Congressman Bachman Has an Acorn Up Her Sleeve

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A friend passed along an item from the weekend, with an audio clip of Michele Bachmann chatting with a conservative talk-show host in Minnesota. In the ongoing debate as to which member of Congress is the single most ridiculous, this interview is very compelling evidence that Bachmann is, at a minimum, near the front of the pack. The whole interview is about 13 minutes long, but it's worth listening to, if only to appreciate just how truly disturbed some far-right members of Congress have become.

Bachmann "explained" to the host and Minnesota audience:

* ACORN is "under federal indictment for voter fraud," but the stimulus bill nevertheless gives ACORN "$5 billion." (In reality, ACORN is not under federal indictment and isn't mentioned in the stimulus bill at all.)

* many members of Congress have "a real aversion to capitalism."

* the stimulus bill includes a measure to create a "rationing board" for health care, and after the bill becomes law, "your doctor will no longer be able to make your healthcare decisions with you."

* the recovery package is part of a Democratic conspiracy to "direct" funding away from Republican districts, so Democratic districts can "suck up" all federal funds. Bachmann doesn't think this will work because, as she put it, "We're running out of rich people in this country."

* the "Community-Organizer-in-Chief" is also orchestrating a conspiracy involving the Census Bureau, which the president will use to redraw congressional lines to keep Democrats in power for up to "40 years." When the host said he was confused, noting that congressional district lines are drawn at the state level, Bachmann said Obama's non-existent plan is an "anti-constitutional move."

There's no point in trying to fact-check such unhinged stupidity, but I should note that none of this is in anyway grounded in reality. I should also note that we're not talking about some strange nut screaming on a street corner; this is all coming from an elected member of Congress.

At one point, Bachmann told the host, "We are literally losing our country."

Congresswoman, you've literally lost something, but I don't think it's your country.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Obama and the Democrats promised to put the bill on the Internet then reneged. Meanwhile, not one member of Congress actually read the bill’s text. Only staffers did. Of course, no citizen was going to spend the time to read the entire bill. Eventually, virtually every non-socialist in this country who gives a damn, regardless of affiliation, would have seen things that would compel him or her to no longer support the bill, and Obama and Pelosi were aware of that fact. This bill is full of unnecessary, overlapping pork.

Also in the “stimulus” bill is $4.2B for ACORN, the professional voter fraud people for who Obama has worked extensively. Don’t/write/e-mail here telling me about the great job ACORN does registering new voters. That organization registers Democrats, not voters, and it’s been charged with voter fraud in 11 states in recent years.

http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2009/02...e2820682897.txt

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

FAQ: How to Communicate Very Important Opinions to Your Congressperson

Congratulations, Libruls, you’ve passed your darling stimulus package, with all its concessions to ACORN and rat propagation and school construction. But do you know who is happiest today, their first day back to “work” after the passage of the Stimulus Bill? Your very own congressional staffers, that’s who.Yes, it may seem counterintuitive, but the more constituents ######, the less their paid congressional hobbits work! The actual cost-benefit analysis of such realities is tricky, as some would argue that the less government works, the less costly it is to kill the ultimate problem (being the government, of course). Ideology, in practice, just means that even the notion of a large-vs.-small-government bill floating through Congress grinds productivity in your Capitol to a halt.

Fun Fact: Most everyone on the Hill has long since internalized the speed with which constituents complaining about “where’s MY stimulus” package goes from Bad Pun to Psychotically Annoying. So hey, no need to tell THAT joke anymore!

Q: So what’s the best way to communicate my displeasure with the current stimulus pamphlet to my elected representative?

A: Just send them a form email. Really, the more of those they get, the easier it is to distill wide-ranging opinions into simple pro-con groups. It seems so impersonal, but remember that there’s more than one person with access to ALL CAPS Internet Technologies. Individualized theories about the marginal utility of a $2,500 home purchase tax credit, no matter how well-meaning, are just not given that much heed.

Elizabeth Askew is an actual intern somewhere on Capitol Hill, shhhhh.

http://wonkette.com/406311/faq-how-to-comm...-congressperson

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Also in the "stimulus" bill is $4.2B for ACORN, the professional voter fraud people for who Obama has worked extensively. Don't/write/e-mail here telling me about the great job ACORN does registering new voters. That organization registers Democrats, not voters, and it's been charged with voter fraud in 11 states in recent years.

http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2009/02...e2820682897.txt

FactCheck.org is your friend.

