Oh,
Michele:
Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann responded Wednesday to a report by NBC that the mental health clinic run by her husband has collected annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000, while she has criticized the program for swelling the "welfare rolls."
"Medicaid is a valuable form of insurance for many Americans and it would be discriminatory not to accept Medicaid as a form of payment," Bachmann spokeswoman Alice Stewart told CNN. "As a state-sponsored counseling service, Bachmann and Associates has a responsibility to provide Medicaid and medical assistance, regardless of a patients financial situation."
So now Michele is concerned about discriminatory practices? Now Michele wants to protect Americans' right to use government funds at their health provider of choice?
That's funny. Because last year, Michele wanted to "wean" Americans off social safety nets like Medicare and Social Security. And earlier this year, she wanted to shut down the government to ensure that Americans could not use government funds at their health care provider of choice.
But now Michele's back to her freedom and liberty talky-talk. And besides, it's not like the government money her family's "Christian counseling" business accepted from the government counts anyway:
When asked by anchor Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" about the story's assertion that her husband's counseling clinic had also gotten federal and state funds, Bachmann replied that it was "one-time training money that came from the federal government. And it certainly didn't help our clinic."
Except that's not even true.
But state records show that Bachmann & Associates has been collecting payments under the Minnesota's Medicaid program every year for the past six years.
One time, six times—whatever. Counting has a liberal bias.
Of course, hating on government programs while simultaneously collecting government cash is nothing new for Michele. As the L.A. Times reported last week:
Bachmann has long sought to distance herself from those who benefit from public money. "I don't need government to be successful," she proudly told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly in fall 2009 when he asked why she inspired such ire among liberal critics.
But:
Another of Bachmann's assets — a family farm owned by her late father-in-law, Paul Bachmann — received nearly $260,000 in federal money between 1995 and 2008, largely from corn and dairy subsidies, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research organization that scrutinizes such subsidies. Paul Bachmann died in May 2009, but the congresswoman retains a partnership in the farm.
Bachmann said in December that the subsidies went to her in-laws and she never received "one penny" from the farm, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. However, in financial disclosure forms, she reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, at minimum, between 2006 and 2009.
Michele's family farm is cashing in on the farm bill she voted against in 2008, saying it was "loaded with unbelievably outrageous pork."
But according to Michele, it's not pork when she asks for it:
Bachmann told the Star Tribune she supports a "redefinition" of what an earmark is, because, she said: "Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark."
"I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark," Bachmann said. "There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway."
So to recap: pork is bad. But we shouldn't discriminate against those who receive it. And besides, it doesn't count if it doesn't help. And it's not even pork when Michele asks for it for her district or her family.
Anyone else confused? Besides Michele?