Uncomfortable over earmarks ban, Bachmann wants to ‘redefine’ term
Thursday, December 09, 2010 at 11:06 am
Republicans appear to have boxed themselves into a corner with their portrayal of earmarks as wasteful spending, as many of them have backed a moratorium on earmarks that threatens their power of direct spending. Politico reports that Rep. Michelle Bachmann wants to “redefine earmarks”:
Bachmann, for one, has major concerns about cutting off the flow of money to the Stillwater Bridge, which connects Minnesota to Wisconsin over the St. Croix River.
“The earmark issue touches transportation front and center, because how else do we fund these,” Bachmann said, “without ceding all the authority to the executive branch?”
But does Bachmann believe private entities shouldn’t get earmarks?
“I’m not going to comment on that,” she said. “What I’m commenting on is that we need to have a real, practical working definition of what do we mean by” earmarks.
Bachmann has said on Fox News that all pork is bad. “It’s all bad as far as I’m concerned. All this pork is bad. The old pork was bad, the new pork is bad,” she said. “What’s happened is that Republicans have sworn off earmarks. The President said when he came in that he would veto bills that had earmarks … now just the Democrats will be asking for earmark projects, pork projects if you will.”
Republicans are in conflict here. If they don’t earmark, the executive branch will decide where to appropriate funds that would have been the privilege of Congress otherwise. If they do earmark, then they are open to charges of hypocrisy, as many Republicans campaigned against earmarks as symbols of out-of-control spending. (Though abandoning earmarks could never, by a long shot, balance the budget.) There are ways around this, such as letter-marking or phone-marking, wherein members write letters or make calls to agencies to try to direct spending to causes in their district.
Rep. Bachmann is by no means the only Republican in conflict over earmarks — most lawmakers want money for their districts, but the tea party strongly opposes the practice of earmarking. (An earmark moratorium failed in the Senate.)
3 Comments
Comment posted December 9, 2010 @ 11:46 am
Brilliant!!!
So let’s rename it. How about “Hypocrosies”.
“I will bring home Hypocrosies to my district in 2011 because it is good for my constituents to get government handouts.”
Comment posted December 9, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
Yes, let’s redefine “earmark” so it has a meaning that doesn’t make her look like an idiot or hypocrite. Or maybe we could her help her out by redefining “idiot” and “hypocrite” so they have a positive definition.
“Earmark” doesn’t mean pork. It means a portion of money appropriated for some general purpose is marked out for something specific, like take $100 billion for transportation, and mark a million for a specific stretch of highway. That could be wasteful, or it could be a good use of money, as she suddenly seems to be figuring out. It could be for a public good, or for a crony. It can be transparent, or, under the old rules Republicans used when they last had the majority, it can be so opaque that you can do favors for contributors and no one is likely to know.
You can argue the meaning of “pork”, but making “earmark” a synonym for pork was her own doing.
Comment posted December 10, 2010 @ 1:57 am
Bachmann has a history of taking extreme and absolute positions without thinking it through.
This is just another in a series of shoot foot/walk backwards incidents popular with the blindly prejudiced.
This is like when she demonized the census until someone pointed out that a low response could be the end of her district. Her principles are secondary to her quest for power.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.







