Since Michelle Bachmann is tied with Romney in Iowa she probably deserves a separate thread on this topic. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bachmann-20110626,0,1896024.story Bachmann's had her share of government aid The fiscal conservative from Minnesota and 2012 presidential contender has benefited personally from federal funds and federal farm subsidies. 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 theMinnesota 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 ofMinnesota 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. And she has sought to keep federal money flowing to her constituents. After publicly criticizing the Obama administration's stimulus program, Bachmann requested stimulus funds to support projects in her district. Although she has been a fierce critic of earmarks — calling them "part of the root problem with Washington's spending addiction" — the congresswoman nonetheless argued recently that transportation projects should not be considered congressional pork. Photos: Potential 2012 GOP candidates As Bachmann prepares to formally launch her presidential bid Monday in Waterloo, Iowa, Republican strategists warned that she needs to square her record with her public pronouncements. "She's kind of built an area in the field of candidates where she's the hawk on those kinds of issues, so any sort of issue that will show her record is not totally consistent will affect some of her support," said Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Iowa GOP. "I don't think it's a deal-breaker, but I think it's something she's going to have to be willing to confront head-on." For now, Bachmann is declining to answer questions on the topic. Her congressional and campaign staff did not respond to numerous requests for comment. Bachmann has long sought to distance herself from those who benefit from public money. "I don't need government to be successful," she proudly told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly in fall 2009 when he asked why she inspired such ire among liberal critics. Yet despite her broadsides against "socialized medicine," Bachmann's husband, Marcus, applied for public funds for his counseling clinic, Bachmann & Associates. Since 2006, he has received nearly $30,000, according toMinnesota state records. The bulk of the money — $24,041 — came in the form of grants from the state Department of Human Services to train staff how to deal with clients suffering from chemical dependency and mental illness. That program was financed in part by the federal government. Michele Bachmann lists the Lake Elmo, Minn.-based clinic — which aims to provide "quality Christian counseling in a sensitive, loving environment," according to its website — as one of her assets on her financial disclosure forms. Another of Bachmann's assets — a family farm owned by her late father-in-law, Paul Bachmann — received nearly $260,000 in federal money between 1995 and 2008, largely from corn and dairy subsidies, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research organization that scrutinizes such subsidies. Paul Bachmann died in May 2009, but the congresswoman retains a partnership in the farm. Bachmann said in December that the subsidies went to her in-laws and she never received "one penny" from the farm, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. However, in financial disclosure forms, she reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, at minimum, between 2006 and 2009. Publicly, Bachmann has objected strongly to federal farm payments. When she voted against the 2008 farm bill, a $307-billion package that would govern federal agriculture policy for five years, Bachmann declared that it was "loaded with unbelievably outrageous pork and subsidies for agricultural business and ethanol growers." She was one of two nays cast by Minnesota's eight-member delegation. Just a year later, however, Bachmann wrote to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, praising the federal government for helping prop up the prices of pig products and dairy by directly buying the commodities, a move that benefited her constituents. "I would encourage you to take any additional steps necessary to prevent further deterioration of these critical industries, such as making additional commodity purchases," she wrote on Oct. 5, 2009. The Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington Bureau obtained the letter through a Freedom of Information Act request. The USDA that year had stepped up its purchase of pork and dairy products for use in school lunches and other government food programs, seeking to stabilize prices in the then-flagging industries. While not technically a subsidy, commodity purchase programs are "a deliberate effort of the government to prop up these industries," said David DeGennaro, legislative analyst for the Environmental Working Group. More recently, Bachmann objected strongly to the Obama administration's $830-billion stimulus package, saying before the 2009 congressional vote on the matter: "I cannot support this new direction for the American economy."
And also her husband's clinic has been receiving Medicaid money even though she has been strongly critical of that program. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43570552/ns/politics-decision_2012/ Bachmann's husband got $137,000 in Medicaid funds Presidential candidate has often blasted growing welfare programs While Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., has forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the "welfare rolls," the mental health clinic run by her husband has been collecting annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000 for the treatment of patients since 2005, according to new figures obtained by NBC News. The previously unreported payments are on top of the $24,000 in federal and state funds that Bachmann & Associates, the clinic founded by Marcus Bachmann, a clinical therapist, received in recent years under a state grant to train its employees, state records show. The figures were provided to NBC News in response to a Freedom of Information request. The clinic, based in Lake Elmo, Minn., describes itself on its website as offering "quality Christian counseling" for a large number of mental health problems ranging from "anger management" to addictions and eating disorders. The $161,000 in payments from the Minnesota Department of Human Services to her husband's clinic appear to contradict some of Michelle Bachmann's public accounts this week when she was first asked about the extent to which her family has benefited from government aid. Contacted this afternoon, Alice Stewart, a spokeswoman for Bachmann, said the congresswoman was doing campaign events and was not immediately available for comment. Questions about the Bachmann family's receipt of government funds arose this week after a Los Angeles Times story reported that a family farm in which Michelle Bachmann is a partner had received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies. When asked by anchor Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" about the story's assertion that her husband's counseling clinic had also gotten federal and state funds, Bachmann replied that it was "one-time training money that came from the federal government. And it certainly didn't help our clinic." At another point, she said, "My husband and I did not get the money," adding that it was "mental health training money that went to the employees." But state records show that Bachmann & Associates has been collecting payments under the Minnesota's Medicaid program every year for the past six years. Karen Smigielski, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Human Services, said