Bachmann Falsely Claims Her Earmarks Were ‘Very Small’ Compared To ‘Average’ Earmark Cost For Minnesota
Bachmann Falsely Claims Her Earmarks Were ‘Very Small’ Compared To ‘Average’ Earmark Cost For Minnesota
Last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) joined the chorus of members of Congress criticizing the practice of earmarks while requesting their own. Except Bachmann went a bit further, claiming that she has “not taken earmarks in the last three years that I have been in Congress because the system is so corrupt.” In fact, in 2008, Bachmann requested 7 earmarks costing nearly $4 million in taxpayer money.
Bachmann appeared on Fox News this weekend and again railed against earmarks. This time, Bachmann admitted that she had previously taken her own but emphasized that she has taken a “no earmarks pledge.” But when host Brian Wilson challenged the sincerity of her pledge, noting how much Bachmann has requested in earmarks, she tried to downplay the cost, claiming it’s a “very small” amount compared to other Minnesota earmarks:
WILSON: Well, I see a government watchdog group says since you became a member of the House you’ve taken in, oh, $3.7 million in earmarks.
BACHMANN: Well, the average earmark I think for the state of Minnesota for the members of Congress is somewhere around 70,000– $70 million, so mine is very, very small on that level and that’s in the first two years that was in. After I saw the way that the process worked, after being a freshman, I saw how corrupt it was and took an earmark pledge and that’s why I personally have no earmarks in the current budget bill and the stimulus bill that was passed this year.
Watch it:
Yet, the total cost of earmarks Bachmann shifted to Minnesota in 2008 is well above the cost of the “average earmark” designated to her state.
According to Legistorm, in 2008, Minnesota’s congressional delegation designated 158 earmarks worth over $330 million, an average of $2.1 million per earmark. Thus, the “the average earmark” for Minnesota’s members of Congress was not $70 million as Bachmann claimed, but rather $2.1 million — less than the $3.7 Bachmann earmarked.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I hope the people of Minnesota will wake up and vote this woman out of office. How she survived the last election is still a mystery to me. I thought after her disasterous appearence on Hardball would seal her fate. Oh well.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:06 amBachmann is batshit crazy. Everything she says should be evaluated with that in mind. Facts play not role in a batshit crazy brain.
PEACE
March 16th, 2009 at 11:06 amaccording to rachel maddow, the other night, bachmann did NOT sign the “no earmarks pledge” for ‘09.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:06 amIf it has (R) connected to it’s name, it is a liar.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:07 amWhy should anyone believe a word this woman says? She nearly lost her re-election bid and will the next time if she continues to make herself so visible and spew lies.
Maybe it’s time that the Bachman “investigation of Congress occurs” – beginning with none other than MICHELE BACHMANN!
March 16th, 2009 at 11:07 amEven after you’ve heard the fart ripping from her arse and the smell begins to wrap around your nostrils, she’s busy pointing out other peoples “shortcomings”.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:07 amMichele Bachmann: WhackJob
March 16th, 2009 at 11:08 amHey, Michelle…heckuva job, babe!
You be da MAN!
ha ha
March 16th, 2009 at 11:08 amMaybe Bachmann DID NOT survive her recent re-election as we may come to discover…..maybe the voting machines were “hacked”? I’d think they had to be with the internet tsunami against this wingnut.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:09 amHow did they elect that strange lady? First of all, not all earmarks are bad. Ms. Bachman should have used one of her “reasonable” earmarks for bridge repair, now that would have been a good deal. I am sure the people in Minneapolis would have appreciated it. The earmarks are a small part of the budget. Bachmann just wants to complain about it, because that’s what Republicans do. She also loves the attention!
March 16th, 2009 at 11:09 amThe dingbat is at it again! Bachmann obviously thinks no one will check what she says. What a bold face liar she is – it’s shocking.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:10 amEarmarks are the political equivalent of the abortion issue. Nothing substantive is going to change…but it sure will fire up a lot of people (generally FOX News viewers).
