According to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), there are “earmarks,” which are bad, and then there are “vital programs,” which are good.
“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.”
You see, it’s only an earmark if it’s in the third person, such as “their wasteful spending on a pet project,” as opposed to “my vital spending on an important project being built by a campaign contributor.” See how it works out?