Michele Bachmann Expects Taxpayers to Pay Her While She Looks for Another Job

For some insane reason I felt like reading a few stories on people commenting about Michele Bachmann and her abrupt announcement that she would not be seeking re-election in 2014.

Then something came over me and a glaring fact that hadn’t yet come to mind was staring me right in the face.  This woman started her most recent term just 5 months ago.  If she was going to drop out of 2014 now, why the hell did she run for re-election at all?

Now, we all know why she’s really doing it—her impending ethics investigation going on at the FBI and several other agencies, along with the fact that Republicans really don’t want her to run again in 2014.

See, she presides over a very conservative district in Minnesota, yet still barely won re-election in 2012.  It’s been presumed by many leading Republicans that in 2014 she had stood a very good chance at losing that seat.

But, of course, she’ll never admit to either one of these facts.  The truth is, she had to run for re-election last year and she had to drop out of next year’s race.  Otherwise she’d lose not only her seat in Congress, but tons of money as well.  You see, it’s harder to get speaker’s fees, lobbying jobs or any number of other paying gigs when you actually lose your seat or bow out of an election when you’re already your party’s candidate.

So why not make taxpayers pay her for the next 2 years while she looks for another job?  And that’s exactly what she did.

She had to know this impending campaign ethics scandal was gong to continue to gain steam, she just hoped it didn’t start boiling over until after the 2012 elections.  After that, she hoped she would just be able to ride it out and hopefully it would fade away—but deep down she knew better.

For all intents and purposes, with her running for re-election and then dropping out of the next race 5 months into her newest term, she’s said to American taxpayers, “Thanks for paying me while I set myself up for my next job!”

If she just admitted that the campaign ethics investigation was the cause, that would be one thing.  But she’s claiming it has nothing to do with that.  So, if that’s the story she wants to stick with, then she’s basically saying that for the next 18 months she’s going to spend her time looking for and securing a job for after her term is over.

Hasn’t she already been enough of a drain on American taxpayers?  I mean honestly, has there ever been a member of Congress who blatantly lies as often as she has?  Even when called out by members of the media, which has often happened, she’s continued to look right into the camera and continued to perpetuate her lies.  Even when her claims are irrefutably debunked live on-air as she’s being interviewed.

Not to mention the fact that in all her years in Congress, she’s sponsored a grand total of zero bills that were actually signed into law.

But she’s decided she’ll stay until the end of her term and squeeze every last dime she can from American taxpayers.  And she has the nerve to attack people who receive government assistance.  I’d say she needs to start looking in the mirror before accusing others of looking for a government handout.

Hell, at least when Sarah Palin quit as governor of Alaska, she stepped down before her term was up.  Michele Bachmann, however, would rather have taxpayers cover her bills until  January 2015 when her term is officially over.

So, I’d encourage everyone reading this to head over to Michele Bachmann’s Facebook page and give her a big “You’re Welcome!” in her message box for funding her job search for the next 18 months.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Guest

    I love those fiscally conservatives. They sure know how to save taxpayers money.

  • ixzist

    I love neoconservatives. They sure know how to save taxpayers money.

  • Eldred Fuchs

    Can’t we drug test this welfare queen?

    • JerseyJoe

      Not a real fan of Mrs. Bachmann, but she isn’t using taxpayer money any more than any other salaried representative of the House and is more likely to pass a drug test than the average Dem. Clifton again is using bad logic. By his logic, only a career politician should be in politics. She happens to believe in term limits (something we all should be able to agree on) Why did Obama or any President seek a second term when they knew they would not be able to seek a third term? Were they just milking the system for some extra taxpayer dollars?

      • jdubhub68

        Bad logic? Any president? Like FDR, who won FOUR times and was the reason the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was added, which limited terms for presidents after its ratification in 1951?

        What is your definition of “the average Dem.” and how does the likelihood that Rep. Bachmann would pass an arbitrary drug test compared to that “average Dem” have anything to do with applying the law equally to anyone collecting “welfare” from the government–as in the case with Michele Bachmann collecting farm subsidies?

        You jumped to many conclusions in your comment based on your own biases and it shows.

      • JerseyJoe

        Obviously, my comment only applies to those that know they could not seek a third term (it’s even what I said; the “any President” was conditioned upon those that knew they could not).

        I don’t think I jumped to “many” conclusions except perhaps that the average Dem would have a lower probability of passing a drug test. 🙂 I would base this on philosophy and greater acknowledged drug use in the past. Not for certain, but if I had to bet I might go 2 to 1 that I’m correct.

