the “thanks, but no thanks” line when she knows fully well that it’s a bold-faced lie. It’s one thing for a campaign to put out a dubious ad that a candidate most likely had little or nothing to do with, but it’s a complete other for a candidate to come right out and lie to everyone’s face, especially when evidence to the contrary is open and readily available.

  6. Greg Luce Says:

    I still don’t think you disproved the statement “I told congress thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere”.

    You have laid out some facts showing that it may not have been in her jurisdiction to have any formal responsibility to do such. But perhaps she did it when campaigning for governor? Kinda like Obama negotiating with Iraqi leaders while campaigning?

    Keep up the good work though.

  7. eric Says:

    The earmark for the Gravina Island bridge was killed in the senate in 2005 before Palin even began her campaign for governor. The federal money for the bridge was still sent to Alaska with no strings attached, and Palin campaigned in 2006 on a “build-the-bridge” platform, in favor of both the Knik and Gravina bridge. As governor, Palin began the Gravina bridge construction, and finally killed the project in August of 2007 because of rising cost estimates, stating: “it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island”.

    Nothing close to “thanks, but not thanks”.

Leave a Reply

Help evaluate and research "lie leads"

All lie leads >