Since the $233 million earmarked for Alaska was to build the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" - - a project that Gov. Sarah Palin says she killed after first supporting it - - why wasn't the money returned to the federal treasury when the plan was killed, or died a natural death when cost overruns pushed its budget to $389 million?
The State of Alaska kept the money and used it for other state projects, according to Alaska highway officials.
Why was that allowed?
Why should taxpayers in the other 49 states provide a quarter-billion dollars in special highway funding for one state?
Sounds like just another form of earmarking to me - - only more of a one-state federal revenue sharing program that is especially questionable now that the federal highway trust fund is running out of money.
In this environment, what state wouldn't like a no-strings-attached $233 million for various highway projects?
Yes, what state wouldn't? But, the better question you asked was why was it allowed?! I found this blog while looking for info on how much money Alaska actually received. I knew they received plenty and did not pay it back, but just read an article on Yahoo by the AP that was misleading. It pointed out that she was for the project until she was against it, but made it sound like this occurred because the Feds took heat for the project and pulled the funding, but I knew they got the money and never paid it back. I look forward to stopping by again. I see your blog is more regional, but I was pleased to find this general post. My blog covers how politics and health care intersect across this great nation of ours. Often too much politics and too little health care reform! I look forward to going through your blog archive too.
ReplyDeleteTo lhwrites:
ReplyDeleteThe way it got handled was sort of like special revenue sharing for Alaska. My guess is that Stevens had something to do with the money being retained, as it was his earmark and he wouldn't allow it to go back to the Treasury or the Highway Trust Fund.