Appearing on Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham’s radio show yesterday, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said he would never vote for the DREAM Act. Asked if he would ever consider voting for the measure, which would help children of undocumented immigrants gain a path to citizenship in exchange for completing college or serving in the military, the potential presidential contender flatly replied, “no”:

INGRAHAM: Would you ever vote for a DREAM Act?

THUNE: Would I? No. I mean, I think they’re trying to push that through. … I mean, this is the Democrat agenda, which as I said earlier, has been rejected by the American people.

Listen here:

Thune is wrong to suggest that DREAM has been “rejected by the American people.” A CNN poll from last week found that 54 percent of Americans support the bill, which used to enjoy strong Republican support from people like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who have since flip flopped to oppose the measure. In the past year, DREAM has been vilified by conservatives as “backdoor amnesty,” with Fox News host Glenn Beck and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) even declaring that it will hurt white people.

As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell requested and received millions of dollars in earmarks for this year’s omnibus spending bill, but has now denounced the measure and plans to vote against it. Overall, Republican Senators have gotten nearly $2 billion in earmarks into the omnibus, and yet because of concerns over “wasteful spending,” they are threatening to block the entire bill — which contains not only funding for their own projects, but the money the federal government needs to operate past this weekend.

Yesterday, Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Thune (R-SD) denounced earmarks and the omnibus bill during a press conference, despite requesting hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks between them. “I support those projects, but I don’t support this bill,” reasoned Thune. Cornyn defended himself in a “heated exchange” with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl:

Today, the Washington Post reports that two of the most prolific earmarkers in Congress — “unabashed spending barons” Republican Sens. Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran of Mississippi — are also planning to vote against the omnibus, despite being responsible for 405 earmarks costing over $865 million.

Sens. McConnell, Wicker, Cochran, Cornyn and Thune are far from the only earmark hypocrites, however. A large number of Republicans requested substantial earmarks for the 2011 omnibus, despite a history of demagoguing the earmark process, and also plan to vote against a bill that included many of their requests. An examination of Taxpayers for Common Sense’s database of earmark requests for this year’s omnibus and their database of who was awarded earmarks last year, along with Sen. Tom Coburn’s working database of the earmarks that actually made it into this year’s omnibus, reveal quite a bit of Republican hypocrisy:

– Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) said on Fox News’ “Happening Now” this morning that he would vote against the omnibus bill. He requested 291 earmarks totaling over $770.5 million, and succeeded in getting 86 earmarks into the omnibus.

– Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is opposing the omnibus because it’s “full of unnecessary spending which grows the federal government.” He requested 116 earmarks costing $326.8 million, and the omnibus contains one of these for $379,000.

– Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s (R-TX) office said she will vote against the omnibus, which she tried to insert 119 earmarks into, at a cost of $770.9 million. She has $140 million earmarked in the bill.

– Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) will also oppose the omnibus, because it “simply spends too much.” Chambliss requested 122 earmarks totaling $492 million. He achieved $56 million in earmarks in the omnibus.

– Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) blasted the “massive, 2,000 page spending bill” in a statement. Burr tried for 82 earmarks, totaling $287.1 million, and received most of them.

– Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) “has been railing against the spending in that massive bill that could come to a vote before the lame duck session.” He requested 32 earmarks this year, totaling $115.8 million, and got nearly all of them — almost $100 million — into the omnibus.

– Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) tweeted today that “Defending the #earmark establishment is not leadership. Defending business-as-usual in Washington isn’t either. Leaders lead by example.” Rehberg is a proud member of the “earmark establishment” — last year he was the fifth-largest earmarker in the House, with 89 earmarks in the 2010 omnibus totaling $103.5 million.

– Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY) said on Fox Business Channel this morning that “It’s a week before Christmas, and unfortunately my Democratic colleagues like to play Santa Claus to the tune of $8 billion in new earmarks.” Lee was in a much more festive mood last year, with 36 earmarks totaling over $33.3 million in the 2010 omnibus.

– Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) tweeted today that “A HUGE spending bill is making its way through Congress. $1.1 trillion and 6,000 earmarks. We must stop it. I encourage the President to veto.” Last year, however, Wilson got 15 earmarks costing over $23.3 million in the 2010 omnibus.

It is the height of hypocrisy for these Republicans — all of whom have a long history of earmarking, and in most cases requested and received earmarks in this very bill — to suddenly oppose it because of a newly found opposition to “wasteful” spending.

