Michele Bachmann - The Stimulus
Summary
Congresswoman Bachmann strongly and vocally opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as the Stimulus. She opposed not only the content and size of the stimulus package, but also referred to the manner in which it was passed through Congress as perverse.
In a late January floor speech on the stimulus, Congresswoman Bachmann lamented the cost of the stimulus program, and the burden that it would place on the next generation. She called the package a bailout for big government. In place of the stimulus, she proposed the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act. This legislation had a permanent 5 percent across-the-board income tax cut, an increase in the child tax credit to $5,000, made the lower 15 percent capital gains and dividends rates permanent, repealed the AMT, increased by 50 percent the tax deduction on student loans, and permanently repealed required distributions on retirement accounts and made all withdrawals from IRAs tax- and penalty-free during 2009.
In a separate floor speech, Congresswoman Bachmann stated that Congress could not forget it's responsibility to the taxpayers simply because something was labeled a crisis or a response to a crisis. She was highly critical of the content of the package and specifically the low percentage of infrastructure and tax relief.
In a final floor speech on the matter before the conference report on the legislation was passed, Congresswoman Bachman noted her opposition to the perverse manner in which the legislation was passed through Congress.
Glenn Beck Appearance
In January of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann appeared on the Glenn Beck Program and spoke about the pending stimulus package. She urges people to call into their Representatives and urge them to vote against the Stimulus legislation.
Initial Opposition to the Stimulus Plan
On January 27, 2009 Congresswoman Bachmann spoke on the House floor about her opposition to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for the fine work that he is doing on these moments that we have together.
One guarantee that we do have from the stimulus bill that we can count on, that we can take to the bank, on which there will be no disagreement and no dissent is this: If we pass this $825 billion stimulus tomorrow, and it seems to be a certain thing because the majority has the votes, and if we add to that the debt service which would be over $300 billion added on top of that, bringing us to a total of over $1.1 trillion, the certainty, the guarantee that we will take to the bank, that we will need to look at the American people straight in the eye and be four square honest in telling them is this: You will encounter punishingly high tax increases at every level of the economic spectrum. It's a given. We have to.
Why can we say this with certainty? Because someone has to pay this bill. When you go out to eat, the check comes and someone has to pay for it. Maybe a nice person at the other table will pay for your check. But at the end of the day, someone is paying that check. And it's the American people that are paying for this party.
Make no mistake. This stimulus bill has very little to do with stimulating the economy and helping the average American . This is a bailout for big government. And let's get ready. We are looking at massive tax increases and we are looking at massive inflation or both. In fact, we could be looking at hyperinflation.
I don't want to be ``Debbie Downer'' bringing bad news to the American public, but it's a certainty. If you spend money at this level, and consider we are spending almost as much money on this stimulus bill as we will spend in our discretionary spending, take it to the bank. That is our future.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation under consideration today will saddle generations of taxpayers with hundreds of billions of dollars of debt and will, I fear, not lead this country to real economic recovery .
The Democrats' bill has a starting price of $825 billion--enough money to give every person living in poverty in the United States $22,000.
In fact, the total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire Federal Government.
To make matters worse, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the real cost of the legislation will be more than $1 trillion.
CBO reports that if Congress borrows more than $800 billion, it will burden future generations with an additional $347 billion in interest payments. That totals more than $1.1 trillion.
And , regrettably, that total includes frivolous spending on items such as $600 million for new cars for the Federal Government and $21 million for sod to fill in the mall after the inauguration.
We must not forget our responsibility to the taxpayer simply because we label something a crisis or even a response to a crisis.
The Democrats' have tried to sell this proposal as a transportation and infrastructure investment package. And , I'm all for investing in rebuilding our Nation's roads and bridges and believe that government spending on transportation infrastructure projects is absolutely important.
However, only $30 billion of the bill--or three percent--is for road and highway spending. And , CBO states that much of this spending will take several years to make any stimulative impact.
My constituents understand that we cannot spend our way to prosperity and that serious consequences lie ahead if Congress goes down this irresponsible borrow-and -spend path.
What the American people really need are long-term, permanent tax cuts which will impact families twice as fast as the Democrats' government spending in this bill. These tax cuts will spur job creation and help stabilize the economy over the long run.
