Lawrence O'Donnell Accuses Michele Bachmann of Being a Socialist

Lawrence O'Donnell on Tuesday accused Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) of being a socialist.

"The Last Word" host, who has admitted on national television to himself being a socialist, did so by cherry-picking from an article published at the perilously liberal website "The Huffington Post" (video follows with commentary and full transcript at end of post):

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: Michele Bachmann, as has been pointed out in this space before, has a family farm that has received over a quarter of million dollars in direct cash from the federal government. That is, of course, in addition to her federal salary of $174,000 for her real full-time job as a member of Congress. Thanks to Sam Stein at the Huffington Post today, with we now have yet another example of Bachmann political dependence, career dependence on socialism.

The Huffington Post obtained a letter Bachmann wrote on October 5th, 2009, to the Obama administration’s Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack thanking him for government intervention in the pork industry. That's right, government intervention in the market. She wrote, “Your efforts to stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products are very much welcomed.”

Yes. This is the same woman who said this about the Democrats' health care reform bill.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/06/22/lawrence-odonnell-cherry-picks-huffington-post-call-michele-bachmann-#ixzz1Q1vV3cId

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
Excerpted from: The Law, Fredric Bastiat (1801-1850)

[Emphasis: mine]

It's about thanking the government for BAILOUT of the pork industry.

From the HuffPO (anticonservative rag):

At the time, the pork industry was facing a two-pronged calamity: fallout from the H1N1 influenza crisis and the ripple effects of the recession. Pork producers had lost nearly $4.6 billion in equity since 2007 and Vilsack, sensing greater market doom, had injected funds into the industry at least four times since that spring. In March 2009, the USDA purchased $25 million in pork, in April it made a $50 million purchase and in July it bought 775,000 pounds of ham, according to reports. In September, just one month before receiving Bachmann's letter, Vilsack had signed off on $30 million in additional federal purchases of pork.

"This isn't a subsidy," said Dave Warner, Director of Communications at the National Pork Producers Council. "This is the federal government getting the food they need for food assistance programs and getting it at a good price."

As Warner notes, the government helps feed significant swaths of the U.S. population, from low-income students to the elderly, military personnel and prisoners. When Vilsack purchased more pork, it came from within pre-existing Department of Agriculture budget allocations. It also saved jobs.

But it wasn't the conservative way of doing things. Indeed, even before Bachmann wrote her letter, Fox News' Sean Hannity had penned a blog post blasting the government for "literally" buying pork. Among the list of items he found objectionable: "$16.7 million to Minnesota for 'canned pork'" -- money that came from Vilsack's purchase of 775,000 pounds of ham.

So, apparently, Minnesota, got a whopping 16.7 million for their pork producers when the pork industry was at a crisis. That doesnt seem to me to rise to the level of scandalous pork barrel spending. The federal government got FOOD out the deal....not a piece of artwork...or the study of some endangered animal.

So, even though Palin cut earmark pork 86%, she still got 450+ million in pork from the Feds. So, Bachmanns 16 million in food sales to the feds PALES in comparison. As far as her farm goes...she may post earnings from the farm because she inherited it. She doesnt run the farm. Also, the 250k the farm received was over 11 years. Clearly covering a time when her family didnt own the farm.

What part of supply demand and free markets don't you understand? the government bailed out the pork industry. And Bachmann THANKED them for doing it. I don't car eif it was 20 million or 20 billion.

Instead of allowing the pork prices to decrease so consumers would have lower prices the government propped up the industry with artificial prices transferring wealth from the consumers to the pork producers. Maybe you should thank Bachmann and the government the next time you go to the supermarket and pay more for that ham than you would have. Call it a ham tax.

bachmann is nothing but a hypocrite. You want to compare Palin’s cutting earmarks by 86% under her watch to someone THANKING the government for interfering with the free market? that isn't even comparing the same things.

But let's go with your comparison. Palin wanted LESS government by cutting 86% of earmark requests. Bachmann wanted More BIGGER government to protect her voters so she could win reelection. One is a small government conservative that wants less smaller smarter government. the othe is nothing but a hypocrite signing you a song that you want to hear. Bachmann is Bush in a skirt.

Can you not read? There was a crisis in the market due to H1N1 Swine Flu! Yes, she thanked the feds for buying food and bringing price stability to the pork market. Look what was happening AT THAT TIME, this from the congressional research service:

U.S. Pork Market Effects

How Have U.S. Consumers Reacted to Reports of the Outbreak?

In late April, amid early reports of the spread of 2009 H1N1 flu, retail outlets reported that consumers were leery of buying pork because of fears that the disease may be linked to pork consumption. Tyson Foods Inc. also reported a drop in domestic pork sales.25 As domestic sales fell, retail and wholesale hog prices fell sharply, along with hog and pork-belly futures prices on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

How Have U.S. Trading Partners Reacted to Reports of the Outbreak?

Citing public health and safety concerns, several countries have initiated or implemented steps to ban or restrict U.S. pork or pork products.

Now do you get it? It was a crisis, not unlike floods or earthquake, where the federal government can step in a give some temporary help to those in need. TEMPORARY. You call that intervening in the market? It was supporting a market in a crisis of a flu scare by unfounded food safety concerns.

Bachmann is STILL a constitutional conservative, fiscal conservative. I dont care if Palin reduced her pork by 886%, she still porked out 450+ million dollars, which is Waaaaaay more than the 16 million Bachmann got for the pig flu crisis. For you to say that Bachmann is big government is delusional. 450+ million vs 16 million. uh-huh

crisis in the market? So the government should step in whenever there is a crisis in the market?