On Fox Business Network this morning, Don Imus aggressively questioned Senator — and possible presidential hopeful — John Thune (R-SD) about Republican obstruction of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, which would provide desperately needed health care to those who volunteered to help at Ground Zero in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Imus raised Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s recent point about Republicans who frequently invoke 9/11 imagery, but refuse to help the workers, and asked Thune how he could defend this refusal. Thune explained that preserving the Bush tax cuts was more of a priority:

IMUS: It seems to me and it seems to others that if we’re going to help anybody, we would certainly help these Americans who were the first responders to 9/11.

THUNE: The difference I think with the tax bill is there is a deadline, Jan. 1, we have to get this done, taxes go up on Jan. 1, that’s a matter of law. We need to get the issue addressed for the firefighters and the 9/11 victims and we will. But again there’s a right way and a wrong way to do this, and there’s a way in which you can pay for these things, and try and get this thing to where it doesn’t cost quite as much, where it doesn’t provide as much exposure, as much liability – there are some things in this bill that we think can be improved upon. We need an opportunity to do that.They want to rush through all these things at the end of the year, without debate, without amdendments, with the opportunity to go through a normal process. And I think we can do that, we can do many of these last-minute initiatives they’re trying to push through, we can do them next year.

IMUS: I know there’s a deadline on the tax situation, but there’s also a deadline on the health of these firemen and these police officers.

Watch it:

Thune’s admission that tax cuts are a higher priority is stunning, as are his admonitions against “rushing” the Zadroga bill. As Imus correctly notes, there’s a very real deadline on the health of 9/11 volunteers who are desperately awaiting health care assistance from the country they served over nine years ago. For example, just this fall, Joe Picurro, a 9/11 volunteer who was central to the push for health care assistance — and who himself suffered for years with little or no health care — passed away. As the New York Daily News reported:

Joe Picurro volunteered to cut steel at Ground Zero more than nine years ago. It cost him his life Friday morning. [...]

“He fought up until the day he went,” said wife Laura Picurro. “I’m going to miss him, like unbelievable.”

Because Picurro volunteered, he had to fight for years to get any aid after 9/11 charities closed.

Even as his lungs deteriorated and late-night rushes to the emergency rooms grew all too familiar, he and Laura still had to fight bureaucrats who refused to recognize the source of his problems. When he finally got workers’ compensation in 2006, he was down to his last nickel.

Laura had to scrimp, scrape and borrow to make ends meet, care for Joe – and stave off eviction. “I don’t know how we made it, still in this house, the lights still on,” she said, her voice cracking.

But Picurro’s tale made him one of the symbols of how the heroes of 9/11 were being forgotten. He joined the push on Congress to pass the James Zadroga Health and Compensation Act. His death was a blow to a community that has seen all too much tragedy, with hundreds of 9/11 responders having died over the years.

As the report notes, Picurro and other volunteers have been waiting for years for assistance from the federal government. Thune’s whining that Democrats are “rushing” the Zadroga bill through is patently ridiculous. The bill, or very similar versions, were first introduced in the House over four years ago, and have suffered repeated Republican obstruction ever since. Nevertheless, Thune apparently finds the preservation of low tax rates for the wealthy to be a more pressing matter.

At the end of November, unemployment benefits expired for 2 million Americans in the midst of the holiday season, thanks to repeated Republican obstructionism in the Senate. The White House tax compromise announced this week will extend these benefits for 13 months, but a number of Republicans are opposing the extension because it would increase the deficit, and are even threatening to scuttle the entire deal over aid for the jobless.

“I don’t think we need to extend unemployment any further without paying for it,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) told conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt Tuesday. “Thank you, @JimDeMint” former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin tweeted yesterday in response. “Obviously Obama is so very, very wrong on the economy & spins GOP tax cut goals; so fiscal conservatives: we expect you to fight for us & America’s solvency,” Palin followed up in another tweet.

Of course, at the same time, these self-described “fiscal conservatives” have been demanding a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which would add $830 billion to the deficit over ten years. The White House compromise only extended them for two years, at a cost of $120 billion. The unemployment extension would cost far less — only $55 billion.

Nonetheless, on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s show last night, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) joined DeMint and Palin, saying “we need” to pay for unemployment benefits, while completely ignoring the cost of the Bush tax cuts:

HANNITY: What do you think of what Jim DeMint and Governor Palin had said about this that, you know, we need to extend unemployment. We can’t do it without funding it. Number two, we don’t need temporary economy. We don’t need temporary tax rates, businesses need to look five, 10 years down the road. What do you think of that criticism?

THUNE: I don’t disagree with any of that. … But I do agree with what Senator DeMint is saying and that is we need to try and come up with a way to pay for this $55 billion extension of unemployment benefits. We will be offering amendments in the Senate to do just that.

Watch it:

Of course, Thune did not say he would offer an amendment to pay for the Bush tax bonus for the rich. As the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo noted yesterday, “Unemployment benefits are providing a vital lifeline to millions of Americans struggling in a weak economy,” but Thune, DeMint, and their cohorts “would cut them off, while lavishing tax breaks on the wealthy.”