I support much-needed, incentive-based relief for small businesses, the job-creators and the backbone of our economy, and I believe we must reduce the financial burden that the Federal Government imposes on middle-class families.
I'm a cosponsor of the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act , which is a real economic recovery plan that has NO welfare spending, NO pork-barrel spending, and NO bailouts.
This package would immediately inject private capital into our economy and at the same time, it would lay the groundwork for sustained economic growth.
It includes a permanent 5 percent across-the-board income tax cut. It increases, and makes permanent, the child tax credit to $5,000 and makes the lower 15 percent capital gains and dividends rates permanent.
It repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, on individuals--a punitive and outdated relic of a tax which will hit more than 30 million people in 2009.
It permanently repeals required distributions on retirement accounts and makes all withdrawals from IRAs tax- and penalty-free during 2009. And , it increases by 50 percent the tax deduction on student loans and on qualified higher education expenses.
These are just some of the key initiatives of this legislation.
We have seen the mistakes of tax-and -spend government policies in the past and know that they will not lead to long-term economic growth and recovery .
We must implement real, permanent tax relief for American families and stop this Washington spending spree that will burden many generations to come.
Response to Stimulus Vote
In January of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann released a statement noting her reaction to the vote to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Bachmann Calls for Real Stimulus that Creates Jobs and Supports Small Businesses; Opposes Democrats' Trillion-Dollar-Plus Spending Spree
Washington, D.C., Jan 28, 2009 -
(Washington, DC) Today, U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-6), cosponsor of the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act, voted against the Democrats’ so-called "stimulus" legislation, the $825-billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. She released the following statement regarding the vote:
“The Democrats’ bill has a starting price of $825 billion – enough money to give every person living in poverty in the United States $22,000. In fact, the total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.“To make matters worse, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the real cost of the legislation will be more than $1 trillion. The CBO reports that if Congress borrows more than $800 billion, it will burden future generations with an additional $347 billion in interest payments. That brings the total to more than a whopping $1.1 trillion.
“We must not forget our responsibility to the taxpayer simply because we label something a crisis or even a response to a crisis. The Democrats’ have tried to sell this proposal as a transportation and infrastructure investment package. And, I’m all for investing in rebuilding our nation’s roads and bridges and believe that government spending on transportation infrastructure projects is absolutely important. However, only $30 billion of the bill – or three percent – is for road and highway spending. And, CBO states that much of this spending will take several years to make any stimulative impact.
“My constituents understand that we cannot spend our way to prosperity and that serious consequences lie ahead if Congress goes down this irresponsible borrow-and-spend path. What the American people really need are long- term, permanent tax cuts which will impact families twice as fast as the Democrats’ government spending in this bill. These tax cuts will spur job creation and help stabilize the economy over the long run.
“I support much-needed, incentive-based relief for small businesses, the job-creators and the backbone of our economy, and I believe we must reduce the financial burden that the federal government imposes on middle-class families. I’m a cosponsor of the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act, which is a real economic recovery plan that has NO welfare spending, NO pork-barrel spending, and NO bailouts. This package would immediately inject private capital into our economy and at the same time, it would lay the groundwork for sustained economic growth.“Unfortunately, our nation has seen the mistakes of tax-and-spend government policies in the past and knows that they will not lead to long-term economic growth and recovery. It is imperative that Congress implements real, permanent tax relief for American families and stop this Washington spending spree that will burden many generations to come.”
Bachmann also supported the Republican alternative to the Democrats’ bill. This true stimulus bill includes such provisions as allowing small businesses to exclude 20% of their income taxes in order to grow their businesses and create jobs. Currently, small businesses pay 30% federal tax on $100 of their income.
Press Statement - Opposition to the Stimulus
In February of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann released a statement noting her opposition to the stimulus legislation.
Bachmann Opposes So-Called "Stimulus" Package
Washington, D.C., Feb 13, 2009 -
(Washington, DC) Prior to the U.S. House of Representatives vote on H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, U.S. Representative Michel Bachmann issued the following the statement:
"The level of disrespect we show the taxpayers today by asking Members to vote on a 1073-page bill with only 16-hours overnight to read and digest it is far exceeded by the level of disrespect we show the taxpayer by the substance of this package. As the Los Angeles Times stated in an editorial today, this bill 'serves as a case study for the time-worn notion that haste makes waste.'
