Well, at least Michelle Bachmann does.
Bachmann told the Star Tribune she supports a “redefinition” of what an earmark is, because, she said: “Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark.”
“I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark,” Bachmann said. “There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway.”
Bachmann, along with Minnesota Republican Rep. John Kline, has taken a pledge not to accept earmarks. Bachmann, who did solicit some earmarks when she first came to Congress, has been outspoken in pushing House Republicans to continue an earmark moratorium enacted last year.
So she’s against earmarks, so long as we change the definition of “earmark”.
This is why people voted you out in 2006, and this is why Barack Obama is President. This is why we got a train wreck of a heath care bill. All because Republicans are just as irresponsible and hypocritical (or more so) than their Democratic counterparts in Congress.
They have no interest in reducing the power of the federal government to take your stuff and give it to other people, they just want to change who gets the stuff, and how much they get.
Leave a Reply