Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (152750)	1/22/2009 1:42:14 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Congress didn't remove the money, only the stipulation on how it had to be spent I know. The state could have built it if it wished. Of course. Okay, you just admitted what I've been telling you. You've been claiming Congress prevented the bridge from being built. As if it told Alaska, "you can't build this bridge". Congress can't tell states things like that. And they didn't tell Alaska they couldn't build the bridge and even use the federal money for the bridge. ------------------------ But it wasn't about building a bridge, it was about grabbing federal tax dollars. What is the "it" you're talking about here? ----------------------- Once the earmark was gone, the reason for building the bridge was gone (getting federal money) and the project was dead. No, the project wasn't dead till Palin said it was. And Alaska got the federal money. --------------------------- Palin said so herself: "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." No, you're spinning her remarks to make them mean more than they do. For that matter, she had already taken the bridge out of the budget she sent to the Alaska Senate, six months before this statement was made. ------------------------ See, for Palin, the bridge was about getting federal tax dollars. That's why removing the earmark killed the bridge. I presume you're aware the state got the federal tax dollars anyway. And I assume you can't deny the state could have decided to allocate that money to the bridge and pony up the state share and build the bridge. But Palin chose not to do so. That was a state decision. States don't need express federal approval to build a bridge or road or whatever. If you want to argue she was only went along with the bridge initially in order to not let the federal matching funds go to another state, possibly. In that case you could argue removing the earmark stipulation tying the federal money to the bridge only made it easier for her to kill the bridge deal, but it was still her call.