Is Michele Bachmann Open to Compromises on Tax Cuts, Earmarks?
- Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:02pm by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
Yes on tax cuts, but only if that compromise does not include an extension of unemployment benefits — a plan favored by congressional Democrats and the Obama White House.
Appearing on Good Morning America Tuesday, the Minnesota congresswoman told George Stephanopoulos that she’d prefer to see the current tax policy extended “as far into the future as we possibly can,” but that American taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for it by having to take on even more spending.
While praising Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for his recent support of a GOP moratorium on earmarks, Bachmann has also diverged from the party line — and tea party mantra — to insist that such a ban on earmarks should exclude some items, namely transportation projects.
On Tuesday morning, Bachmann told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that she’d like to clarify the definition of “earmarks” and exclude transportation projects from that category of pork spending.
“Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark,” Bachmann said. ”I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark… There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway.”
The Star-Tribune notes that Bachmann “did solicit some earmarks when she first came to Congress” but “has been outspoken in pushing House Republicans to continue an earmark moratorium enacted last year.”
It‘s unclear whether Bachmann’s fiscally conservative tea party supporters would endorse her proposed earmark redefinition.
The standard definition of earmarks is any funding project that does not go through the normal federal appropriations process and is slipped into a legislative bill, often at the last minute. A ban on earmarks then would not prohibit individual members of Congress from “advocating for transportation projects,” as the congresswoman suggests. Instead, these spending projects would require the approval of other members of Congress through conventional legislative channels.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 697 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 526 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 353 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 352 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 345 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 345 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 352 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 264 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 345 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (111)
TattooQ
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 7:37pmIf S-D likes China so much , I say we facilitate a move. A little black ops and , voila, georgie mysteriously finds himself parachuting into China . If he survives, maybe he gets a window seat in some nice gulag .
Report Post »fritobandito24
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 7:31pmAs much as I like her. ( Maybe even more than Sarah Palin), she REALLY needs to watch it. WE THE PEOPLE are tired of ALL earmarks. They already have Transportation money, they don’t need to set aside MORE money for thier districts. She is sounding like a true politician. Elections are over so now we can go back to our good ole boy ways and worry about it come next election.
Report Post »the hawk
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 7:30pmALL tAX CUTS PERMANENT bELOW 500K ! thats fair
Report Post »ABSOLUTLY NO Earmarks! NO NONE NOTTA got it?
WE ARE WATCHING AND WILL NOT FORGET ! ! ! ! ! ! !
TattooQ
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 7:30pmAdd your comments
Report Post »missionarydad
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 9:22amJamestown, earmarks are items that are totally wasteful projects like bridges to no where and funding to study the sex drive of rabbits and things like that generally given to pay back for political favors and to buy votes. Michelle Bachmann if you look at her record she has been consistent with what she has been saying all along. I think she has been a great advocate and friend to the teaparty movement and to just throw her under the bus without hearing her side or a clarification of what she is saying is not a way to treat someone who has been a friend. I have considered her a friend and frankly I am not fair weather of a friend to just quickly jump to conclusions. That said if she turn out to have flip flopped and another one like my state’s Charlie Crist then I will be at the front of the line in wanting her out. You give friends a benefit of the doubt and are slow to jump to conclusions with them.
Report Post »R and K
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 7:24pmGoodbye, Mrs. Bachmann.
If you need earmarks for infrastructure projects in your district, then goody, we don’t need the Department of Transportation. We can eliminate it, and with the money saved there, you can have your poker money.
Report Post »Jamestown
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 4:50am@MISSIONARYDAD…no …we know what clean I..ome sign of bad chpices…we’ve seen enogh…do not start soquicklyto forgive double talkers…bachmen go it on it pal…if your dpuble talkin now you were doube talkin the whole time…stop politician bullsh_t NOW…
Report Post »red penny
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 7:21pmMs.Bachmann–if you happen to see this–I want my donation back.Get onboard or get the hell outta the way!!!
