Michele Bachmann Beset by Bloggers From the Left and Right

Representative Michele Bachmann, has, once again, made statements that have drawn the critical attention of the Minneapolis StarTribune. Jeremy Herb provides comment in his article, Bachmann: Transportation projects shouldn’t be earmarks.

[Aren't newspaper journalists supposed to be watchdogs on government for the electorate? Yes, but why is it that the StarTribune seems to fuss mostly about Republicans and conservatives, while giving the liberals frequent passes?]

Even more interesting, to me at least, is the shot fired from the other side by Dustin Krutsinger at Caffeinated Thoughts in his article, Bachmann Seeks to Redefine Earmarks, Introducing the Constituent Requested Appropriations Program (CRAP).

The subject this time is “earmarks”, which are the designations of Congressional appropriations toward specific programs or recipients. Earmarks have become a symbol of wasteful government spending. They have taken on much the same stigma as the term “pork barrel” spending. But, are they synonymous?

“Pork barrel” spending has long been a derogatory term for government expenditures that accrue to a particular Congressional District. Typically applied to an appropriation by a representative of a rival District or Party, this term is often used to draw negative attention to the project, the recipient or the representative of the District that benefits from the funding. However, it may be argued that what one calls “pork” may be lauded by others as a long overdue, high priority project.

[Are you defending "pork barrel" spending? No, I'm just trying to point out the subjective nature of the term.]

Back to Rep. Bachmann, the statements quoted by the StarTribune, and what I read as insinuations by both Herb and Krutsinger that Bachmann is attempting to create some “wiggle room” for the self-imposed restrictions that the Republicans have placed on the use of earmarks. My guess is that Herb is trying to point out that Republicans cannot be trusted to keep their word, while Krutsinger is coming from the point of view that it’s business as usual from the established political parties — promise constituents one thing, then once back in D.C., return to old habits. Granted, these are assumptions on my part, but how far off the mark could I be?

Both bloggers appear to hold assumptions of their own. In this case, it appears that both are assuming that there is a hard and fast definition of the term “earmark.” Is it an earmark when funding is appropriated for the installation of new air traffic control equipment at an international airport in a U.S. city?

Is the approval of funding for needed repair of an Interstate highway bridge over a river that forms the border between two states an earmark that would blot the records of members of Congress whose states and districts lie on either side of that bridge? I suggest to you that these are not earmarks. These are projects that should, logically, be considered outside of a definition of “earmarks.” If these projects were shunned for fear of “earmarks”, our entire transportation system would deteriorate in a hurry.

The StarTribune quotes Bachmann, as follows, “I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark.”  She adds, “There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway.”  For statements like these, both the left and the Libertarian blogger converge in their criticism of Bachmann, while the unrepentant purveyors of pork, still holding seats in the Congress, sit there looking on and grinning.

Grasping at straws, Krutsinger digs into the past to dredge up two puny examples of legislation attributable to Bachmann and amounting to a combined total of 1.3 million (that’s with an “m”, as opposed to a “b” or a “t”), but he could come up with nothing for 2009 and nothing for 2010. Bachmann knows when the vault is empty, unlike . . . shall I beat a dead horse and mention Rep. Oberstar or bring up Reps. Ellison, Peterson, McCullum, Walz, and . . . don’t get me started on the Senators!

The active and visible commitment of Republicans, both seated and newly elected to Congress, to the “Pledge to America” remains to be seen. All eyes, from the left and the right, will be watching closely as the 111th Congress winds down and the 112th Congress is poised for . . . TBD.

---

Related posts:

• Michele Bachmann: Health Care Reform and the IRS
• Here Comes the Value-Added Tax by Michele Bachmann
• Cravaack’s first vote: Extend Earmark Moratorium
• Bachmann Accepts the Minnesota Farm Bureau’s “Friend of the Year” Award
• Bachmann Bulletin – Bachmann Announces America Speaking Out