good catch. would not expect the dems to be honest now would we. On Sep 8, 4:28 pm, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A web site paid for by the Alaska Democratic Party says unequivocally > that “the state of Alaska officially abandoned” the Bridge to Nowhere > project, and credits Governor Sarah Palin. > > Or ... it used to say that, before the page mysteriously vanished > (http://www.retireted.com/real-estate/gravina-bridge/ted-earmarked- > funds-for-bridge-that-goes-nowhere/) sometime during the past few > days. > > Here’s the Google cache from September 4th: Retire Ted Stevens » Blog > Archive » Ted Earmarked Funds for Bridge that Goes Nowhere. > -http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:szpJxaSZwiMJ:www.retireted.com/r... > > And here’s the text that they consigned to the memory hole, because > it’s embarrassingly off message: > > Ted Earmarked Funds for Bridge that Goes Nowhere > > * Stevens championed proposed bridge near Ketchikan that became > national symbol of wasteful spending > > * Sen. Murkowski’s family would benefit personally from the bridge > > * State of Alaska killed bridge > > The proposed Gravina Island Bridge, also known as the “Bridge to > Nowhere,” became a national symbol of wasteful congressional spending > and driver of earmark reform. On Sept. 21, 2007, the State of Alaska > officially abandoned the controversial project. > > The Gravina Island Bridge initially received $223 million in 2005 > via earmarks by Alaska Senators Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski. The > bridge would have connected Ketchikan, Alaska with its local airport > on nearby Gravina Island (population 50). Congress stripped the > earmark after a national uproar about it but appropriated the money > anyway for unspecified transportation uses. Former Gov. Frank > Murkowski’s administration set aside about $113 million of the > appropriation for the Ketchikan bridge. However, Gov. Sarah Palin said > the $398 million bridge was $329 million short of full funding, and > only $36 million in federal funds were set aside for it. She said it > was clear Congress had little interest in spending any more money for > it and that the state had higher priorities. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
