Another Bachmann “Memory Lapse” on Pork?
One of our favorite congress critters in the beltway follies has long been Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann. Whether she’s calling for McCarthy style hearings into the patriotism of her fellow members of Congress, complaining that America is running out of rich people, or failing to comprehend how congressional district lines are established, she never fails to amuse, or at least make us wonder how she hangs on to her office. This week proved no different, as the curious congressperson seems to have come up with a new definition of pork barrel spending. (i.e. earmarks)
Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann told the Fox Business channel on Thursday that she hasn’t taken any earmarks for her district. But government watchdog groups say she has requested them—seven, to be precise, totaling $3,767,600, since she was elected to the U.S. House.
Here’s the quote in question.
BACHMANN: I think it is possible. I took a pledge in my own district. I have not taken earmarks in the last three years that I have been in Congress because the system is so corrupt. It’s possible to make that pledge.
That’s a sentiment which plenty of us can get behind. It’s not just the direct cost in taxpayer dollars for these earmarks, which actually account for only a tiny percentage of the budget. There are questions of the message this sends to voters regarding fiscal responsibility and the danger that “pay for play” rears its head when money starts getting spread around your own district. I would be applauding Ms. Bachmann’s principled stand here were it not for one inconvenient fact.
According to the earmark database at Legistorm, in 2008, Bachmann requested $94,000 for the Sheriffs Youth Programs and $335,000 for the Northland Medical Center to purchase equipment. Also in 2008, along with Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Bachmann requested $803,600 for replacement buses for St. Cloud Metro Bus, $490,000 for Highway 241 improvements and $1,265,000 Stillwater for general construction funds. She, along with Democratic Reps. Tim Walz and Keith Ellison, requested $302,000 for facilities and equipment at the Children’s Hospital and Clinics of Minnesota. And, along with Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum, Bachmann requested $478,000 for health-information systems for HealthEast Care System.
So what’s worse? A legislator who bellies up to the pork trough and just claims that it’s how business is done? Or a person who digs in for the pork payola and then goes out and lies about it, extolling her own anti-pork virtues? This is the 21st century. It’s not as if anyone with access to Google can’t find your earmark history in a few minutes. Is Bachmann a pathological liar or is she really just that confused?
Sidenote from ThinkProgress: While Bachmann took the no pork pledge, sponsored by the Club for Growth, in 2008 (and broke it) her name is absent from the 2009 list.
21 Responses to “Another Bachmann “Memory Lapse” on Pork?”
Is this how it works?
1- Republican inserts an earmark in a bill that has enough support to pass.
2- Republican votes against the bill with the earmark he inserted, but the bill passes anyway.
3- Because he voted against the bill, the Republican proclaims himself a fiscal conservative in the national media.
4- Because he inserted the earmark in the bill that passed, the Republican goes back to his district and takes credit for bringing home the bacon.
***And let's not forget***
5- Our dumb media lets him get away with it.
Or her.
I wonder if Bachman can sing? Her Cher to Franken's Sonny would be great.
This is so typical I hardly blame Bachmann here. 99% of conservative Republicans do this. My Congressman, Jimmy Duncan, has one of those debt clocks on his website and he rails against excessive pork, government spending and earmarks. Yada yada yada. Then we hear him lauding a new Federally-funded pedestrian bridge across the Tennessee River. Hmmm, I wonder how we got that bridge? Oh yeah, Duncan brought home the bacon.
Why do they bother complaining about it? To please the “watchdog groups”? To please John McCain and Tom Coburn and Russ Feingold (the 1% of Congress that opposes earmarks for their own states)?
Yes, good thing only Republicans are hypocrites on the budget, or even in general. I mean, it isn't like the Democrats promised anything they failed to deliver on recently, right? Or say one thing and do another (like on, oh, ethics, openness and review on bills, well vetted appointments, etc.)
Congress changed hands, the Presidency changed hands, but still the only people worth commenting on on TMV seem to be Republicans. I guess that is because Democrats are so trustworthy they don't need oversight.
Or maybe this REALLY is a Leftist site pretending to be Moderate, as the majority of those of us with Right-leaning views have been saying for some time now.