"The bill is supposed to have a single purpose: to stimulate the economy. Congress’ one and only criterion for any project or program should have been its ability to help grow the economy and help create jobs. But, whether by design or as a byproduct of the political wrangling to get the bill to the floor, this bill is more about political priorities than economic ones.
"Targeted investment in transportation and infrastructure construction is proven to grow the economy and create jobs. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in federal highway investment, combined with required state matching funds, supports 34,779 American jobs. That’s why Republicans had moved to reprioritize spending in the House bill and triple investments in transportation construction – a motion the majority flatly rejected.
"Yet, this bill spends a scant 5.9% on transportation infrastructure – only just over half of that on actual highway construction. There’s more than twice as much for 33 brand new federal programs ($95 billion) and nearly twice as much in expansions of 73 programs that are typically part of the regular appropriations process ($92 billion) than for total infrastructure spending ($47 billion).
"Tax relief is similarly stimulative. The Republican alternative that was rejected by the majority would have created twice the jobs at half the cost. It would have done so by putting money back into the pockets of those who would use it to create jobs and to keep money cycling through the economy.
"But, 27% of what the majority calls "tax relief" in this bill – and what the majority calls tax relief represents less than one-third of the total package – is actually federal spending disguised as tax relief. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that with their centerpiece tax provision an additional 5 million households would be added to the already 15 million that receive more money back from the IRS than they pay each year in income and payroll taxes combined.
"Accenting the misaligned priorities in this bill, only 0.28% of the total package -- $2.2 billion – goes toward tax relief for small businesses. There’s almost as much money for tax credits for purchasing plug-in electric cars, which aren’t even on the market today. Again, our one and only criterion for determining inclusion in this bill should have been 'economic stimulus/'
"With this bill today, Congress isn’t helping America to dig itself out of the recessionary hole, we’re merely digging it deeper. I cannot support this new direction for the American economy. I stand today on the side of the American taxpayer and will vote to oppose this bill."
Reaction to Conference Report
When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed the Senate and came back the House in a conference report on February 11, 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann gave a speech on the House floor denoting her opposition to the legislation. She is interrupted briefly by a fellow Congressman.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey). He has done a marvelous job laying the groundwork and pouring the pillars of this important discussion. This is historic, as we all know. Our colleagues understand how historic this level of spending is. Never before in the history of this country have we seen the type of profligate spending that has occurred just since January of this year. Just yesterday, as a matter of fact, we had a $3 trillion day here on Capitol Hill. That is big money. You have heard of fantasy football before. Well, this is fantasy economics that is happening here in Washington, D.C.
My colleague will recall it wasn't that long ago that we were fighting on expanding the SCHIP program by $35 billion before we first take care of the children who needed to be on the SCHIP program. We didn't want to expand eligibility until we first took care of the poor children that needed to have that SCHIP funding. So to just get things in perspective for the American people, we've moved from fighting tooth and nail over spending $35 billion to today we're talking, as my colleague mentioned, what appears to be $798 billion. But again, that is the raw number. It is just like when you buy a house or if you buy a car on credit and you're making your mortgage payment, you know you pay an awful lot more back to the bank because you have to make all those interest payments. This bill will be well over $1 trillion, including the debt service. So we're not talking about a small amount of money.
And just also to put this in perspective and in context, normally this Congress spends about $1 trillion a year in Federal discretionary spending. And we will take what, perhaps 1,000, 1,200 votes in the course of a year until we finally spend about $1 trillion in spending. Well, consider, it wasn't even the end of January and this body spent, in one vote, what this body normally spends in over 1,000 votes over the course of 12 months to spend in discretionary spending.
And remember, this body has hasn't even taken up yet the normal appropriations bills that we have to take up for parks, public safety and education. We haven't even gone there yet with regular budgetary spending that is the duty of this House of Representatives to spend. We've already over and above spent now another $1 trillion on the spending package. We're very concerned about the level of profligate spending.
I wanted to mention a study that was completed by Harvard in the year 2002. It was a long-term study. It looked at 18 different economies across the globe. And it asked this very simple question. What is it that governments can do to stimulate or cause economies to prosper, and concomitantly, what do governments do to cause economies to go in a downward spiral? Well, here is the bottom line. Here is what the nutshell of what this long-term study discovered. It was this: If you want an economy, any kind of economy, to prosper and advance, governments need to do two things. You need to cut government wages, number one, and number two, you need to cut transfer payments, which is redistribution of wealth.