Every media show is about earmarks, which covers a whopping 3% of the entire budget…but not a single media show covers the real travesty–the military budget. Oh, no, that’s sacrosanct. Don’t you know there’s a war on?
Plss on all of them. What a dodge. Dew neh loh moh.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:11 amShe reminds me of Dana Perino. The ‘caught in the headlights’ vacant stare. It gives me the heebee-jeebees.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:12 amI hear that Bachman is from a district which is almost exclusively comprised of wealthy white wingnuts. As such, she is the perfect representitive of her constituency.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:13 amBut she didn’t inhale it.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:14 amBachmann Falsely Claims Her Earmarks Were ‘Very Small’ Compared To ‘Average’ Earmark Cost For Minnesota
– - Listening to Bachmann is like trying to chew fog.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:18 amshoeless@14, You’re right. But wouldn’t the embarrassment be enough to get rid of her? I guess not when all you care about is money and not the country. I find rich people are more likely to throw anyone under the bus, while the average American has more heart.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:19 amI have to say, while she totally botched her numbers, she was basically right. The update to this was key and it was exactly what went through my head when I saw what Armbruster was first comparing. The total amount of earmarks she brought home was significantly lower than that of the other members from her state.
I don’t particularly care – I imagine that’s generally a good thing but maybe she’s only bringing earmark money home for big donors rather than her constituents. Maybe the opposite is true. The devil (or angel), as always, is in the details.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:19 amShe reminds me of Dana Perino. The ‘caught in the headlights’ vacant stare. It gives me the heebee-jeebees.
Mary Matlin too.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:22 amNo. The rich people in her district obviously could care less that she is batsh!t crazy and a big stinkin’ liar. They want a tax cut.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:23 amI’m sure they were a good match … intellectually.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:26 amHow have RePUGs managed to supecede the BS detector again. How do they do it! her head should have exploded one more time.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:32 amThis is a stupid blog post. I hate Michelle Bachmann and think she’s a total twit, but you are parsing her words unfairly here. She clearly meant to compare her total for the year against the total for the year of the other Representatives. This attempt to over parse her language just makes you look stupid and undermines your argument.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:33 amparrott@22, It’s very easy when MSM puts Repug talking heads on at every turn, after all MSM is Big business. And you know how much Repugs love Big business.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:33 amA little redistricting would help get this nutjob out of politics! Being from Minnesota I just don’t understand the huge district she represents. The Christian right in Minnesota love this phony woman. As do the wealthy and the rednecks that fill her district. Look on a map. Her district covers St. Cloud to the northwest, Hugo to the east and Buffalo to the west.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:36 amThe amount she took in comparison to other lawmakers is immaterial. She acknowledges she signed a pledge to take *no* earmarks. She should be pressed as to why she considers it okay to break a pledge as long as she only breaks it a little bit.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:39 amFor just one day, I’d like some mystical force to descend on Washington and compel all lawmakers and other elected officials to tell the truth (like Jim Carrey in Liar, Liar).
And then I’d like to ask them all a number of questions —
1. Why are your earmarks OK, but other earmarks are not?
2. Why was TARP OK, but Obama’s stimulus bill was not (or vice versa)?
3. Why is there no action being taken on investigation of crimes committed by the last administration? What are you afraid of?
4. Which is really more important to you — your party or your country?
5. How do you really decide how to vote on a bill? Are you specifically told to vote a certain way? If so, by whom? What is the penalty for defying your party line?
6. What goodies have you been getting from lobbyists, and what are they getting from you in return?
7. Why are you really wearing that flag pin? Is it pride or is it pandering?
And this is just the start. I imagine that if we had a “truth day” for these guys, the list of questions would be long.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:39 am“Parsing her words unfairly”??? She’s on record as saying she’s against all earmarks and claiming she didn’t put any into the last several budgets, and then she’s found to have requested over $3 million in earmarks herself in those same budgets! Whether she requested more or less than the average per Minnesota congressperson, or more or less than the average per earmarks in Minnesota, is irrelevant — this space cadet has said she’s a crusader against earmarks, but she’s putting them into the budget bills herself!
