Michele Bachmann Gets Caught In Too Many Lies To Count

The latest lie that Ol' Crazy Eyes has spouted is a sneaky one:

"Well, I think the one thing we have to do is reject the new normal level of spending under the Obama administration, because President Obama amped up spending to never-seen-before levels. . . . I mean, one example I'll give you is, we had one employee at the federal Department of Transportation that made $170,000 a year at the beginning of the recession. We had the trillion-dollar stimulus, and 18 months into the recession, we had 1,690 employees making over $170,000. Government has really been growing at — a lot of largesse, but the people in the real world aren’t. And that’s what has to change. Government has no conformity at all with the real world."

She is technically correct that spending took a turn for the worse when the recession began, and that the President approved crazy raises for government employees without heeding the signs that it wasn't economically feasible.  What makes this a lie, however, is her assertion that the President in question was Obama.  The Washington Post points out that it was, in fact, 2007 when the recession began, under George W. Bush.

In other words, Bachmann gives the impression that she is talking about something that Obama did, but in fact, the big increase in government pay that she denounces started under Obama’s Republican predecessor, George W. Bush. 

In fact, the apparent source of Bachmann’s claim, a 2009 article in USA Today, made it clear that Bush recommended across-the-board raises that, after they got through Congress, resulted in boosts of 3 percent in January 2008 and 3.9 percent in January 2009. By contrast, Obama in 2010 recommended the smallest federal pay raise since 1975 — 2 percent — and then froze salaries in 2011.

One of the major memes of the rat-race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination is pinning the economic crisis on the current administration.  Immediately following Standard and Poor's downgrade of America's credit rating from AAA to AA+, all the candidates for the GOP nomination immediately laid the slightly-worse rating squarely at the feet of the President, with one cleverly calling for "downgrading Barack Obama from president of the United States."  Oh Pawlenty!  We'll miss you.

“It happened on your watch, Mr. President,” Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota representative and Tea Party caucus leader, said, drawing applause at an afternoon rally here. “You were AWOL. You were missing in action.” 

She criticized the president for spending the day at Camp David. 

“I’m calling on the president of the United States to come back to the White House,” Mrs. Bachmann said, “address the American people before the markets open on Monday and give us his positive plan for putting the ratings back up to the AAA rating.”

Let me get this straight:  S&P downgraded the US because the President was at Camp David that day?  Hmmm.  She continued to state that S&P proved her right and that we shouldn't have raised the debt ceiling at the Ames, Iowa, GOP debate:

We just heard from Standard & Poor’s, when they dropped our credit rating and what they said is we don’t have an ability to repay our debt. That’s what the final word was from them. I was proved right in my position. We should not have raised the debt ceiling.

Of course, just about everyone knows now that that S&P actually downgraded our credit rating due to politicians holding our economy hostage and refusing to find new sources of revenue-- ahem, taxes on the mega-rich-- to bolster our deepening deficit.

Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said. 

“That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added. “This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.” 

The statement seems likely to bolster one Democratic line of attack, that it was tea party intransigence — not a shortcoming of leadership by President Barack Obama — that is to blame for the U.S. downgrade, from AAA to AA+. Obama himself called on Republicans to “put country ahead of party” Thursday — a dig at conservatives in Congress who are blocking his agenda.

So on just about every count related to the economy, Michele Bachmann has lied, attempting to pin a crisis on Obama when it appears to have been a problem rooted in the intractability of GOP politicians unwilling to solve this crisis in the easiest possible manner: asking those with tons of money to pay their fair share.

Of course, as we all know, this woman is freaking crazy and will lie about just about anything, to include her attendance at her own family reunion.  So who is surprised?

Politics Are Fueled By Greed? What?! *sarcasm*

As if we needed any more proof that the political crusades to protect big business are founded in corporate greed, ThinkProgress reports that Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) is fighting efforts to protect public health interests by further regulating the coal industry... all while making millions privately from coal.

"On his financial disclosures for 2009 and 2010, Manchin reported significant earnings from Enersystems Inc., a coal brokerage that he helped run before his political star rose. In the 19 months before winning his Senate seat in a hard-fought special election, Manchin reportedoperating income of $1,363,916 from Enersystems. His next disclosure showed $417,255 in Enersystems income."

I don't really need to say anything about this.  It's entirely obvious that voting in a candidate with strong private interest in damaging industries is a bad, bad idea.  

I know!  Let's pass a bill: the only people who can run for national political office must, by law, have a less than $100k/year income.*

*this post brought to you by the Ian Awesome for US Senate Campaign.

Bachmann Trashes Whoopi, Begs For Money

Ok, I get the whole "political campaigns have to run on donor money" thing but this most recent solicitation for donations from Michele Bachmann screams "greedy and/or desperate."

