“After agreeing to kill earmarks, some of the most conservative GOP lawmakers are already starting to ask themselves: What have we done?…

“So some Republicans are discussing exemptions to the earmark ban, allowing transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and water projects. While transportation earmarks are probably the most notorious — think ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ — there is talk about tweaking the very definition of ‘earmark.’…

“‘This isn’t trying to be too cute by half of what is an earmark and what isn’t,’ Bachmann told POLITICO on Wednesday. ‘But we have to address the issue of how are we going to fund transportation projects across the country?’…

“Bachmann says Congress should exempt ‘roads, bridges and interchanges’ and recommends that if a town, city, county or state approves a project, a lawmaker in Washington should be able to submit a request — a practice she says she has followed. Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) says Congress should earn back the public’s trust before considering a new definition but concedes the earmark ban will bring about ‘unintended consequences.'”

***
“Bachmann is essentially calling for an earmark moratorium that still allows for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere and exempts all earmarks in the highway bill. That would completely vitiate the House earmark ban, and all talk of it needs to be dropped immediately…

“If House Republicans exempt highway spending from their ban, then they were never serious about it in the first place, and it will be further proof that they just don’t get it. Michelle Bachmann of all people needs to have a better grasp of that, because the last thing we need is for her colleagues to think that the tea party doesn’t care about actually cutting spending both big and small.”

***
“But for some anti-earmarks groups, the proposed exemption makes a joke out of the ban, which was first adopted in March for a year, and then reaffirmed in November, when Republicans said they would request no earmarks in the upcoming congressional session.

“‘This is pretty crazy. I’m not sure which part of no earmarks we’re not understanding here,’ comments Club for Growth spokesman Mike Connolly…

“‘It’s a terrible idea,’ agrees Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. ‘The Bridge to Nowhere was a road project. Even by the criteria that Congresswoman Bachman laid out [that the local government approves project] … Bridge to Nowhere meets that category, too.’

“Ellis points out that earmarks often hurt, not help, the nation’s infrastructure, since earmarks can enable lower-priority projects to be funded before more important developments. ‘From our perspective, infrastructure is so critical … that we can’t afford to waste a dime and earmarks are analogous to waste,’ he says, adding that Taxpayers for Common Sense considers the Minnesota-Wisconsin Stillwater Bridge, which Bachmann used as an example of a good project, to be a wasteful project.”

***
“I don’t have a problem with earmarks. They represent a miniscule amount of money and since they are paid for do not add to the deficit or the debt. But Republicans campaigned against earmarks. They derided them as wasteful. And now, as they plot to hold onto their new power, they are retreating on their promise to ban earmarks because they think they can use them to their political benefit…

“And what of the Tea Party faction of the new Republican majority as this flip-flop on earmarks is emerging? Well, they apparently are too busy hiring their government workers and filling out the forms for their government healthcare to worry about earmarks right now.

“The House GOP, repealing their promises and replacing their integrity.”

***
“There will be no earmarks in the 112th Congress. Period.“