I guess you are a Bushite then

“I abandoned the free market to save the free market?”

Newsflash there is always a crisis in the market. It is an excuse for the government to integer in the markets.

so I guess you are fine with governmental intervention into the markets whenever one has a crisis. After all there was a crisis in the auto market and the government bailed out the car companies and there was a crisis in the home market and the government bailed out the home markets and there was a crisis in the bank market and the government bailed out the banks with Tarp. and there was a crisis in the credit markets so the Fed did Qe2.

I like how you are trying to twist this into a good thing. i never thought I would see people on FR say governmental intervention was a good thing just because their candidate screwed up and showed her real colors as a Big government interventionist. Show me where in the Constitution that it says the government shall intervene in the market during a crisis. bachmann is not a constitutional conservative. she is a typical politician singing you a song. or do you also think the patriot act is a good thing?

Bachmann on earmarks. I guess she did a clinton and it depends on what Is is.:

Advocating for transportation projects for one’s district in my mind does not equate to an earmark,” Bachmann told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune yesterday.

“I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark,” Bachmann continued. “There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway.”

crisis in the market? So the government should step in whenever there is a crisis in the market?

You are arguing like a liberal. Bush was a fool.

The Swine Flu pig market crash was an act of G-d crisis. Like a weather event, tornado, hurricane. H1N1 FLU! Not a self inflicted crisis like the auto market or the credit market bubble. The auto industry needed to go bankrupt to self correct the union bloat. The financial sector also should have gone bankrupt and let the market reset itself. You are conflating the issue. Apples and Oranges. Did the market or government contribute to the H1N1 flu? All told the government spent peanuts on this act-of-G-d induced pig buy. And you want to make a big deal about it.

Bachmann is correct to view infrastructure, roads and bridges as non-pork earmarks. The federal highway system must be maintained. The difference is that she does not believe in sticking them in Omnibus bills in the dead of night but should be visible in a transportation bill for all to see and vote on. Are you saying the Federal government should not maintain roads and bridges?

ROFL.. act of god? sure it was. You know all those alerts and bullitens and pandemic fears that the government stoked for years including under the bush admin. color me shocked that people over reacted.

so you are saying that the free market doens’t work in an act of god crisis? interesting. i guess there are only SOMETIMEs that the free market can work then. all other times we need Government to come save us.

so let’s see what would have happened if the government did not bail out the pork industry becaus eof this act of god.

Hmmm..... demand dries up, there is an oversupply of pork. Pork producers must drop their price to stimulate demand. consumers due to the lower demand buy the oversupply of ork, some even oh my buy extra since its on sale and freeze the pork. producers make less, consumers save money that can be used to buy more pork or buy other things like flu medicine, or masks, or a new pair of jeans or what have you.

Pork producers produce less pork next time. the demand comes back and there might by a shortage of pork. the price goes up. producers make more money, consumers have to cut back and more pork producers enter the market.

Or we can do it your and Bachmanns way. the demand for Pork goes down. the government steps in and bids up the price of pork using taxpayer money. The producers make more money then they should have, the consumer gets screwed and everyone looks towards the government for the next bailout.

Look either you believe in the free market or you believe that Government is the answer.

next you will be telling me the government needs to step into the free market to stop price increases during a crisis.

you just got done telling me that Palin’s earmars were pork. they went to roads, bridges etc.. so when Palin requests those raodway funds its pork but when bachmann does it isn’t? yeah ok.

Okay, my last comment since I fear you lack skills in logical analysis.

YOU were using hyperbole....trying to say...Bachmann...BAILOUT...PORK...Market interference...etc. ....Wow sounds like it must be a TARP type scandal doesnt it? When in reality....she got 16.7 million for the Feds to buy pork meat.

YOU were going off on Bachmann for that. I merely pointed out your hypocrisy, since your hero-ess Palin took 27 times more FEDERAL money ie Pork, by YOUR definition. YOU not me, said Bachmann taking federal money is bad...therefore, to be consistent...Palin taking Federal money is equally bad.

If the 450 million Palin got, was passed in a transportation bill, in the open, I dont have a problem with it. Just like I dont dont have a problem with the government buying food during a temporary crisis due to the H1N1 flu. These are Peanuts! In the big picture, ENTITLEMENTS are the real pork. Obamacare, medicare, medicaid, Prescription programs, Welfare, Social security.....That is taking us down. That is the big government that will KILL the USA. That is the source of the TRILLIONS in debt that is taking us down. Not 16 million in pig meat...or even the 450 million got for her state. Okay...there I'm done with you.

ROFL....Bachmann thanks the Obama admin for the pork industry bailout and asks if the government can do more to screw the free market and you equate that with Palin cutting 86% of the earmarks.

Yeah and you say I don’t think logically.

Here is a tip try to defend Bachmann’s thanks for Obama admin’s BAILOUt of the pork industry on its own merits because Federal earmarks have nothing to do with bailoing out an industry.

You are comparing apples to sour grapes.

and on the front of earmarks itself. Bachmann requests more earmarks the moyears she served whereas Palin requested less.

figure out who is for small government and who is for big government. Palin cut 100’s of million in earmark requests. Bachmann requested 10’s of million in earmarks.

the trend is Bachmann is for bigger government no matter what the hypocrite says and Palin is for smaller government.

One tells you the truth one tells you what you want to hear.

Bachmann is a fake. deal with it.

i also like how you think you have to compare Bachmann with Palin like Bachmann can even stand in Palin’s shadow. there is no comparison. that would be like comparing reagan to Ron Paul.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.