Report Post »missionarydad
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 11:12pmI want to hold all Congressman’s feet to the fire as much as you all do, but you must also understand that there is a lot that goes on up there that until the numbers of good representatives increase everyone must play the game to a certain extent to have any influence for good at all.
Michele’s heart is in the right place and before you go criticizing her you need to understand that she is first and foremost a representative to her district and must put their interests first. Washington is way too dirty and corrupt and she is one of the very cleanest politicians up there but she is also human. I would like to see you wade through that cesspool of corruption up there and come out totally clean. I have very high ideals but I doubt If you, Glenn Beck or I would be anymore genuine and sincere with what happens there on a daily basis than Michele Bachmann is. She is about as clean as any Washington insider is ever going to be and is the last one we should be criticizing.
Report Post »the hawk
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 7:18pmI love Michele , even gave her money ,I dont live in Minnasota, But I have to disagree with her on this on, though I believe she’ll come around !
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:51pmHeres my ultimate statement/question? The Federal government collects $.18 cents on every gallon of gas sold, that tax was designed to go towards road/bridge maintenance in this country. A small fraction of Stimulas money was alocated for infra structure spending than they came back with another $50 billion jobs bill (infra structure) What the sam hell is getting fixed in this country and where in the hell is the gas tax money going???? Oh yea lets not forget government proposing aditional $.18 gas tax. No wander gas prices will be pushing $4.00 again, federal tax state tax…tax tax tax…..I have to agree with CongressLady Bachman, I would perfer my money go to fixing a road or bridge than funding some dayum $2 million turtle crossing.
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 7:09pmLet me correct my self The Feds collect $.18.4 cents per gallon sold. Lets take North Carolina adding an additional (state) sales tax of $.26.6 per gallon hmmm simple math would be your paying $.45 cents in state and federal taxes on one gallon of gas purchased in NC. GO FIGURE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »jcldwl
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 5:26amNo earmarks period, I am sure they would classify the turtle crossing as a road project since it goes under the road. No exceptions NO EARMARKS, I am not in Michelle’s state but I did support her up until now. She is finished in my book. Not even a month and she is talking compromise. Good bye Ms Bachmann.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:46pmIn the last 12 years 3 different Presidents have signed road and bridge funding bills that amounts to over 1.2 TRILLION dollars. With that amount of money, we should be driving on gold plated roads, but yet our roads and bridges are still falling apart
Report Post »338lapua
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:40pmMaybe Glenn should invite Mrs. Bachman on his show to elaborate on why “certain things” are OK for earmarking. Republicans are on probation here, any rule they stretch looks really really bad. Please rethink and restate your position Michelle.
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:35pmNO compromise, WE won, let the LOSER vile dems compromise with US.
Report Post »squeaker
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:27pmBachmann is turning out to just be another friggin government jerk
Report Post »SaintMichael
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:40pmShe is a professional politician, what did you expect?
Terms limits, all offices. One term in each, no exceptions. Give me a government of common sense amateurs any day of the week.
Report Post »squeaker
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:47pmYou got it right “SaintMichael”
Report Post »printdesignchicago.com
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:25pmno earmarks means NO EARMARKS. NO EXCEPTIONS.
if something is THAT important… the normal process can apply and it would be sure to pass. IF it were THAT important… RIGHT?
Report Post »red penny
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:23pmTo me an earmark is any spending that has not been authorized via the normal appropriations process.If a given project is worthy,include it as a germane line item in a bill where it would be appropriate.Earmarks haven’t always been the norm—–it‘s a fairly recent way of robbing the treasury and in MYNSHO it’s unconstitutional in that the constitution doesn’t give individuals authority to spend taxpayer funds in this way.I have every intention of holding my Rep & Senators feet to the fire on this and if they stray I’ll do everything possible to hammer them.