On Sunday, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), enacted late in the Bush administration to prop up the financial system, will expire, having cost taxpayers a fraction of its original $700 billion. The program is now projected to cost less than $50 billion, and could even end up earning a profit as the government sells off assets.

Regardless of its successes, the TARP is extremely unpopular, especially among conservatives and tea party activists. But despite their opposition to the program today, several leading Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), voted for the “reviled mother of all” bailouts. Indeed, “yea” votes helped bring down incumbent Republicans like Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Bob Bennett (UT) in primaries against tea party-backed right wingers.

One person who might especially wish he could change his vote on TARP is Sen. John Thune (R-SD). Thune is openly considering a White House bid in 2012, and will likely be the only GOP candidate to have voted for TARP — a serious liability when courting conservative primary voters. Recognizing this danger, Thune has tried to wriggle his way out of the vote. In an interview that will air Sunday on C-Span, Thune claims the Bush administration misled him, and accuses the Obama administration of turning the program into a “political slush fund“:

“Pronouncements were made [by the Bush administration] about how it was going to be used. It wasn’t used that way. The Obama administration expanded it and turned it into more of what I would characterize as a political slush fund in terms of the many uses of it.” [...]

“It was wrong philosophically,” Thune said. “How it was used and, in my view, misused is what I take issue with. ”

At the time, Thune said, the arguments for TARP were economically “compelling.”

“But in retrospect, it might be a different view.”

Of course, Thune offers no evidence to support his claim that the program has become a “slush fund,” because there is none. His claim that Obama “expanded” the program is equally false. When Obama took office, the program was estimated to cost taxpayers $350 billion. That amount has steadily declined since, and is now projected to cost far less, if it ends up costing anything at all. And the philosophy behind the TARP hasn’t changed, so if it’s “wrong philosophically” today, why wasn’t it then?

As for being misled, Thune sang a different tune as recently as May of this year. In an interview with Slate’s Dave Weigel, Thune gave an enthusiastic defense of TARP, calling it “necessary” and noting that it had “tremendous, broad support”:

There was a tremendous, broad support in South Dakota among the small business community, the financial community, the South Dakota pension funds, the governor — there was a tremendous amount of support at the time for taking the steps that we took. I think a lot of people would dispute or take issue with how it was used. But people felt like, even though many disagreed with it, we took the steps necessary to prevent the economy from a complete meltdown.

While there are certainly legitimate concerns about TARP, Thune’s isn’t one of them. As Matt Yglesias notes, the TARP “looks set to go down in history as one of the most unfairly maligned policy initiatives of all time.” A recent study by two leading economists concluded that without the program, the economy would have 8.5 million fewer jobs than there are now, and that the unemployment rate would exceed 15 percent. But apparently Thune is more interested in appeasing the rabid right-wing base than defending his own vote.

Since the Republicans lost control of Congress and the White House, they have conveniently decided it’s time to rein in spending after helping President Bush bequeath the current administration with a more than $1 trillion deficit.

Part of that campaign has been to target the once sacrosanct emergency war funding. Republicans made a fuss last year because the war funding bill contained money for the IMF. Last month, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said war funding needs to be paid for. Today on ABC’s Top Line, Sen. John Thune (R-ND) indicated that most Republicans are starting to hold this view:

THUNE: Republicans are increasingly, I think, dug in on the issue of making sure that new spending is offset. … Frankly, I think that there is even a growing consensus among Republicans that we need to start budgeting for this, we need to start figuring out how to pay for it. And I think that’s kind of the majority view among Republicans now.

Watch it:

The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim has noted the obvious hypocrisy here:

The indecision on the vote from Coburn’s colleagues is a stark contrast from the wars’ early years, when President Bush’s war supplementals flew through GOP-controlled Congresses and any opposition was portrayed as unpatriotic. Cries of “Support The Troops!” met any lawmaker who questioned the direction or the purpose of either the Iraq or Afghanistan war.

Indeed, during the spend-with-no-consequence Bush administration days, Thune praised Congress whenever it passed non-offset emergency war funding. “This critical supplemental funding gives our troops and diplomats the important tools they need to spread freedom abroad and strengthen our security at home,” Thune said in 2005. Thune even cheered an emergency supplemental with unrelated funding for drought assistance in 2007.

On Top Line, Thune seemed to recognize the contradiction and justified the previous GOP support for emergency war funding. “Republicans in the past have viewed Iraq and Afghanistan and the war effort as something that truly is an emergency,” he said, adding, “although it’s hard to say now that we don’t know what these costs are gonna be.”