Dec 14, 2010
Hypocrite of the Week: Michele Bachmann, Earmark Flip-Flopper
The DCCC today named Congresswoman Michele Bachmann the Hypocrite of the Week for a strident anti-earmark crusader who came out in support of loopholes to the Republican earmark ban. Bachmann, the founding member of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus, protested her own party’s push for an earmark ban after realizing she wouldn’t be able to bring home government funding for her own pet projects.
“Voters are quickly learning what GOP really stands for: ‘Get Our Pork’. It didn’t take long for Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to try to break her promise to not ask for earmarks and try to spend taxpayer money on her pet projects,” said Jesse Ferguson from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Rather than live by the rules she fought for, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is hypocritically leading the charge to allow earmarks by changing what they are called. It turns out the only voice louder than Michele Bachmann calling for the end to earmarks is Michele Bachmann calling to restore earmarks. That is what makes Michele Bachmann the hypocrite of the week.”
- FLIP. Michele Bachmann’s Principled Stand Against Earmarks: “We also must instill accountability throughout the appropriations process and shed more light on taxpayer spending for congressional “earmark” projects. I have taken a bipartisan pledge to not seek any earmarks this year and am working with like-minded Republicans and Democrats to reform this system which has become little more than a political favor factory at taxpayer expense.” [Bachmann website, accessed 12/11/10]
- FLOP. Michele Bachmann’s Realization She Can’t Bring Pork Home: “We have to address the issue of how we are going to fund transportation projects across the country.” According to Politico, “So some Republicans are discussing exemptions to the earmark ban, allowing transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and water projects. While transportation earmarks are probably the most notorious — think ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ — there is talk about tweaking the very definition of ‘earmark.’” [POLITICO, 12/9/10]