"Farmer" Bachmann subsidies
 

BACHMANN’S FARM SUBSIDIES
Bachmann has claimed between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm since 2007, according to her congressional financial disclosure forms for 2007, 2009 and 2010. She still has not reported her 2008 income from the farm on her disclosure form from that year—an apparent violation of yet another law--congressional reporting requirements.

This is the same Bachmann family farm that has collected a total of $154,755 in federal farm subsidies since the partnership was formed in 2001, most of it in corn and dairy subsidies. Paul Bachmann collected a total of $259,332 in federal farm subsidies from 1995-2009. However, it’s not known whether Michele and Marcus were involved in the farm prior to the establishment of the family partnership in 2001.

While Farmer Bachmann has always been happy to collect federal farm subsidies on her family farm, Congresswoman Bachmann recently proposed replacing those subsidies with “farmer savings accounts.” It’s not known whether the Bachmanns, who live in a $1.27 million home on a Stillwater golf course, would open such an account.

I am happy that she and her family are living the American dream. Thanks for posting this uplifting post.

Now I understand why her husband commanded her to take up TAX LAW.

Kind of funny when you hear Bachmann talk about reducing Federal spending and weaning people off of "entitlements" that she and her husband BOTH get so much money in farm subsidies AND in Federal grants.

Sort of like "do as I say and not as I do" attitude for this Conservative. Give me all my subsidies and grants but give up your Medicare and Social Security. I wonder if Bachmann will give up her government health care and government pension when she leaves Congress.

Always seems to the same ones that bring God and Love of America into every conversation they have then turn into rabid animals when the poor need a hand out.

Villager II - You are right. Chances are we will see some postings on here that go something like "we worked for a living, let the unemployed people get jobs like flipping burgers or doing road work so they do not have to receive welfare."

Then there are the lame postings about "redistribution of wealth". Amazing how the uber-conservatives clan together when one of their shining stars like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck (both former disk jockies - and abusers of various substances) tosses out a phrase taken out of context.

I have made it through working for a living so great that I live in The Villages Florida. I have retired from two jobs and can't stand the sight of a 35 year old man sitting on the front porch drinking a 40 or the woman that shows up at the welfare office in her Cadillac with all 14 kids in the car, but yet, yes but yet, I can't turn a blind eye to the poor and hungry when I see a fat cat eating a 200 dollar appetizer at a three cocktail lunch. We need to separate the two categories by sever punishment for the slacker and extra help for the helpless.

You are right, of course. I think we need social welfare programs but they need monitoring so they are not abused. There is too much abuse in all the programs including veterans benefits (still being paid after a vet dies). Not all social welfare needs to be from the Federal or State government but religious or civic organizations can help out greatly.

But let's not get away from the original posting of Bachmann's hipocricay when it comes to government entitlements and her farm subsidies as well as her husband's Federal grants.

City dwelling land owners get paid millions not to farm their secondary estates:

"One of those New York City "farmers" is Mark Rockefeller, son of Nelson Rockefeller and heir to one of the most celebrated fortunes in American history.

Rockefeller, who lives in Manhattan, has received nearly $330,000 in taxpayer money over the past 10 years for his "farm" on the Snake River in Idaho. Rockefeller did not respond to an interview request made by ABC News.

Rockefeller's property in Idaho includes the upscale South Fork Lodge where visitors pay $500 a day just for fly fishing."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/city-dwelli...ry?id=13916915

Two I Can Think Of
 

I haven't given it a lot of study, but I'm only aware of two members of Congress who seem to have put their money where their mouth is. One is Congressman Rich Nugent who represents The Villages and most of Sumter County. I'll take him at his word when he told a recent town hall meeting in TV that he had declined some of the Congressional benefits when he was going through the "new employee" sign up process. I thought I heard him say that he declined to participate in the Congressional 401(k), would not save and take the matching funds from the government. I also thought he said that he already had health insurance and declined participation in the Congressional program, even though it was cheaper and better than what he had. He didn't beliecve that Congress should get benefits like that which were so much better than most of the people he represents.

Unfortunately, Rich is an incumbent and he won't be getting my vote in 2012, as much as I like the guy.

The other person who "goes his own way" in Congress is Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma. Even though he probably would win re-election easily, he has stated that he believes in two=term term limits and in that this is his second term in the Senate, he won't run again.

You may recall that Coburn pretty much goes his own way in the Senate, supporting or not supporting legislation with littler or no regaqrd to the direction he gets from his party leaders. If there really is a maverick in the Senate, it isn;t John McCain, it's Tom Coburn. Too bad there aren't more like him.

This whole site is interesting, about farm subsidies.

"In 2007, the USDA under former President Bush released previously unavailable records that allowed EWG’s database to uncover nearly 500,000 farm subsidy recipients whose identities had previously been shielded by byzantine mazes of co-ops and corporate shell games. The database revealed, for example, that Florida real estate developer Maurice Wilder, reportedly worth $500 million, was pulling in almost $1 million a year in farm subsidies for corn farms he owns in several states.

In 2010 and now 2011, however, the USDA has refused to release the data that provided this revelatory accounting of just who receives the billions paid out under the maze of federal farm programs."

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2011/06/onc...ent-than-bush/

Another Example
 

While it isn't a member of Congress, there was a big exposé in the Chicago newspapers a few years ago that the "farmer" who got the most federal subsidies and payments in Illinois the prior year was Scottie Pippen of the Chicago Bulls. Pippen wouldn't respond to the story, but it was determined that his agent got him into some agricultural partnerships wherein he could benefit from the subsidies in a big way.

Does it make you feel any better to know that your tax dollars are going to help some poor family farmers who couldn't make it without them? I think in Pippen's lassdt year with the Bulls be made something like $15 million.

