If the Repubs gain control of the U.S. House this fall, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann believes they should use their control over the subpoena power to investigate all of the "nonsense" that has occurred during the first two years of the Obama administration, and then use the blocking power that either house would have over the appropriations process to "defund" everything that's been enacted (Obamacare is specified but many other actions are included).
The version of the statement below comes from the Minnesota Progressive Project, but there's also an audio tape on YouTube so you can hear it for yourself.
Here's the tape, followed by a transcription:
Now the transcript, the question that sets up Bachmann's statement was posed to her at the GOP Youth Convention yesterday:
QUESTIONER: "I may be putting the cart before the horse here, but assuming the Republicans win the House back this next cycle: how do you feel about the chances for a little oversight and a little accountability now that the Republicans would have the subpoena power, how aggressive do you think--"
BACHMANN: "Oh, I think that's all we should do...I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another. And expose all the nonsense that has gone on. And it's very important when we come back that we have constitutional conservative leadership because the American people's patience is about this big.
So we have to make sure that we do what the people want us to do because one thing that you should is that the most dramatic story that's happened in the last 18 months is that the federal government - before 18 months ago, the private economy was 100 percent held in private hands. But today 65 percent of the economy is now held in government's hands - either in direct ownership or in control. This is your future we're talking about. So we got to unravel that and we got to get the private sector back to being private and the government back to being government.
This is the year - this is it. All of our chips are on November. If we don't get it back and then starve the beast - the House, we have the power of the purse - so we can starve ObamaCare. We don't have to fund any of these programs and that's exactly what we need to do - defund all of this nonsense and then unwind it. So anyway, thank you very much..."
Bachmann has been claiming for some time that the government has taken control of 65 percent of the private sector, although this is the first time I have seen where she has it has gone from zero to 65 just in the last two years. That part is kinda crazy torturing of the numbers that Bachmann has done before.
From past statements, I believe she is taking the entire health care industry, for example, and saying it was private at the end of 2008 and now it is "held in the government's hands," as if the government had no involvement in health care before. She is assigning a shift from zero to total government control of the auto industry, based on the bailouts of GM and others, while disregarding those companies that have paid back their government loans.
But the talk subpoenas, "exposing all the nonsense that has gone on," and "defunding" seems relatively new.
She's right, too, that a party controlling either house of Congress can, if it sticks together, prevent any appropriations from passing. It's quite possible that not every single House Republican would go along with such an agenda.
I've been thinking that all the talk of repealing the various enactments of 2009-10 was silly, since repeal would require a House majority, a Senate supermajority and a presidential signature. And I still think that. There will be no repeal. But the kind of defunding project that Bachmann describes could be done with a majority in just one house.
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
35 comments
-
32 comments
-
23 comments
-
21 comments
-
20 comments
Comments (18)
In other words, back to the Clinton era.
They'll be impeaching Obama for improper behavior with a golf club, and investigating Michelle's travel arrangements.
These comments show that while Bachmannn is an expert at self promotion, she has terrible political instincts.
If the Republicans do take the House and follow her advice, the ensuing turmoil will probably ensure an Obama second term and a Democratic return to control of the house.
She also ignores the role of the Senate. It's much less likely that the Republicans will win control there. And even if they do, the past two years have shown Democrats that a minority can basically stall everything. And trust me, they will do just that if Republicans win control of the Senate.
She is simply repeating the republican leadership on this (their big plan when they take back Congress). Of course that doesn't mean the repeals, etc.. will happen......but who thought Congress could do the historical things they have done since Jan '09? I think this fall's elctions will produce gridlock in Congress. Nobody will have enough votes to do anything.....I guess including over-riding the pres.
Devoid of any ideas and paranoid to the core, Ms. Bachmann is nothing more than a modern day version of Joe McCarthy.
Joe McCarthy was right.
Before voters hand control over to the Michele Bachmann's of the political right, it would be refreshing if Rep. Bachmann had a more accurate understanding of basic economics, what constitutes public versus private sector.