Report Post »heavyduty
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:23pmSeems to me that the other Senators should ban her if she tries to stray from what we want. Then she might get the message. No compromising on earmarks. They did it in the old days so I don‘t see why they can’t do it now. Also we have to stick to our guns it might hurt for awhile but not as much as it will in the long run for our children.
Report Post »missionarydad
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 11:17pmWrong chamber she is not in the Senate, she is in the House.
Report Post »condera
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:18pmMy take on earmarks is pretty similar to Ms Bachmann’s. Yes, there are projects that should be funded through special designated appropriations. However, the process for that should be rigid. First, set an annual limit on earmarks indexed to GDP. Say, earmarks cannot exceed .5% of GDP annually. If the earmarks exceed that, then the excess must be trimmed from other areas of the budget. Second, all earmarks must face an up or down vote on the floors of the house and senate. Reforming the process in that manner should ensure the rampant abuse we see today is significantly curbed. It will also ensure legislators are not pitching projects that aren’t necessary.
Report Post »SaintMichael
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:41pmNo earmarks period! What is SO horrible about this? If you want to appropriate from a pot of money already introduct a stand alone bill. It is that simple!
Report Post »stone2016
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:17pmShe sounds just like a Republican. Principle…compromise…I want mine.
Report Post »Bill Wallace
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:13pmHas she forgotten the most recent uproar on earmarks regarding a “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska?
By her definition, such a project would not be an ‘earmark’.
Almost $400 million to build a bridge that would be beneficial to about 50 people.
Report Post »HillCountryPatriot
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:04pmCONGRESSMEN and SENATORS: We are watching you very, very carefully.
Report Post »TheAntiProgressive
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:58pmIs Michelle on our side or not?
Report Post »heavyduty
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:29pmSounds like she is going to start flopping like a fish to me. If anyone knows how to get in touch with her they might want to remind her that since she is in now. Doesn’t give her the right to just do what she wants. If I lived in her state then you bet I would be on her web site telling her just what I thought of her flip flopping.
Report Post »338lapua
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:35pmI believe this is a good question, one her constituents need to ask.
Report Post »squeaker
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:44pmNo she is not, Vote her OUT next time she is up for election
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 5:35amFirst time I have ever disagreed with her. I hope she wakes up before we vote her ass out…
Report Post »J.C. McGlynn
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:53pmThink Congress can earmark my home repairs?
Report Post »wendio
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:18pmAre you a Democrat? Well then… yes they can!
Report Post »judy4religiousfreedom
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:39pmI trust Michelle Bachmann yet I remember a “bridge to nowhere.” Are not roads, bridges etc., etc., a part of a the federal governments job any ways? Thus isn’t there a budget for such projects outside of earmarks? If so, then I would say I do not agree with her compromise.
Report Post »be heard
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:36pmNO EARMARKS. If you want funding for transportation ask for it and vote for it. Don’t stick it in a bill to bribe someone to vote for it.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:35pmCan’t these important bridges and roads etc. be funded as a separate bill instead of as an earmark?
Report Post »ilikai
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:40pmExactly my thought!!! Why can’t they make a general transportation bill with all the projects across the country listed as separate parts?
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:43pmIndeed these important funded projects of roads and bridges need to be addressed in their own seperate legislation. These projects are too critical to the infrastructure of America to be left to the wihms of ‘earmarks’ bribery for needed votes on a bill.
Report Post »Inuyasha
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:48pmHold on a minute now . . . you’re making too much sense here.
Report Post »mzmaj7
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:54pm“conventional legislative channels” is the key phrase in this article
Report Post »ExpertShot
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:30pmThat’s exactly the message I sent to my two Senators (Isakson & Chambliss) this morning. If a project has a legitimate need, let them submit a bill specifically for that project where we, the people can see it in the light of day.
Report Post »338lapua
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:31pmStandard appropriations process should be adequate. Even Michelle Bachman needs to sign on to the ban. Period.
