And Speaking of Change
UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, on Sarah Palin's claim to "killing the Bridge to Nowhere":
...among budgetary options, Palin could have drawn on Federal and State moneys to fund the project fully and move ahead with construction. Alternatively, Palin could have deferred the project to future years, possibly changing the funding allocation. In the end, she chose the radical option of removing the project from the capital budget, precluding any future funding allocations or construction. Her claim to have “stopped the bridge” is entirely truthful.
To justify her decision, she argued that the bridge project had become too expensive, and that the state should investigate more cost-effective alternatives. In political terms, her decision was viewed as a blow to the state’s Republican establishment, which had strongly championed the project. Without question, the episode buttresses Palin’s reputation as an executive who “stands up to her own party.” (h/t Jeff G.)
As always, read the whole thing.
3 Comments:
Having stood up to her state party is one positive characteristic Gov. Palin is credited with that I won't dispute, and this clarification buttresses that impression. Thanks for sharing it.
But as the article later notes, her rhetoric on this bridge is undoubtedly misleading -- she gives the impression that the money was returned to the feds rather than going to fund other projects in Alaska. And she's still open to the "for it before she was against it (when it became a hot potato)" line of attack.
Not the first who found faith when facing the electric chair.....
My grandmother used to call them "foxhole faithful."
Post a Comment
<< Home