An aside .... all the "nonsense" going on? Was that the part where President Obama lead, badgered, and hectored Congress to pass significant federal spending, which helped prevent the collapse of our banking system and economy? Or was it the health care reform, that may help slow down the explosive growth of health care costs? Or his commitments to wind down the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, after the Republican CIC predecessor failed to bring those to successful conclusion?
Because Ann Coulter thinks so? By all means, continue to stroll down your revisionist path, Dennis. Along with fear mongering, it's what the Republican party is most adept at.
I don't agree with you, Rick. The Dems have never shown the willingness to play the kind of hardball politics that the GOP does.
The Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, later 59. And yet they compromised right and left to get some semblance of their programs through.
When the GOP had 54 senators in the first two years of GWB's presidency, then 51 senators in years 3 and 4, they got their programs through and steamrolled any Democratic opposition.
The GOP, in my adult lifetime, has simply been far more skilled, determined, energetic and ruthless in the exercise of politics and using it to carry out their goals. They're way, way better at it than the Democrats.
If the Dems did lose control of the Senate and decided to play some kind of obstruction game, they would crumple the first time the GOP went on TV to complain how the Democrats were thwarting the will of the American people.
The national Democratic party has no backbone, no appetite for playing hardball politics and lacks the guts to follow through to the end on the very few occasions that it does attempt to play hardball.
To paraphrase an old saying, the Democrats persist in bringing a knife to a gunfight. And I'd go even further and say that the Democrats are showing up completely unarmed and wondering why they keep losing.
Truly frightening that the folks in the Sixth District will probably re-elect Ms. Bachmann in November. All the money flooding into her campaign coffers virtually guarantees it. Who is sending all that $$$? Consider the source(s)!
John Reiman, you said it all. We Dems are just too darn "nice" which leaves us helpless to the Republicans' onslaughts.
Some pundits claim that the Dems act this way to appeal to independent voters. Look where it gets them. Look at the pathetic response to the Breitbart crowd. Joe Barton wants a bpartisan investigation of Obama's response to the oil spill. Give me more Pelosis and fewer blue puppydogs.
That's the problem with Obama-Clinton style legislation: It can easily be undone. If Obama had gone for a progressive solution to health care, for example, he could have passed a new tax for health care and implemented a single-payer program that didn't need to be funded every year, thus obviating schemes like Bachmann's.
Another was of putting it, of course, is that the Repubs aren't handicapped by any desire to actually accomplish anything (other than protecting what they've got by saying NO to anything that might help someone who doesn't already have). A social conscience (or any other sort) can be a big handicap in Congress.
Maybe we need more Charlie Rangel's.
Not sure what the setting of the interview was, and to whom she was speaking, but neither Eric nor the clip divulge this.
And I don't know how to go to You tube, so would appreciate being informed of when, where and with whom so I can place the remarks in proper perspective.
Also, was this the complete interview, or extracted portions? Anyone know?
I got part of my questions answered at Newsmax:
"Attending the GOP Youth Convention in Washington on Thursday, Bachmann was asked: “How do you feel..."
Still wondering about the rest.
Hello John, hope your summer is going well.
The transcript is the full context. The full question and the full answer, so far as I can tell.
Also, you don't need to go to youtube, just click on that big arrow in the middle of the picture of bachmann in the post itself and it should play the audio (there is no video). cheers, have a good weekend everyone.
Maybe she was just trying to say that Republicans should control HER house, and was taken out of context.
Thanks, Eric. Got it and heard the clip. I take it these were her only words to the group that day?
I hear in it three things:
>She thinks congress, if in repub hands, should get the info behind the events of the past 18 months by numerous hearings;
>She thinks congress should reverse some of the actions of the past 18 months by refusing to fund them; and
>She doesn't care much about statistical accuracy while making a valid point that there has been a huge increase in federal control of the economy. This carelessness about statistical accuracy seems to be endemic with her.
Her thoughts on what to do about the recent government takovers are intriguing, and certain to give cat fits to dems worried about the fall elections -- which was probably the intended result.
I am inclined to ignore her statistical inaccuracies when I think the point she is making is valid. But then, I'm not a dem and don't need to deflect from the point.
As for cat fits, I see our latest senator jumped at the bait in his recent address.