Bridging the Gaps

This is a column in the Ketchikan Daily News called In Our Opinion--basically an editorial. I liked it, so I'm posting it for all of you who read our blog but do not get the Ketchikan Daily News.

Bridging the gaps
Gov. Sarah Palin, while in the national limelight, has the opportunity to deliver Alaska's message.

Alaska has a story to tell. We're Alaskans, enriched by our diversity of race and political beliefs, wealthy in land, natural resources, ingenuity and the determination to make not only this state, but the nation and the world, a better place for, yes, Alaskans, but also for fellow Americans and mankind, as a whole.

We develop our oil and gas, mine our minerals, manage our fisheries and wildlife as to be able to year in and year out reap record harvests, feeding our families here and elsewhere, and we are a young state with vim and vigor to build our infrastructure - roads and transportation, in particular. Bridges, specifically. Bridges to the future.

Palin can do her state a great service, a service no other Alaska governor has had the good fortune to be presented with in terms of a stage viewed by the world, by telling Alaska's story, explaining Alaska - a state about which relatively little seems to be known by other Americans in the Lower 48. And she can correct inaccurate perceptions.

Palin is blessed with a gift of speechmaking. She speaks clearly, passionately, with appropriate inflection and in a friendly manner. At least, on the latter point, that's the perception, unless you're standing opposite her, as are the Democrats and their standard bearer, presidential nominee Barack Obama and his vice presidential running mate, Joe Biden.

This week when she spoke after accepting the Republican nomination for vice president, she executed her speech well. But it wasn't a smooth ride for Alaskans. Palin hit a bump in the road.

Or, shall we say, bridge.

She said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves."

The governor of Alaska, of all people, didn't need to perpetuate the "Bridge to Nowhere" moniker that has become synonymous with Ketchikan and Alaska, failing to recognize that the community of Ketchikan, and Alaska by relation, doesn't appreciate being called "Nowhere."

We had thought it was time to let the moniker go even though it's unlikely. It's an exhausted topic from sea to shining sea, and often hammered on by Republican presidential candidate John McCain. McCain has repeated it consistently through the months leading up to the election of a new president.

We figured, perhaps naively, that after McCain selected Palin as his running mate, she would educate him about the bridge project. The Ketchikan bridge is just one of thousands of possible projects selected as the poster child for casting disdain on pork-barrel spending or earmarks.

We hope we're not being equally naive in hoping she will educate him about the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development.

The truth of the matter is that earmarks aren't necessarily excess government spending. They are a means by which duly elected Congress members can respond to their constituents who want to build their communities. Earmarks help to level the playing field for small communities. If state legislatures decide where all the money goes, the lawmakers - most of whom are from the high population centers - will be inclined to take the money home.

For example, with transportation projects. All states receive federal tax dollars for transportation projects. It's a set amount. Whether a Congressional delegation tags (earmarks) part of that money for a specific project, such as a bridge, all of the tax money is received by the state. If it isn't tagged for a specific project, then the state decides where it will be spent. Once Congress removed the tag that allowed part of Alaska's federal transportation dollars to be spent on a bridge, the money could be spent anywhere else in the state. That's exactly what happened.

Palin knows that; as Wasilla mayor, she sought earmarks. Nothing wrong with that. But earmarks for Ketchikan are just as legitimate as they are for Wasilla, and other parts of the state and the nation. Even Arizona, Illinois and Delaware.

Palin supported the Ketchikan bridge during her gubernatorial campaign swings through town, but she also acknowledged it was expensive and newer, economical designs might be, not only possible, but more reasonable. After spinmeisters whipped the nation into a frenzy against the bridge, she axed the costly bridge design and promised to come up with an alternative for Ketchikan. Without an alternative, she said: "I'm not going to stand in the way of progress toward this project being funded."

Palin talked with Ketchikan about Alaska's national perception.

"People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they've been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose," Palin said in her first campaign visit to Ketchikan. She described the bridge as the Ketchikan area's potential for expansion and growth.

She also suggested during the gubernatorial campaign that "politics as usual" shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of the state's progress and that Alaska's interests should be defended on the national level.

"The infrastructure that's needed here in order for (Alaska) to get on the right road to self-sufficiency, we do need that cooperation with the federal government and we do need cooperation from the other 49 states to help us progress," she said.

Palin now has the stage to enlighten the under-informed. Instead of just quoting the spinmeisters with the wearisome catch phrase, she can tell America that a bridge - whether it's the two-span or another design (we like a one-span option) would be located in a community of 13,000 that has waited 30 years for a link to its airport, and additionally would serve all of the surrounding communities and the hundreds of thousands of visitors who travel through here annually.

Palin, in her speeches, often calls for a higher level of honesty in state government. And, now, in the federal government. That honesty begins with elected politicians telling the complete truth, whether it's what they want it to be or not; whether it elevates them to what they aspire, or not.

Palin also tells Alaskans to hold her accountable. That's what Alaskans - Republicans, Democrats and others - will do. We want the truth about Alaska coming out of her mouth, correcting misperceptions, as she speaks on the national stage. Because the end doesn't justify the means. It is imperative to take the high road at all times, to be deserving and to receive the trust needed to do the job when presented with it - in this case, the White House.

Otherwise, regardless of which politician is speaking, it's all white noise.