[GogaMegaPiska]

Is she one of the Republicans who railed loudly against the stimulus but then showed up at every groundbreaking and ribbon-cutting to take credit for getting infrastructure funds for her district?

TPM: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ct.php?ref=fpb

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) hates earmarks. Despises them. On her website, she calls the earmark system "little more than a political favor factory at taxpayer expense." But when it comes to her own district, she's in favor of a little earmark "redefinition." Because what is an earmark, after all?

"Advocating for transportation projects for one's district in my mind does not equate to an earmark," Bachmann told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune yesterday.

"I don't believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark," Bachmann continued. "There's a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway."

Bachmann, the leader of the House Tea Party Caucus, has made earmark reform a big part of her crusade against wasteful government spending.

[Z2sc8gEz]

As much as I disagree with Ms. Bachmann on, well, just about everything, she's right on this one. Look, banning all earmarks may sound good in theory, and I'm sure it will be a homerun with many voters, but will in work in reality? Some earmarks are good. They help build needed roads, hospitals, community centers, etc. If all earmarks are banned, who then makes decisions on whether or not some area in North Carolina gets funding for a much needed regional hospital? A committee? The president with line item veto? The speaker of the House?

Do lawmkers need to take a hard look at earmarks? Absolutely. Should they ban them outright? No. Scoring political points may be easy, but it may not be the best solution.

[Wmshyrga]

Banning earmarks is a purely symbolic gesture that has virtually no effect on actual budgeting. The money from which earmarks are funded is generally already approved as parts of the bills in which they reside. The earmark generally just attaches some project specificity to a small prtion of the allocated budget dollars, and allows a lawmaker to show his constituents that he had a hand in making sure local projects weren't forgotten on the national stage.

To make earmark elimination part of a deficit-reduction conversation is about as effective as urging lawmakers to car-pool when in DC.