Earmarks bad!
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.
It's easy to pledge you won't accept earmarks when you want to change the definition of 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.”
“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.”
Right. So the earmarks funding she wants for her district should not be considered earmarks because they're important, unlike the funding earmarks other representatives want for their districts.
And besides, it's not as if she's sought earmarks for her district anyway, right?
According to Legistorm in 2008 Minnesota's Congressional delegation delivered 158 earmarks costing $330 million. The average earmark from Minnesota members was not $70 million as Bachman claimed but $2.1 million which is less than the $3.7 million Bachman earmarked.
Oh, but that was probably just $3.7 million in "funding," not earmarks, so it doesn't count.