Ain’t no parsing of words there my friend; Bachmann is just showing herself to be the typical Lindsay Graham hypocrite when it comes to earmark reform…
March 16th, 2009 at 11:45 amI think the update makes it plain that Bachmann’s specific point was valid—she genuinely ‘misspoke’ regarding the average (though the 70 million figure, I just don;t know about the veracity of that at the moment).
The trouble is though, she’s also demanding a ‘pass’ because her earmarks are small compared to the usual acquisition of earmarks for the state BUT at the same time she’s claiming that all the earmarks relative to the budget are significant-–when in fact they aren’t (2%) and thus the budget shouldn’t be approved!
Apart from that though, she’s still batshit-crazy.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:47 amoh, and cameron’s point (#18) about the details of her earmarks is a sensible one.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:52 amThere’s nothing wrong with earmarks per se; it’s how they are used and what they are for that matters.
Lie
Admit that a small detail of your lie was “mispoken”
The Lie remains intact
THAT’S the strategy.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:04 pmATTENTION ATTENTION –
Republican Crazy Woman Pulls Fact Out of Her Butt
More to come.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:07 pmCan the GOP ever tell the truth?
1. They are in your face Liars
2. They never take blame, always blaming others for your faults
3. For God fearing people, they surely do not follow his teachings
4. They are greedy as hell
5. They do not care about the American people
6. They are the obstructionist party. Say No No No
7. Only great idea (so they say) is tax cuts for the top 5% because I guess in the year 4010 AD, it will finally trickle down to us common folks
8. Break the law and dismiss the constitution
9. Just make up sh–
I probably could go on on – LOL
March 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pmBachman and the rest of the Republicans are taking a very principled stance in their fight against earmarks. They want to cast votes against as many earmarks as possible, but the Democrats didn’t put in enough earmarks to satisfy their desire to vote against earmarks. So, the Republicans put in maasive amounts of earmarks. Then, they all voted against the apporpriations bill, thus casting votes against the gigantic earmarks they inserted.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:45 pmBachmann is bat-shit-crazy. However, the really crazy people are all the Minnesotans who re-elected her.
How on earth can a plurality/majority of citizens in one state choose this woman for a position of leadership?
Minnesotans should hold elections during the warm weather; they obviously had a brain-freeze when they elected Bachmann. Proof can be found in the fact that they almost re-elected Norm Coleman too.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:25 pmAnother female thug on steroids.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:51 pmSounds like Bachmann is using Karl Rove’s Math.
March 16th, 2009 at 3:14 pm35- if northern winter brain freeze is the culprit in Minnesota, how do you explain the higher proportion of dumbasses from the southern states?
March 16th, 2009 at 3:16 pmHypocrisy is alive and well in Minnesota’s delegation.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:03 pmRepublicurse!
Gawd these people are dumb.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:16 pmI think we may be seeig the end of this lovely lady from Minnesota. They jumped all over Clinton for “what is the meaning of the word IS”. This women takes the cake for mincing words and streching the fine line. The RNC in self destruct mode, they need no help from the liberals!!
March 16th, 2009 at 11:24 pmI thought this woman was supposed to be a Christian. I guess that comes second to politics, even in Minnesota. For shame!
March 17th, 2009 at 12:45 amThis female taranchula [please don't call her a 'lady' because she is NOTHING REMOTELY similar to a lady since 'real ladies' at least have 'class and a brain'] is capable of LYING WITH A SMILE ON HER UGLY MUG! She deserves to be treated like all LIARS – with open hostility! She is a female Michael Steele – always out for the spotlight in hopes she can say something profound and everyone alive will stop cold in their tracks and say, “OMG, she be da woman!” What’s another lie among the R’s?
March 18th, 2009 at 7:14 am