Kyl’s Earmark Hypocrisy: Requested $118 Million For Earmarks In Budget, But Railed Against Them In Stimulus

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) requested $118 million in earmarks in fiscal year 2008. On Fox News Sunday yesterday, host Chris Wallace pressed Kyl about his earmarks, saying it is an example of how Republicans have “lost credibility on the issue of spending restraint.” “Who are you to lecture the Democrats on spending?” asked Wallace.

Kyl deflected the question, saying that they weren’t earmarks because earmarks “have a specific definition“:

WALLACE: And we’re putting up on the screen, Senator, your earmarks, a long list of them, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, totaling $118 million.

Question — I think it’s a fair one — who are you to lecture the Democrats on spending?

KYL: Well, first of all, I don’t see on the screen what you’re talking about. I can defend everything that I have recommended in the budget, and I would suggest that they’re not earmarks under the definition, because we have a specific definition.

Watch it:

Kyl’s “specific definition” defense is ironic given his attacks on President Obama’s economic recovery plan.

Though Taxpayers for Common Sense has said that “congressional leaders had generally resisted the urge to fill the bill with earmarks, according to the strict definitions of the word,” Kyl claimed it had “billions of dollars of earmarks and pork“:

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said that the wasteful spending that Schumer talked about matters to Americans far more than he thinks.

“Sen. Schumer is wrong if he thinks taxpayers don’t care about billions of dollars of earmarks and pork in the so-called stimulus bill. They do care, because it wastes their money,” Kyl said.

In the past, Kyl has admitted that his earmark criticism is “symbolic” and that he complains about “wasteful Washington spending” for political reasons because “the consultants who look at the polls tell us that if there’s anything that drives American taxpayers crazy it’s that phrase ‘wasteful Washington spending.’”