...these claims are wildly exaggerated and rely upon faulty logic.

Let's start with the (very few) claims that critics get right. The House version of the stimulus bill does indeed include about $1 billion in funding for the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program and another $4.2 billion ($2.2 billion in the Senate's version) in funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). Neither program is new: CDBG has been around since President Ford (a Republican) signed it into law in 1974, while the NSP was authorized in 2008 as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act signed into law by President Bush.

On its Web site, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which runs both programs, describes CDBG as "a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs." But those funds cannot be used for anything resembling ACORN's controversial voter registration programs. HUD has very strict rules for projects that can be funded through CDBG grants, including promotion of home ownership and micro-enterprise assistance. ACORN has long been eligible for CDBG funds, and Boehner's Web site points out that the group has received almost $1.6 million (not billion) in CDBG grants over a four-year span.

NSP's mission is more limited: Its funds are used to purchase foreclosed or abandoned homes, redevelop and then resell them, with the aim of stabilizing home prices. Boehner and Vitter claimed to smell a rat in the stimulus package's language that allows nonprofit entities to compete directly for NSP funds. When the NSP was created last year, only state and local governments were eligible to participate in the program. The new language in the stimulus bill, Republicans argue, is a way to funnel money to ACORN.

We make no judgments about the wisdom of allowing nonprofits to compete with state and local governments for NSP funds. Is this a "payoff" or "goodies" for liberal allies, or for ACORN specifically? Actually, both programs hand out grants only on a competitive basis. ACORN – and any other nonprofit entity – would be eligible to compete for NSP funds (as it already does for CDBG funds), but the key words here are "eligible" and "compete."

Competition would likely be stiff. In 2008, NSP's first year, states handed out funds to a total of 308 grantees. The NSP rules would require ACORN to show that it would spend the money to renovate and resell foreclosed homes more efficiently than other applicants.

Moreover, ACORN is already indirectly eligible for NSP money; current law permits state and local governments to subcontract work, and ACORN would be eligible to compete for funds at the local level. However, ACORN didn't get any NSP money last year and says it doesn't plan to apply for NSP money in the future. Indeed, renovating foreclosed properties is not something the group has done in the past; its efforts in the home-buying industry focus mainly on developing new affordable housing and eliminating what it calls "predatory financial practices" by mortgage lenders. The group's chief organizer, Bertha Lewis, writes:

Lewis:

We have not received neighborhood stabilization funds, have no plans to apply for such funds, and didn't weigh in on the pending rule changes.

Faulty Logic

Boehner and Vitter commit two logical fallacies. Their argument has the form:

1. The stimulus bill provides funding for redeveloping neighborhoods.
2. ACORN does work in redeveloping neighborhoods.
3. Therefore the stimulus bill provides funding for ACORN.

That's an example of what philosophers call the undistributed middle fallacy. It's a common mistake; in May 2008, we caught Sen. John McCain making a similar logical blunder. But Boehner and Vitter compound their error by treating different terms as if they had the same meaning. ACORN does indeed work in redeveloping neighborhoods, but the work that it does is not the same sort of work for which NSP provides funding. By pretending as if the two are the same, Boehner and Vitter commit the fallacy of equivocation.

We're accustomed to seeing logical fallacies in political arguments. But working two of them into a single argument is unusually bad logic.

-Joe Miller Edited February 17, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What happened, Steven? Were you attacked by a pack of wild Republicans as a child?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What happened, Steven? Were you attacked by a pack of wild Republicans as a child?

hehehe...no...just keeping you honest.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What happened, Steven? Were you attacked by a pack of wild Republicans as a child?

hehehe...no...just keeping you honest.

They would not be talking points if they were not true, would they?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What happened, Steven? Were you attacked by a pack of wild Republicans as a child?

hehehe...no...just keeping you honest.

They would not be talking points if they were not true, would they?

If you can't be convinced by a nonpartisan watchdog like FactCheck.org, I don't know what to say....but in case you want to keep tabs on where the money will be spent, check out what the White House has set up on the web:

http://www.recovery.gov/

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be carried out with full transparency and accountability -- and Recovery.gov is the centerpiece of that effort. In a short video, President Obama describes the site and talks about how you'll be able to track the Recovery Act's progress every step of the way.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This video?