Report Post »Parkeralan
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 8:32pmOh yes Kate, of course they can and should be funded in seperate bills. That is of course if you believe the federal government has any business in road building at all, they don’t.
The biggest cost from earmarks is not the amount that they take for pet projects, which is bad enough. But they fact that they are used as enticements to bribe Reps & Sens to vote for much larger and more dangerous bills which may not be in the best interest of the Country.
Report Post »john seven eighteen
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:32pmAll I can say is that ALL of these representatives and Senators are under our constant watch now. They should keep that in mind when deciding what is really best of America. Kinda like Little Brother watching over their shoulders!
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:44pmKeep them under the magnifying lense, and if they turn away from their word, let the light through the lense scour them clean away. Poof!!!
http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:47pmNo compromise, they can compromise with us!
Report Post »Rev. WC
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:51pmAgreed..The problem with earmarks is they just reinsure the good old boy mentality…you know a banana republic..I give you money for your reelection and you give me the tax payers money to build a tunnel for turtles to cross under the highway without a bidding process..this allows me to put several million dollars into my back pocket and then help you the next time you are up for reelection.. you go girl..and you can be replaced too..
Report Post »ozchambers
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 5:53pmI like that…..“Little Brother” Smaller, but feisty and dangerous when we begin to be abused.
like tiny fists of fury*
*A Seinfeld reference
Report Post »john seven eighteen
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:06pm@OZ
I love that episode of Seinfeld. Ka-ra-TE!
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:14pm@Grandmaof5
Agreed. They need to remember that they work for us. Not the other way around.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {mix art}
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:17pmNew version of the 2010 movie with Hal 2000
(Hal-2000: “Senator, I have the eyes of the world upon you. Oh by the way, all the funds you swiped for bribery and graft is now being transferred to charities of Mother Theresa around the world…the IRS is waiting outside…and so is Glenn Beck…have a nice day.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 6:36pmsnowleopard3200 {mix art},
Amen to that!
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »BetterDays
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 7:07pmI was just reading the “progressive caucus’s plan for 2011″ at http://www.blogspot/newzeal.com, they aren’t going to compromise. in fact they are planning Alynski like tactics towards getting there socialist agenda pushed down our throats by Obama, irregardless of who has the House of Representitives.
Report Post »And we all know how socialist that Man in the white house is now don’t we?
be heard
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 7:55pmWhy is she worried about transportation money? Besides wasting money on a lot of things we don‘t need wasn’t one of the biggest part of the stimulus for roads and bridges. They shouldn’t be needing more money for transportation for a long time.
Report Post »Alive_In_NH
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 9:11pmI am disappointed in Michelle Bachmann’s position on earmarks. There must not be any exceptions. Create a separate bill for any project you would like to see funding for. Rep. Bachmann is going to lose a lot of support unless she sees the light.
Report Post »manunited
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 9:28pmNo way Michele. Compromise is out of the question.
Report Post »Anarcho Capitalist
Posted on November 16, 2010 at 11:07pm@MANUNITED
Report Post »You haven’t been dealing with Republicans long, have you?
912anita
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 1:13amBachmann and McConnell have heard the American people – the people they serve.
We are in charge of this country – we will keep them honest.
I do like bachmann – I really do! And Mitch is workable too.
Report Post »Jamestown
Posted on November 17, 2010 at 4:39amThey know we are watching them and still compromise on their own campaign rhetoric…we need organization to the nTh degree…these politicians merely change a definition…and that’s not what WE THE PISSED OFF PEOPLE ORDERED…remind them again…hOw many times…yes interstates need repairs..who and when will roads be classified for federal money…I am sick of politicians bauchmen…you start listening NOW…perhaps more than words are needed …george stuffinenvelopes is a pretty clear signal…you ent to a clinton attorney to unveil your first compromise……I for one am beginning to see…republicans lies as often as a democrat……that leaves these POS politic women in our hmds…we must some how find an economic deter ant to people w
Report Post »ho routinely “Back off of their word…