This stimulus package, which is a big government bailout package, does just the opposite. It increases funding eventually of government wages and also of transfer payments. The reverse then also is true in this Harvard study. It said what can governments do to hurt their economies? And it is very simple: Tax increases. That is what hasn't been talked about in this discussion. The only subject of discussion in Washington, D.C. has been, how big can this bill be? How much can we spend?
I'm a former Federal tax litigation attorney. That is what I did for a living, deal with taxes. This bill doesn't answer the question, how are we going to pay for this bill? I don't think the American people realize that yet. Congress has been so free with the American people's money to spend it in every direction they possibly can, but they haven't even addressed the question yet of how they are going to pay for this trillion dollars. And my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is exactly right when he said that we have over $10 trillion of debt, $10 trillion in debt. And now we're going to add to that another 10 percent, and we haven't answered the question, how are we going to pay for it? Well, it is real simple. This is not too tough to figure out. There are only two ways to pay for that kind of spending. You either borrow it from other countries, or you increase the tax load on your citizens, or the Federal Government prints money and puts that money out into the money supply.
Well, what does that mean? Massive tax increases. We already know it's going to hurt the individual. It will hurt the economy. What about borrowing? Borrowing is the same thing. We have to pay that money back. We pay it back to other countries. Well, guess what? Other countries right now are suffering globally with their economies as well.
What about printing money, putting that into the money supply? We could do that, but that's the cruelest tax of all because that's the tax of inflation. So hardworking, prudent Americans who've done all the right things, who've invested well, will see the value of their dollar drop dramatically because their money isn't worth what it once was.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gen tle lady will yield just for a second. Reclaiming my time. I'm so glad that Representative Bachmann brought that out about inflationary spiral; and that's absolutely true. You print this money and this debt has to be paid back. First thing you know, the value of our money goes down, and then we've created all these jobs that maybe pay $25,000 a year, and first thing you know, people wake up and realize that their money is only worth $15,000 a year. So that is a huge, huge problem.
And I wanted to make one other point before yielding back to my colleague. As we look at what she was talking about, this national debt, we are approaching a, what, $15 trillion national debt, which is the Gross Domestic Product. The sum of all goods and services in this country is about $15 trillion. And after we add on this death we're going to be at $12.5 trillion. So anybody that has just a scintilla of knowledge of economics knows that this is unsustainable.
And I yield back to my colleague.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia to bring that point up, because what he is stating for the American people is that this Congress is making a decision, together with the Obama administration, we are adding to uncertainty in the marketplace, and that's really the issue, will this Congress address the issue of certainty versus uncertainty in the economy.
I have the largest window manufacturer in the United States in my district. I met with the president of that company several years ago and he said to me, Michele, what we need more than anything is certainty in the marketplace.
If you go back to January of 2008, when this Congress made a decision to spend $168 billion in rebate payments that went back into the economy, that decision only led to uncertainty for the American people, uncertainty for American business.
We could go through all of the spending initiatives that Congress took through all of 2008 and now into 2009. But I think yesterday said it all, when our United States Treasury Secretary, Mr. Tim Geithner, made his press conference that was well anticipated, what will the Obama administration do about the TARP monies that are available? We saw Wall Street's response, and it was to tank. Why? Because the Obama administration said what they want to do is have bigger and more powerful government. That's what they wanted, bottom line, bigger more powerful government. That did not calm the markets. That only led to uncertainty in the marketplace. It didn't lead to certainty. That's what we need. What would lead to certainty? And what would lead to certainty into the marketplace would be permanent tax reductions. If businesses and individuals who were interested in risk-taking with their investments knew that we would permanently cut the capital gains tax, permanently lower the business tax, the corporate tax rate, permanently lower marginal tax rates, do something about the estate tax problem that's going to spring open in 2010, and also, if they knew that we were going to radically reform the Sarbanes-Oxley rules, that would send a signal.
Instead, what does the stimulus do? It tells the American people, well, we're also going to embrace socialized medicine. What? Embrace socialized medicine? This is not what the American people bargained for. This is not what they asked for.