      • jdubhub68

        Your comparison is illogical because the 22nd Amendment only applies to the president and not Congress. Your comment also assumes that Rep. Bachmann is stepping down in 2014 for something as noble as not wanting to be perceived as a career politician which, if you had read the article, you would see that she barely won in a conservative “safe” district and her pending legal troubles would make a 2014 win unlikely; the voters and not Rep. Bachmann would determine her political future.

        Also, you did assume that Eldred Fuchs wanted her tested as a member of Congress and not as a recipient of “welfare” in form of farm subsidies and you have given zero actual evidence to support your assertion that the “average Dem” is less likely to pass a drug test. Your comment is called hyperbole.

      • JerseyJoe

        It is not illogical at all. If someone self-limits the number of terms they will serve as might a congressman, how is it different from a Prez that seeks another term when he is limited to just 2 by law? They both will presumably fulfill their terms and know that that is the end of their time in that office. Clifton posits that if you aren’t planning on running again you are just taking taxpayers money.

        It may well be that she knows she wouldn’t win, but she has spoken in the past for term limits, so I am not going to dismiss this philosophy as perhaps even the greatest reason for her not running in 2014.

        You are right about my assumption of Eldred’s meaning but not due to some bias, at least not a meaningful one.

      • TKnTexas

        In the private sector when someone with a high paying high profile job, especially with access to high security data, the day the given notice is the day they are thanked and asked to clean their desk, with assistance on carrying their stuff to the car. At the very least their accesses are limited. She should be off the Intelligence Committee.

      • JerseyJoe

        Not to be contrary, but that is not always the case. For instance, the director of the FBI doesn’t know if he will be around when a new President is elected (I know, not private sector), but also many CEOs are privy to info until the day they step down even if they have given a heads up months previous.

  • John Michael Hutton

    Just confirming what we already knew about that piece of slime.

  • I don’t understand how she got voted in to begin with.

  • Michael Anderson

    Michele Bachmann, is the political equivalent of “Baghdad Bob”. Who famously announced to the media that US troops were nowhere near Baghdad, or even on Iraqi soil. All the while, ON CAMERA, you see American tanks rolling onto the streets of Baghdad.

    Michele Bachmann, Baghdad Bob reincarnated.

  • Teaganary

    I count myself among the majority of Minnesotans who are embarrassed by her. We’re just happy she’s leaving.

  • John Stigall

    The people that like her are very defensive! Likely since their house-built-of-lies is imploding.

    • worrierking

      What do you mean defensive? They are not. No way. How dare you? They are not defensive. What about the other side? Why are the Teahdists always accused of being defensive? God told me I’m not being defensive.

      (Just thought I’d start the offensive bagger defensive offensive.)

      • Andy_Kreiss

        Just had some bagger last night telling me “OMG! You’re an angry lib!”, before explaining the term “projection” to me. He thought it meant accusing a person of what they’ve accused you of.

        I can also add “bully” to my business card., according to this delicate flower.

      • JudgeSamson

        Copy Cat, the idiot meant copy cat. The projectionists are a funny breed of dumb.

  • Karol Hammer

    Don’t get me wrong – I despise what Bachman stands for. I believe she’s a hypocrite of the highest order. However, I don’t understand why you’re so upset about paying her for the next 2 years. Doesn’t she already get a lifetime full salary and full benefits from us? That’s what makes me mad. House and Senate members, I believe, get full pay and full benefits for life after being elected only ONE time. THAT’s what we should be furious about.

    • theg8r

      As PO’d as I am that she will recieve ANY benefits for her “service,” she and other members of congress don’t get full pension and benefits for a single term in office. They recieve benefits based on a lenth of service scale much like any other job. That’s a very common misconseption perpetrated mostly by, you guessed it, right-wingnuts like Bachman.

      • LateNightLarry

        She probably believes that she WILL get her full salary and benefits for the rest of her life… After all, she has to make sure her in-the-closet husband has health insurance… Time to put Congress on Medicare, and see how fast it becomes a gold-plated health care plan…

    • Gillian Weeks

      That’s more ridiculous misinformation being spread by ignorant right wing fools on social networking sites. The only way to get a pension in any federal gov’t job is to put in years and years of service, and retire, just like a mailman, or member of the military, etc.

  • Voluntaryist

    So you are saying she is like a female BHO?

    • No, he’s not quitting.

      Oh, did you mean he’s a liar? Well, then, do the work we’ve done answering *her* lies… explain where *he* is lying. A lot of us on the Left don’t do the marching in lockstep that the Right has done, “my country right or wrong, my politicians never lie.” If one of our own acts the fool, we usually point that out. If you paid attention, you’d know that. Plenty of ire over here about his drone attacks, for example.