I'm usually the first to get on board with ripping GOP spenders for their hypocritical stances on fiscal responsibility, but not in this case. 7 earmarks totalling a mere $3.7 million over the course of several years? If all of them were like her we'd have no pork spending issues. And frankly I don't think that anything she did request sounds like it was a complete waste either. And can someone please define for me what pork is? Is it any request for aid for your district or just ones that are simply to pay back your supporters? I believe some federal dollars can be requested for specific needed projects without being a waste of money. Nothing in her requests is really raising any red flags with me. Now if there was a $20 million contract for a local commercial interest I think we'd have some issues.
Austin
The problem with the Republican hypocrisy is that they are simply so very bad at it.
And by yhe way, this site is not a leftist site just because your argument of “well the democrats do it too,” is refuted so easily. Fox et al are trying to hammer the idea that Obama has gone back on his promise to veto all earmarks. The problem, of course, is that he never made that promise.
If you want to debate the value of earmarks, that's one thing.
If you wish to bemoan the fact that Democrats employ earmarks, vote against the bill, that's another. Republicans made that hypocritical argument, not Dems.
AR- Can't you at least admit that what the GOP is doing is hypocritical??? If there was no pork in the budget how would they get themselves reelected?? They have given us no solutions.
Altho- I also blame their supporters who expect local programs to be funded, yet call for fiscal discipline!
Actually HemmD, my point was much broader than that.
If this indeed a Moderate site, committed to better government and governing in general, and non-partisan, why I have I seen little to nothing here on:
Senator Dodd and his myriad shading mortgage dealings
Representative Murtha and his myriad shading dealings of ALL types
The incredibly large number of Obama's nominees that seem to have trouble paying their taxes
The other nominees that seem to get their offices raided for (allegedly) illegal dealing
The large number of lobbyists that Obama has invited to join his government, in direct contradiction of his promise
Maxine Water's duplicitous work on behalf of a bank she has a financial interest in
Discussion on the increasing number of Tea Party protests sweeping the country
No, it is much more important to have numerous and a seemingly unending number of posts on:
Rush Limbaugh
Micheal Steele
Newt Gingrich
Minor Republican Congresspeople over minor amounts of money
George Bush's potential coattail effects on an upcoming 2010 Senate race
Chuck Norris
Paranoid ramblings about hit squads run by Cheney
Even Palin's daughter's break-up with her fiance!
Again, it just seems like on balance the coverage on issues worthy of commentary seems to be, well, tilted a wee bit to the left. I still enjoy coming here (obviously), and the give and take in the comments (most of the time), but I do get tired of the onesidedness.
kritt – yes, of course this is hypocritical. I have no problem admitting that.
I am very cynical about ALL politicians. They are all hypocrites, varying only in what they are hypocritical about.
And there was a very spot-on cartoon the other day about pork here at TMV making your second point .
I'm having aj hard time getting exercised about earmarks. Now that they are public and identified, I'm not so sure they're a bad thing. Doesn't the constitution give congress the power to determine spending, and why shouldn't legislators specify how they want those dollars spent? And, of course, each legislator would be aware of the needs of his/her district, not the needs of some other district. Of course, it is possible to argue about the value of specific projects, but we saw strong pushback from proponents for each supposedly worthless earmark that made McCain's top 10.
We travel a lot, and are constantly astounded by the legacy of the CCC and WPA from FDR's administration. Minus those contributions, which are 70+ years old, many of the most worthwhile tourist experiences wouldn't be possible. I'd hate to live in a country where Disney and South Beach and their private enterprise ilk represented our only face to the rest of the world. I suspect today's earmarks often provide similar benefits.
I've also wondered whether there would ever be an entire state delegation in Congress that would oppose earmarks. It's easy to refrain from inserting earmarks in the budget when your state is getting its share because another member of your delegation is taking care of it. And somehow, the top 10 baddies never include those for your own district.
I would like to see at least one more earmark reform. Earmarks which will benefit only a single business entity seem dead wrong to me.
The only problem with earmarks is when they are under the table deals that benefit moneyed landowners or other powerful interests at the expense of the public interest, or when they are not beneficial to enough of a district's populace to make them worthwhile. There have been too many “Bridges to Nowhere”- projects that give earmarks a bad rep.