We also know that the current administration wants to impose the largest energy tax we've ever seen in the history of our country, also known as the cap-and -trade system. This leads to massive uncertainty.If we would have taken $1 trillion last year that we spent on spending and put $1 trillion into permanent tax relief, I think the gentleman from Georgia would agree, this year, our biggest problem would be finding enough workers to fill the jobs that would have been created from permanent tax relief. That's an alternative that the Republican positive solution has put on the table for American business and American individuals. We've got a plan. We've got a big plan. And that's the genius of America. We trust the American people to take their ingenuity to pour it into the marketplace, because we understand that's true wealth creation.
Governments can't create wealth. They never have, they never will. It's the American people and American businesses that create wealth. How? By productivity. How do you get productivity? You produce goods, you produce services. How do you do that? You put capital at work. Why do you do that? You know that you're going to have a return on your investment.
Today, the American business world sees there will be very little return on investment. But the Republican plan offers all sorts of return on investment. And that's why, to the gentleman from Georgia I know this is a marvelous way to go, and I'll be happy to add to your colloquy as we go.
I'll yield back.
Reaction to Availability of Stimulus Bill
On February 13, of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann spoke on the House floor about the recent publication of the conference report version of the stimulus bill. She referred to the legislation as having a high level of disrespect for the citizens of the US, and the process used to pass the bill through the Congress as perverted.
Mr. Speaker, at about 10:00 p.m. last nite, the text of the $792-billion so-called ``stimulus'' package was finally made available to Republicans. At 11:00 p.m., this 1073-page package was finally posted online for the public to see it. And , votes are expected by 2:00 p.m. today.
Are Republican legislators really supposed to digest and comprehend the single most transformational piece of legislation that has come through Congress in 16 hours? We do a great disservice to the American people today by rushing this package through.
But, the level of disrespect we show the taxpayers today by this perversion of process is far exceeded by the level of disrespect we show the taxpayer by the substance of this package. As the Los Angeles Times stated in an editorial today, this bill ``serves as a case study for the timeworn notion that haste makes waste.''
Whether by design (The Washington Post did report that ``House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ..... called the legislation `historic and transformational' for its investments in Democratic social priorities.'') or as a byproduct of the political wrangling to get the bill to the floor, this bill is chock-full of the pet projects and political priorities that lobbyists and lawmakers insisted upon.
But, the bill is supposed to have a single purpose: to stimulate the economy. Congress' one and only criterion for any project or program should have been its ability to help grow the economy and help create jobs. Again, the Los Angeles Times noted that scattered throughout the bill ``are proposals that advance a political agenda more than an economic one.''
Targeted investment in transportation construction is proven to grow the economy and create jobs. The U.S. Department of Transportation reported last year that every $1 billion in federal highway investment, when combined with the required state matching funds, supports 34,779 American jobs. Of that, only about 12,000 are actual construction jobs. The rest are in supplier industries or related economic sectors. That's why Republicans in the House had moved to reprioritize spending in the House bill and triple investments in transportation construction--a motion the majority flatly rejected.
There is a substantial and tangible ripple effect to these investments. Yet, it gets lip service in this bill: $27.5 billion of the $792 billion bill (a mere 3.4% of the total bill) is invested in this proven stimulator.
Tax relief is similarly stimulative. The Republican alternative that was rejected by the majority would have created twice the jobs at half the cost. It would have done so by putting money back into the pockets of those who would use it to create jobs and to keep money cycling through the economy.
Amongst other things, this alternative, which I did support would have:
Reduced the lowest individual tax rates from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. In Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District, 272,306 filers would benefit from the reduction in the 10% bracket alone and 228,926 filers would also benefit from the other rate reduction.
Allowed small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income. Nearly half a million Minnesota small businesses--each employing 500 or fewer employees--would benefit from this.
And , provided a home-buyers credit of $7500 for those who can make a minimum down-payment of 5%.
What's more, Mr. Speaker, this package sets upon the shoulders of generations of Americans a debt that I don't think we can even comprehend. With this so-called stimulus, we raise the government's commitment to addressing this economic downturn over the past year to $9.7 trillion. From the first set of rebate checks passed last February to the bill before us now, $9.7 trillion has been spent or pledged to addressing this recession.