      • Bill Whitehorn

        and typically you want to change to conversation with liberal talking points that ONLY make sense in YOUR conservative mind ..rather than keep with the conversation that is already going

    • johnmburt1960

      She’s more like the Bizarro Barack Hussein Obama: after all, *he* pisses people off by speaking *truth*, displaying his *education* and by *demonstrating* his Christian religion….

      • Andy_Kreiss

        That’s sort of like the Bizarro version of “troll” at Breitbart and other righty sites. Somebody who asks logical questions and gets their facts right, the complete opposite of what a troll is here.

  • J-Way

    Every single outgoing politician in US, even liberal ones, do the same thing: collect a taxpayer funded paycheck while looking for their next job. Regrettably, she is not quitting. She will continue to get paid because she will continue to “work” until January, 2015.

    This article has no purpose other than to throw out a catchy headline and inflame people who aren’t capable of critical thinking.

    • Pat n

      Then why are you here?

    • realitychekker

      Though your are correct that all these so called public servants get the golden parachute,you need to read the article again a little more slowly. Apparently your typing fingers are working faster than your brain. Her situation is somewhat unique in that she has legal problems and the fact that her own party is giving her the boot.

      • J-Way

        I posted a reply to Pat n earlier, but either it was censored out of existence or else I made a mistake and never actually posted it. As nothing in it warranted censorship, I’m going to assume I made a mistake in posting. But enough of that topic, I don’t feel like retyping it.

        Back to reality… I took your sage advice and re-read the article. Slowly. And still, nothing in it contradicts what I said.

        She was elected by a majority of voters to serve as Representative. I.e., she was chosen to do a job. As long as she continues to do that job, why shouldn’t she get paid for it? Her statement that she’s not planning on running again next year has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she does her job for the next 18 months, nor with whether she gets paid to do that job. Lots of people announce that they are going to retire or quit in “n” years, and yet they still get paid as long as they keep working.

        Her legal troubles and the ethics investigation say nothing good about the thinking ability of the voters in her district, but again, as long as the majority voted for her, it’s her job.

        Also, the fact that lots of people think she’s bat-shit crazy (I’m one of them) has nothing to do with the fact that the majority in her district voted for her, nor does the fact that you may think she’s wasting taxpayer money by merely existing (I’m not going to argue against that one).

        As for “golden parachute”, where did that come from? I never said anything about retirement.

  • Joe

    You know what Thanks to new regulations with health care a lot of us are being cut in hours and there will be very little to help us. You know what get over yourself Michele Bachmann.

  • Sha-Juana Julian

    this idiot’s best line was ” there’s no proof that carbon monoxide is hazardous to human health” her and Sarah Palin are as ignorant as they come.

  • JerseyJoe

    By your logic, only a career politician should be in politics. Why did Obama or any President seek a second term when they knew they would not be able to seek a third term? Nice epiphany.

    • jdubhub68

      What logic do you call your comments? Certainly not linear. Did you not read the article? She barely squeaked by in a gerrymandered “safe” conservative district (what was not mentioned was by how much she outspent her opponent, too) and the investigation into her presidential campaign was close enough that it would have made reelection unlikely.

      In other words, you cannot logically apply term limits to her career in Congress because she did not decide not to run in 2014 for something as noble as not wanting to be perceived as a career politician. Her run for the presidency and using campaign funds to buy the Iowa Straw Poll win to bolster her campaign should tell you that she wanted to continue in Washington politics.

      • JerseyJoe

        You may in fact be right, but this is simply ad hominem circumstantial comments and is certainly not proof. She has in the past as have many conservatives spoken about term limits. I just wish they would all actually act on that. She may find this a convenient time to act on it, but I don’t believe the case against her will come to anything.

        Also, if a candidate after serving in Congress leaves due to term limits, I have no problem with their running for Prez. I don’t wish to see it in Bachmann’s case, but I think it is within the goals of “term limits”.

  • Cary

    This article made no sense to me. Isn’t she working? It isn’t like she is getting paid to sit around and do nothing. In my job if I would tell my boss I am leaving at the end of the year, but keep working up until that time, then I should get paid for working until I actually leave. She is doing the same thing. Whether you agree with her or not, and obviously the majority of the people she represents do agree with her, then you have to pay her as long as she works at her job.

    This article headline had nothing to do with what is going on. Stupid article. It seems it was written just to get ignorant people to get upset about it. I don’t agree with her but if I work I expect to get paid, and she should too.

  • dalaurya

    Now that’s what I call entitlement!

  • meatwad_SSuppet

    It should be a crime for a politician that has an elected position to run for any other office while in that current position. If they want a different elected job, resign from the one you now have. I know this has little to do with the above MB news.