Whoopi Goldberg recently derided Bachmann's decision to sign the Family Leader's marriage pledge while on The View, and the looneytoons presidential candidate used the opportunity to claim victimization at the hands of "Hollywood liberals," all in order to raise some cash for her campaign.  Alvin from Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters posted the text of her letter to potential donors:

"Concerned Fellow Conservative,

"Looks like the Democrats have sounded their alarms in Hollywood.

"The Hollywood elite have been on the attack this week, falsely berating our campaign for President and our supporters.

"On Tuesday, while on The View, Whoopi Goldberg spewed senseless accusations aimed at our campaign. Her comments were not only incorrect, but wrongly attacked my stance on single parents. As the daughter of a single parent, I learned firsthand the difficulties of growing up with one parent. However, it was from my strong and independent mother I learned when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

"In order to show Whoopi, we won’t stand for her attacks, I have set a goal to raise $40,000 in the next 24 hours. Please follow this link right away to chip in $25, $50 or even $100 to help me reach my goal of $40,000 by tomorrow.

"I am proud of my record and I refuse to allow liberals like Whoopi Goldberg to bully our campaign. This is yet another example of how the liberal Democrat establishment has put a target on my campaign for defeat. They'll say and do anything. The comments from Whoopi Goldberg have hit a new low and I must have the resources to defend myself and fight back.

"Liberals across the country believe if they defeat our campaign, the Tea Party movement will be eliminated. I need your support to defend myself and our shared constitutional values right away.

"I won't back down and today, I need to know you stand with me. To accomplish my goal of $40,000 in 24 hours, I'm relying on friends and supporters like you to step up to the plate to help me today. Please follow this secure link to make your donation of $25, $35, $50 or more.

"I'm reaching out to you for help because the liberal media credits me with being an undaunted conservative who routinely leads the opposition to President Obama. That's why the radical supporters of President Obama's agenda are so committed to defeating me.

"The Hollywood liberals believe if they attack my campaign, they have a shot at defeating me and dismantling the Tea Party movement. Your immediate donation will send a strong message to Hollywood, that we are not going anywhere. That's why any amount you can donate to my campaign today - up to the $2,500 legal limit - is appreciated.

"I look forward to your immediate response and I thank you once more for your friendship and support.

"Sincerely,

"Michele Bachmann

"P.S. As the big name liberals continue to come out of the woodwork to attack our campaign, I need your support. I ask that you make a generous donation of any amount you can afford to help me fight back against the millions of dollars liberals are flooding into Obama’s bank account. Can I count on your donation of $25, $50, $100 or even $250 today? Your support - no matter the size - makes a big difference. Please follow this link to make a donation today. Thank you."

Let's play the Michele Bachmann Talking Points Drinking Game.  It's simple!  Take a drink every time she says the following words:

1.  Liberal

2.  Constitution

3.  Any dollar amount

Take two drinks when:

1.  Crazy eyes paints herself as a victim of the liberal elite.

2.  She sounds desperate.  I can't help but think she sounds like a panhandler begging for spare change to buy cheap hooch at the corner store.

The score this time: 36 drinks.  Damn.  This campaign is gonna be hard on my liver.

India's HIV Drugs Negotiations: Millions Will Die If New Restrictions Are Added

With prices of anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) in the US skyrocketing without any end in sight, one of the most important tools to fighting HIV/AIDS globally is the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Due to less regulation and a canny understanding of the "free market," their crucial HIV drugs are sold at substantially lower costs than here in the US. This allows impoverished nations in third-world regions the ability to treat this deadly disease, and that in and of itself is a boon. So why would we tamper with the system?

You and I wouldn't, but the European Union's current trade negotiations with India might.

The new, ineptly named "free trade agreement" might include incredibly damaging restrictions, including patent protections and border enforcement rules that will hamstring the ability of the Indian pharmaceutical industry to produce generic versions of the ARVs available in the US. Keep in mind that this is wildly important: while my Truvada I take daily is around $30 a pill here, it's available for just pennies in equatorial Africa.

Michel Sidibe, the executive director for the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS has lambasted the proposed restrictions as disastrous, stating in plain language that millions not only could, but will die if we restrict the ARV trade with India.

"'India should resist removing any flexibility because any trade agreement which could lead to India not being able to produce will be terrible for the rest of the world,' said Michel Sidibe, executive director for the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).

"'Millions of people will die if India cannot produce and Africa will be the most affected. For me, it is an issue of life or death,' he told Reuters in an interview, adding that about 86 percent of people on treatment were taking drugs made in India."

World leaders need to stop kowtowing to the demands of Big Pharm interests. These sorts of ridiculous policies reflect the actual concerns of pharmaceutical companies; instead of health and well-being for sick populations, the driving greed for profits is what fuels these entities.