AR
Are you looking for those listed issues in sories published here or in people's comments?
The published items come from the editorial staff, so maybe that a great question for them. The coments may merely reflect the political demographics of thse who show up here.
My tangential point was as follows:
One of my first posts here brought a comment that I was merely siting Democratic talking points. I replied that if I was only interested in talking points, I would go to daily kos or townhall .com. Maybe the political game of tag that takes place here is part of this blog's environment. It just seems to me that a lot of back and forth has to take place before any real exchange of ideas takes place. I'd like to think my earlier post above was analysis of why the charges are made not another pie to add to the fight.
You provided an extensive list of Democratic hypocrisies. Maybe you have detailed these in posts prior to my arrival, but if not, let me know the details in the contextual details. I have seen liberal analysis that seems to answer some of these charges, maybe you have facts of which I'm not aware. That exchange would be highly valuable to me and hopefully you too.
The reason for all my responses here is simply to entice an intelligent exchange. It seems like by the time everyone's done throwing bombs, the thread is used up. Then again, I could just be densely and completely wrong.
AR With the new administration this site seems to be more to the right side of center. Your nemesis Shaun isn't here anymore. The new bloggers seem to be right of center. Ain't no Kos, MYDD or TruthDigg…
Rudi – TMV Right-leaning?? Um, sure, I guess so, for those who think the New York Times is, too! But there is an increase in right-leaning posters, but a lot of those new posters focus is not domestic politics, and that is where the fun is.
And Shaun is still here – just as a guest now. He has had three posts in the past week. They can't take ALL my fun away!
HemmD -
I was indeed talking about published stories, as they normally then drive the comments. I also think that despite the occasional bomb-throwing (which I, of course, would NEVER do
), the comments and discourse here are of high quality. That IS what keeps me coming back.
As to the 'charges', there are just a small list of the things that no one that makes top-level posts seems to think worth discussing, while as I said numerous stories about anything and everything critical of Republicans, despite how mundane, seem to crop up regularly. To go into detail on each of those on the top list would require a first-page story for each, and is way beyond what I could or should cover in a comment of an unrelated post.
If one of the editorial staff would like to tackle them, especially the corruption of Murtha and Dodd, and the flat-out refusal of the House and Senate to address those issues, or the growing grass-root Tea Party protests, I would love to get involved in a deeper discussion of those in the comments of those posts.
The others are truly less significant, but still carry more weight that Palin's daughter's breakup with her fiance, at least IMHO.
Working the refs!!
I guess we'll see if it works.
Austin
Hope you're heard. The argument that your examples are old news should not keep such an article from being written and discussed.
As far as bombs go, what would a reactionary, constitution-hating fanatic such as your self know about that? : ) )
“Hope you're heard. The argument that your examples are old news should not keep such an article from being written and discussed.”
Sorry, you lost me there. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. If it is that charges against Murtha and Dodd are old news and therefore not worthy of discussion, then I don't want to see one more comment about anything from the Bush era. It, too, is now 'old news'.
If you are saying something else, I guess my Anti-American, Leftist-hating, fascist world view filters are preventing me from grasping your meaning.
I was attempting to short-circuit any response from the editorial staff that these were “old news” stories not worthy of discussion.
See, I was on your side all along.
I've always ascribed to the idea we are ruled by three political parties: Democrats, Republicans, and Lobbyist. Lobbyist are a subset of the other two parties, and they are responsible for the vast majority of the sweet-heart deals we see coming from Washington.
I think even two opposing bomb throwers may well agree on that.
Hemm – I have never heard that theory before – I like it! Fits with my hyper-cynical world-view perfectly.
I might say it slightly differently, that in mathematical terms, Lobbyists are a compliment super-set intersecting both the Democratic and Republican sets.
I always pictured it as a Venn diagram. I don't think it takes cynicism to ascribe to the theory.
Both Bush s and Clinton were in favor of NAFTA. Regardless of how you view that policy, it doesn't take rocket science to see that Big Business benefits and American workers suffered. The key was there was no big public discussion like the usual partisan debates, the policies seem to magically appear without major national discussion.
Anyway, I believe there are a number of such issues and policies that are interestingly bi-partisan without public comment.