Oh brother
 

Do you really want to go down this road? Both sides of the aisle do these things.

Jon Kerry avoided Massachusetts sales tax of $437,500 bucks by mooring his yacht in neighboring Rhode Island. He also saved $70,000 a year on excise tax. We should stop this posturing now because there are more tax cheats on the left then on the right.

http://bostonherald.com/track/inside...icleid=1269698

I still say that any elected offical, local, state or federal, either DINO or RINO, that is caught in a shady deal needs to be removed from office immediately with no benefits.

That would stop a lot of this nonsense.

Yes, Village Golfer, I do want to go down that road.

Michelle Bachmann, a candidate for president, touts her spiel of doing away with Federal spending and yet she is a big recepient of Federal money that she wants to keep.

Say what you want about other public figures (and I am sure you will) but you have to agree that Michelle Bachmann is a hypocrite (even though my spelling does not look right) but you know what I mean. Therefore, she is NOT a good choice for being a presidential candidate.

According to the news article on John Kerry, he bought the yacht in Rhode Island and keeps it in Rhode Island. No reason he should pay sales tax in Massachusetts. Must be a heck of a yacht to have sales tax like that! Heinz had to sell a lot of mustard to pay for that yacht.

This post is OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!

:BigApplause::BigApplause:

Once again you go down the tit for tat road. So if you think this is wrong then ego the other is wrong.

How in the heck did i get to the Paul Krugman Talk Show, I thought I dialed TOTV?

The people in Massachusetts think it is a very big deal. For goodness sakes, he is the Senator from Massachusetts. You do not understand this?

they must not think its that big a deal,he keeps getting elected. But lets get to the major point.....Bachman,is she a hypocrite fpr taking federal subsidies and then saying people are too dependnt on government......absolutely....you can deflect to Kerry all you want but Bachman is a hoax and a submissive one at that.

why farm subsidies?
 

i am not clear on why we even give farm subsidies? are we paying farmers to NOT grow certain crops in order to keep prices elevated? we should be feeding the world, not causing corn shortages by using up corn making ethanol...i am a conservative but i am certainly not in favor of farm subsidies nor subsidies of most kinds...if someone knows the reasoning behind them, please educate me further....and which party put them in place to begin with? this is a sincere question.

How'd She Vote?
 

Key question: How did Michelle Bachmann vote on the farm subsidy bills?

She wouldn't be alone, of course. But if she wants to campaign on capping and cutting federal spending to levels only affordable based on tax revenues, I think she'll have a hard time arguing that she comes from an agricultural state and therefore $20 billion of the taxpayers money spent on subsidies to farmers (or those that call themselves farmers) is justified. If there's any category of federal spending that isn't likely to survive a "cut, cap and balance" agenda, it would be the farm subsidy programs.

The U.S. gives farmers over $20 billion a year! Because of the success of their lobbyists, 46% of that amount goes to corn growers, mostly in Iowa. I wonder whether Michelle Bachmann or any other GOP candidate campaigned on the elimination of farm subsidies in the recent Iowa straw poll? There will be several debates among the GOP candidates in the next 30-45 days. That might make a good question for them all to answer.

Yes
 

Both sides of the aisle.
http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/07/28/s...arm-subsidies/

ChaChaCha - Your post was like a breath of fresh air. I know you are a Tea Party supporter and yet you do not approve of something that Michelle Bachmann is taking advantage of in reality while condemning other types of Federal spending.

As far as I could find, farm subsidies began in 1929 to help farmers in the Great Depression. I found some interesting material, too. The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold, farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.[16] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference).

Corn is the top crop for subsidy payments. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. Producers also benefit from a federal subsidy of 51 cents per gallon, additional state subsidies, and federal crop subsidies that can bring the total to 85 cents per gallon or more

Iowa is the leading state for subsidy payments and Texas is also right near the top.

thanks
 

thank you for the information...your statement that the programs were begun in 1929 in order to help poor farmers during the depression is a wonderful example of ronald reagan's famous quote about the closest thing to eternal life we have on earth is a government program! it is time for all these old, obsolete expenditures to be done away with...there are so many of them!!

ChaChaCha - I totally agree with you regarding it being time to get rid of farm subsidies. Did you also know that a sizable portion of the farm subsidies go to corporations who include farming in the corporation?

I doubt if Michelle Bachman or any of the other Republicans talked about eliminating farm subsidies while in Iowa and talking about getting rid of Federal spending.

So the point of this thread is that anyone who has, does, or might receive a federal subsidy should be viewed with skepticism as a candidate for public office ?

Before I being to make the list of those this will eliminate from public office, please allow me your definition of "public subsidy" AND add to your response what inference should be taken about a potential candidate who supports and creates susidies for votes ?

This is not about Bachman....she has responded to this crap on more than one occasion...and I do not support her for the nomination in anyway, just sick of the political name calling instead of addressing the facts.

Please respond so that when we investigate your accusations, we can make the list an even one...gee, our current President paid for college with scholarships from various "subsidies" available to him....does that preclude him from asking for cost cuts ?

PS....this was a lead story on CNN and MSNBC....no jobs in this country....no plans for jobs in this country....a federal budget that is exploding....still have Libya and a number of other international items on the desk and we lead with this story ! JUST WOW

Bucco,

First, I never did say anywhere in my post "public subsidy" so I do not need to define something I never made any reference to in the first place.

This IS about Bachmann. That is why I entitled the piece, "Farmer Bachmann".

It is not about scholarships, work grants, veteran benefits, but is only about farm subsidies and the fact Bachmann gets many thousands of Federal dollars in farm subsidies but still rails agains Federal spending on "entitlements".

'Nuff said. Next topic, please.