Sarah Palin, earmarks and bridge to nowhere

There are a number of very legitimate criticisms of the republican V.P. nominee, most notably, her lack of experience for the position. But I have noticed a lot of focus and attention being given to her claims of her role on the Bridge to Nowhere and being against earmarks. Much of her claims, and the backlash are not entirely accurate. However, after evaluating the facts, I think her claims are, more or less, legitimate, and the backlash is not.

Bridge to Nowhere - This bridge was a $223 million earmark lobbied by the Alaskan delegation under Palin's predecessor, Murkowski. Palin did support the bridge during her campaign, largely because the money had already been earmarked, and it was good for Alaska on the Federal dollar. Remember she was campaigning for Governer of Alaska, and her allegiance was to the people of Alaska, not to the Federal government, or the other 49 states.

Subsequent to her taking office, two things happened. First, the cost of building the bridge skyrocketed from $223 million to nearly $400 million dollars. Second, the congressional earmark was scuttled and Alaska was no longer bound to build the bridge with that money. Now Governer Palin made the choice to reverse course on the bridge and spend the $223 million on transportation and other Alaskan necessities.

Did she say "no" to the Bridge to Nowhere? Technically yes. Despite supporting it during her campaign, when the costs rose and the money became freed up, she said no.

Did she tell congress that if Alaskans wanted a bridge they'd pay for it themselves? Again, techincally yes. Alaska could have taken that money, added the additional cost, and built the bridge. Governer Palin thought it a terrible idea, all things considered, and put a halt to it. And she was right.

So why not return the $223 million to Congress? Palin gets some flack from not returning the money, as if she somehow kept federal money unethically. This is a very stupid notion. State governers do not voluntarily return federal money to the government. Ever. The reason is, state governers serve their states, not the country. Their job is to get as much federal money into the state as possible to provide the most benefits for their constituents. Alaska has no restrictions for residency - anyone is free to move there and take advantage of all the same benefits other Alaskans have. Had Palin "returned" the $223 million instead of spending it on Alaskan needs, she would have committed severe governer malpractice. I would definitely not want someone like that in an executive position for this country.

Earmarks - so Palin claims she's against earmarks but then hires lobbyists to get them for Alaska. This is a bit of a trickier area. Once again, Palin needs to secure federal funding and earmarks as part of her job. She may be against earmarking in principle, but she's not going to hobble her state by not applying for them. On the other hand, she scuttled a lot of wasteful earmarking from her predecessor, applying for 2/3 less funds ($500 million less) then her predecessor did. So she hates earmarks but takes them anyway for the good of her state. Once again, okay by me.

Sarah P. has a number of extreme positions that give me pause. But her stance on the bridge to nowhere and earmarking, along with her history of reforming and eliminating corruption in politics, well they don't pause me at all.