Skip to comments.Bachmann's had her share of government aid
Posted on 06/27/2011 5:56:55 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist
Reporting from Washington Rep. Michele Bachmann has been propelled into the 2012 presidential contest in part by her insistent calls to reduce federal spending, a pitch in tune with the big-government antipathy gripping many conservatives.
But the Minnesota Republican and her family have benefited personally from government aid, an examination of her record and finances shows. A counseling clinic run by her husband has received nearly $30,000 from the state of Minnesota in the last five years, money that in part came from the federal government. A family farm in Wisconsin, in which the congresswoman is a partner, received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Now, about that gun-runner thing. Go get 'em!
The editors of the LA Times clearly thought they had caught Michele Bachmann in some sort of hypocrisy, given her support for a smaller, less expensive federal government. Today's paper features a big story running on the front page that breathlessly reports that Rep. Bachmann and her husband have -- gasp! -- benefited from "federal aid."
That's because the counseling clinic run by Mr. Bachmann has received money over the past six years "that in part came from the federal government," because a farm in which Rep. Bachmann is a partner receives farm subsidies, and because she has sought to "keep federal money flowing to her constituents."
The entire premise of the story shows legacy media's limited understanding and selective outrage. Why shouldn't the Bachmanns -- and constituents -- benefit legally from the federal money that's available, even if she thinks it shouldn't be available?
Alternatively, why isn't the Times equally outraged that Democrats who favor tax increases -- the Kerrys, Feinsteins and other rich politicians -- nonetheless take advantage of every tax break and tax cut on the books? If Rep. Bachmann shouldn't be taking federal funds because she opposes them, shouldn't they be paying higher taxes, since they support them?
Worse yet, why is the legacy media so intent on exposing Rep. Bachmann's supposed inconsistencies, while remaining respectfully silent about the Democrat politicians -- like President Obama -- who oppose school choice for poor children but send their own children to ritzy public schools? The analogy to that bit of hypocrisy is if Rep. Bachmann wanted to keep federal subsidies for herself but deny them to the poorest, least advantaged Americans who need them the most. After all, that's what the Dem opposition to school choice really is -- a denial to poor kids of the opportunity for a decent education that they happily provide to their own children.
I guess when Democrats engage in hypocrisy and ideological inconsistency, it just isn't newsworthy -- at least to the legacy media like the LA Times.
Shameful. But when you're that blinded by bias, it's impossible to see clearly.
I hope Sarah gets in...she is free of these bastards..they pile on and she will benefit...
yes another example of Bachman derangement syndrome
Most farmers get some kind of subsidy. Get rid of all of them.
Do you drive on highways?
Gee..Bachman sent mail using the US Postal Service which is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and drove on highways which are government tax supported and her Congressional salary is paid by the government...the LA Times is just starting its smear campaign.
Any comments about Pelosi in the article? About how she and her husband have benefited from the special legislation she sponsored to curtail the minimum wage requirement in Guam at their NON-UNION factories? Nah! About all her non-union Kalifornia businesses? Nah! The LA Slimes is just another collection of prestitutes.
Free of who? The MSM? If she runs she won’t be free of them anymore. And she’ll no longer have her gig at Fox. They’ll be forced to treat her like every other candidate.
Also, if every other farmer gets handouts, then they can sell their products for less, depressing prices and driving out those who do not take the subsidies.
Why not ask her if she ever smoked pot in college??
She explained it in her Fox interview yesterday.
So, we are going to let the lib press establish the standards by which we select our candidates and we are going to require that all of our candidates are “earmark virgins”.
Might as well round up the circular firing squad.
However, Bachmann did not respond that she has gotten no subsidy money. She said this:
As for the farm, she said it belonged to her father-in-law. "It's not my husband and my farm," Bachmann said. "And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm."
Maybe she crossed herself up. But she contradicted her own disclosure paperwork. Not good. And poor preparation.
Dig deep enough and one can find a connection between anyone and anything...the genealogists did this when they found a familial connection between Hussein and Dick Cheney. The perversion comes in when we go along with the finger pointing.
“The bigger problem here is a conservative movement losing focus on the enemy. Hussein and Demonrats, you can be SURE, are bigger and fatter leaches on the taxpayers butts than ANY Republican. Michele Bachmann is a good, strong conservative.”
There are a lot of pseudo-Con trolls crawling out of the woodwork lately on these threads. Ask them who they actually support, and they always evade the question (yet every Conservative is somehow “massively flawed” to them).
My understanding had been that she has no decision-making involvement in the farm and whether it takes subsidies or not. I'm not so concerned about the details because of "hypocrisy" over taking subsides while trying to end (at least some of) them.
If anything she'd be working against her own interests. My concern is question of credibility: what's your interest in the farm, what did you get, what didn't you get.
It's not like Obama paying 23%, not his 35% rate, in taxes but harping millionaires--like him--and billionaires aren't paying enough. That's the kind of hypocrisy that ticks me off!
Is there more to the “family trust” than the “farm” or not?
“More information from other posts sheds more light on this, but there is a BIG difference between a governor trying to get taxpayer money BACK into his state and an individual receiving federal subsidies. One cannot rail against big government and intentionally benefit from it at the same time.”
—I’m sure there are a fair number of Conservatives out there who desire- as part of the efforts to help our country survive- that all government subsidies be taken away, and yet they currently claim the mortgage interest deduction on their tax returns. Is this hypocrisy? I’d say it’s more about the actions of rational persons acting in the context of a flawed system.
The greater point is not where we’ve been, but where we’re going...
...There is a point where looking at the previous actions of an individual in terms of assessing future behavior becomes absurd: It would be like the American Revolutionaries saying, “I don’t want that George Washington guy to lead the Continental Army against the Brits... because he used to be in the British Army.”...
Perhaps the New York Times could clear all this up? Or maybe the KOS kids could help? LOL
Yes, or the opposite...they're very conservative and sincere, but SO devoted to their candidate that no other will do.
I frankly haven't made my mind up yet, but as a student of history, I keep remembering there are problems with ALL candidates. Even Sarah. Even Herman. You name the person, they're flawed.
Some fantasize Ronald Reagan was perfect, but he wasn't...he gave us amnesty and Sandra Day O'Connor. :) I love the man, but he wasn't the Messiah.
Anyway, I am still looking at all of the candidates (almost) and will get to make my decision early, 'cause I'm in an early primary state.
I just get irritated when we cannibalize. The fact is ALL of the Republicans, even Huntsman, would be a better President than Hussein.