the state's Medicaid program is funded "about 50-50" with federal and state monies. The funds to Bachmann & Associates are for the treatment of low-income mentally ill patients and are based on a "fee for service" basis, meaning the clinic was reimbursed by Medicaid for the services it provided. Smigielski added that these were not the only government funds that Bachmann & Associates has received. The clinic also participates in managed-care plans that are reimbursed under a separate state-funded Minnesota Health Care program. But the state does not have any records of payment information to the individual clinics that participate. (During her Fox News appearance, Bachmann was not asked about Medicaid payments, and she made no mention of them.) Another state official, Patrice Vick, communications manager for the Human Services Department, said she was puzzled by Michelle Bachmann's assertion on the broadcast that the funds under the state grant went to employees. While the grant was to train employees to help them treat chemical dependency, the money did not go directly to those being trained, she said. "It went to the clinic," Vick said. "The contract was with the clinic," Vick added later. But she had no immediate information about whether the clinic passed it along directly to the employees being trained or used it to cover its costs of training. The issue of her receipt of government aid has gotten attention because Bachmann, a Tea Party favorite, has been a fierce critic of federal spending programs and has called for drastic cutbacks. This has especially been the case on health care, including the expansions of Medicaid called for under the new health care law. When Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton signed an executive order earlier this year expanding the state's Medicaid program for more than 95,000 state residents, Bachmann was joined state Republican lawmakers in denouncing the move. "Right now, Governor Dayton is wanting to commit Minnesota taxpayers to add even more welfare recipients on the welfare rolls at a very great cost," Bachmann said at a news conference in St. Paul in January. "She's giving hypocrisy a bad name," said Ron Pollock, executive director of Families USA, a consumer health care advocacy group, when asked about the Medicaid payments to Bachmann & Associates. "It's clear when it feathers her nest she's happy for Medicaid expenditures. But people that really need it — folks with disabilities and seniors — she's turning their backs on them."
Ayn Rand also took Social Security and Medicare payments. don't bother. people will run the standard defense---"she's a taxpayer, blah blah, working within the system to change the system." when you can justify greed, you can justify anything. never-mind that there are people in jail for freedom, for the advocates of greed, it's enough to be smart enough to use that greed.
Something like this shows she isn't actually crazy but calculating enough to work the system. As for the standard defense of that "she's a taxpayer and is working the system" keep in mind that in these instances she and her husband aren't just regular taxpayers but benefiting from being a specific class where they can take advantage of these benefits. In Ayn Rand's case there is an argument that it was life and death but I don't think the same can apply to the Bachmann's and she herself said she doesn't need such money. [rquoter]Bachmann has long sought to distance herself from those who benefit from public money. "I don't need government to be successful," she proudly told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly in fall 2009 when he asked why she inspired such ire among liberal critics.[/rquoter] If she doesn't need it why take it in the first place? Besides that argument as the LA Times article indicates its not just about her being a taxpayer taking advantage of the system as is but as a legislator she has also been seeking federal money to help her district. That isn't a situation of just taking the money because it is there.
the personal stuff wasn't illegal and normal business practices. if her husbands clinic is helping low income people that are assisted by the gov't who cares now the stuff on asking for stimulus money, that's hypocritical.
Its not illegal but it is hypocritical when she has stated she is against that sort of thing and said it is not needed.
so is her husband supposed to turn down people who can't afford help? and then turn down payment for them. I really have no problem with him taking that money.
I don't think the problem is him accepting payment. The problem is him denouncing the system that allows him to get the payment.
That's fine that you're glad but this does go to how logically consistent she is but it also goes to showing how problematic the POV that she espouses of extremely limited government is when even her and her husband benefit from government largess.
yes, its a problematic pov to espouse that gov't aid is the scourge of the earth. that's why she has no shot at winning once she is vetted, so I guess i really don't care. she would have no shot regardless of her husband taking aid or not.
I disagree. Just because you disagree with a system and want to change it doesn't mean that you should pretend it doesn't exist. Lots of people think taxes should be increased - but they aren't going to voluntarily pay higher taxes. Lots of people think business loopholes should be closed, but if they run those businesses, they will still use them if they exist. Lots of people think the health care bill sucks without a public option, but they aren't going to not participate. This is no different. If there are tax benefits available to her, there's nothing wrong with her taking them. Just because she doesn't like Medicare doesn't mean she's not going to serve Medicare clients and use the funds that are available. I think her bigger problems are with statements like this: Bachmann said in December that the subsidies went to her in-laws and she never received "one penny" from the farm, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. However, in financial disclosure forms, she reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, at minimum, between 2006 and 2009. If true, that's an outright lie.
There is nothing wrong with her taking them except when she has carved out an extreme position regarding those and her rhetoric basically looks down upon people who do. I am not judging Bachmann by my standards in this case I am judging her by her own. And that brings up the question of why in the first place she claimed she hadn't received any farm income.
But she doesn't criticize anyone else for taking advantage of the program either. She just doesn't think it should exist. She hasn't commented on what people should do given that it does exist. If you looked, you could probably find examples of this with every politician and just about everyone here too. The only way you wouldn't is if everyone only argued for whatever was in their own self-interest.
Almost as selfless as learning that John Quincy Adams was not a founding father, and that the founding fathers didn't work tirelessly to end slavery.
From the first article: [rquoter]Bachmann has long sought to distance herself from those who benefit from public money. "I don't need government to be successful," she proudly told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly in fall 2009 when he asked why she inspired such ire among liberal critics.[/rquoter] Sure you probably could but not everyone presents themselves as being so extreme and ideological rigorous. If she is going to present herself as that way then shouldn't her actions actually matter or do we just take her rhetoric at face value?