And , all reports indicate that there is more to come. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner talked about another $2 trillion for financial service sector bailouts just this week. President Obama's economic advisor, Larry Summers, has talked about additional stimulus and financial service bailouts that will be needed in the months to come. President Obama noted that this is just a leg in a stool when he came before the Republican Conference only a couple of weeks ago.
That's just for what's actually in the bill. A long history of expanding federal budgets has made it clear to the American people that no increase in spending is ever temporary. As the Los Angeles Times noted the $191 billion in increased benefit spending in this package ``expand programs that may be hard to trim after the crisis passes. ..... What's worse, there are no accountability measures attached to those funds. .....''
An analysis by staff at the House Budget Committee looked at what happens if Congress continues to fund just 19 of the most politically popular programs at their new stimulus levels--programs like Pell Grants, Head Start, food stamps. Over the ten-year period ending in 2019, ``these 19 programs alone would increase federal outlays and tax entitlements by $1.59 trillion.'' (Wall Street Journal, February 12, 2009)
Even before we add in the financial service sector bailout and this ``stimulus'' bill, the American people were looking at the largest budget deficit in modern history for 2009--8.3% of the economy. According to an analysis by the Strategas Group, if you add in this bill and the bailout, ``the deficit could hit nearly $2 trillion, or 13.5% of the U.S. economy.'' The Wall Street Journal rightly calls this ``uncharted territory'' and reminds us that the consequences could mean ``new federal debt in the trillions of dollars over the next few years, which could test the limits America's credit-worthiness,'' and could mean that ``the U.S. will become less desirable as a destination for the world's capital.''
With this bill today, Congress isn't helping America to dig itself out of the recessionary hole, we're merely digging it deeper. I cannot support this new direction for the American economy, Mr. Speaker. I stand today on the side of the American taxpayer and will vote to oppose this bill.
The Stimulus is Not Creating Jobs
In January of 2010, Congresswoman Bachmann wrote an op-ed discussing the effects of the stimulus and her belief that the stimulus simply did not create jobs.
"Stimulus" is Not Creating Jobs
1/12/2010 | Email Michele Bachmann | All Posts By BloggerIf the 2.7 millions jobs that have been lost since the so-called stimulus was signed into the law did not convince you that government spending does not correlate into economic growth, take a look at this story from the Associated Press: Stimulus Cash Doesn't Create Local Jobs:
“A federal spending surge of more than $20 billion for roads and bridges in President Obama's first stimulus has had NO EFFECT on local unemployment rates, raising questions about his argument for billions more to address an ‘urgent need to accelerate job growth.’ An Associated Press analysis of stimulus spending found that it didn't matter if a lot of money was spent on highways or none at all: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless. And the stimulus spending only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, the analysis showed.”
Yet, President Obama wants to pass a second stimulus calling for billions of dollars of more spending. When will the President and Democrat leadership learn that spending money we don’t have isn’t always the remedy to fix whatever problem confronts us? When will they get the hint? Republicans have put forth a better way to give our families the relief they need that will turn our economy around.
The Stimulus a Year Later
In February of 2010, Congresswoman Bachmann released a press statement noting her opposition to the stimulus a year later. She cites recently publicized unemployment rates and state that those rates indicate that the stimulus measure is not succeeding in it's intended goal of stabilizing the economy.
Bachmann: "Was the 'Stimulus' Really Worth a Trillion Dollars?"
Washington, D.C., Feb 17, 2010 - U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) issued the following statement today on the one-year anniversary of the signing of the economic “stimulus” bill:
“One year since the so-called economic “stimulus” was signed into law, is our economy really turning around? It’s certainly not looking like it. In fact, unemployment has risen from 7.6 percent at the time of the bill's signing to nearly 10 percent nationwide, and it cost us $862 billion (more than $1 trillion with interest) we don’t have.
“It’s time for both parties to come together to develop a new approach to get this economy moving again. We need to get our fiscal house in order by stopping frivolous spending. Let’s abandon these big government and big dollar cap-and-trade and health care reform proposals, and enact permanent and immediate tax relief for families, farms, and small businesses. That's the best way to turn our economy around."
Voting Record
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Also known as the stimulus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed the House along mostly party lines 244-188 in January of 2009. Michele Bachmann voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Michele Bachmann voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation
This representative has not been identified as sponsoring or cosponsoring significant legislation related to this title.