Rep. Michele Bachmann supports a ban on earmarks in Congress, but she thinks that some transportation projects should redefined so they aren’t considered earmarks.
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.”
Clearly, Ms. Bachmann was schooled by the Jesuits somewhere along the line.
If this is what we can expect from alleged "conservatives," then the grand experiment which began in 1776 is just about dead.
HT: Agitator
2 comments:
Yeah...had a problem with this one as well. We are gonna have to school these folks on what we really meant when we voted.
I don't think the problem is earmarks, per se. It's how it's done.
You need roads in your community, a seismic retrofitting on a bridge, or a new sewage plant? These things benefit your entire community and provide jobs as well.
But they should be vetted and included in committee hearings and markups, not simply tacked on to the bill as it goes to the floor. That will help to eliminate the bridges to nowhere, etc.
The deficit peacocks like Bachmann are hypocrites, not for wanting to bring improvements and jobs to their communities, but for making a campaign/deficit issue out of it when they know it's not the money but the process.
Post a Comment