Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

President Obama's Budget Spends Too Much, It Taxes Too Much, And Borrows Too Much; And, The Gift Of Life

Floor Speech

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Iowa, also known as the Stunning STEVE KING of Iowa, as stated by national political commentators, who certainly know what they are talking about. STEVE KING is one of our stalwart patriots who is here on the floor fighting on behalf of the American people.

And while we are here tonight to talk about several subjects, we can't avoid the first subject that is on the table. It is the fact that under President Obama's budget that he has put forward, President Obama's budget simply spends too much, it taxes too much, and it certainly borrows too much.

We are very concerned about the excessive spending that is contained in this bill. It is $3.9 trillion. That is almost $4 trillion in spending under this budget deficit. This is an historical Presidency, historical for the amount of spending that is occurring under this President, $3.9 trillion.

Not only is that a huge amount of money just for spending and just for taxing; we know that just the energy tax alone that the President is putting in his budget is $2 trillion in spending. The President's aides just came out within this last week and said that it is not $646 billion, as we thought, it is nearly $2 trillion. That means for people in Minnesota, for people that are watching this evening, Madam Speaker, we are looking at perhaps an additional $4,000 per year out of the gate that every American household will see in increased taxes for energy. $4,000 a year in increased taxes. Who can afford that right now, when 401(k)s are down, when the value of houses are down, when jobs are on the line? We can't afford that, Madam Speaker. The President surely must know that.

But, borrowing too much. Representative STEVE KING talked about the massive borrowing that is coming from under our President's budget. This is what is remarkable. President Obama is borrowing so much of your tax money, Madam Speaker, of the American people's money, that literally President Obama's debt will be more than all previous Presidents combined.

Madam Speaker, you heard me correctly. From George Washington through George W. Bush, the 43rd President, you can add up the debt level of every one of those Presidents. And day after day after day we hear President Obama blaming the previous administration for the current situation he is in; but President Obama will lay so much debt on the backs of the American people that it will trump all 43 Presidents combined. That is historic.

Take a look. These are the figures that are put out, this is the Office of Management and Budget, and these are the figures that the President himself points to. The figures here on the left are the figures for debt prior to President Obama coming into office. These figures on the right are the debt amount that President Obama by his own figures say will be accumulated, $20 trillion in debt by President Obama's own figures.

As a matter of fact, the Congressional Budget Office came out and said so rosy were the President's figures that he undercounted his debt by $2.3 trillion. He has rosy estimates of how great the economy is going to grow, and he has very conservative estimates on how high his debt will grow. We are concerned, we are very concerned about what the future debt load will be on the American people.

I am often reminded of the Founders; and Representative STEVE KING and I stand here tonight in this chamber, Madam Speaker. Together with yourself, we are literally standing on the shoulders of the Founders of this great country are. And it was the Founders of our country, as we look through the rearview mirror of history, who very clearly made it known that our government was to be a Constitutional government formed on limited government principles. And the day that the Founders signed the Constitution, they also signed the first ten amendments to that Constitution; and those ten amendments were given as a gift, a protection to the individual American. Why? Because our Founders were so concerned about the abuse of taxing authority of their mother country, Great Britain. They were so concerned about that abuse of a taxing authority that they said to the American people in the first ten amendments: We want you to know that your Federal Government will be limited in its power. And in the tenth amendment, they specifically said: These limited powers that we are giving to the Federal Government are all the Federal Government will have. Every other power that there is will be given back to the States. We, the Federal Government, won't hold that power. We give it back to the States.

This is very important to realize, because our President doesn't seem to see it that way, Madam Speaker. Our President seems to think that the time and energy and productive years belongs to Uncle Sam and not to the individual. That is a completely different way of looking at the world than what our Founders viewed.

This evening, Madam Speaker, Representative King wants to turn the subject now to talking about the gift of life, the gift of human life; the issue that our framers talked about in the Declaration of Independence when they called out for inalienable rights and said that we, Americans, were created by a God; that our creator God created us. He gave us inalienable rights, rights that only God can give, rights that no government confer nor can any government take away. That, among those rights are life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.

Tonight, I know that is what Representative STEVE KING wants to speak about, Madam Speaker. He wants to speak about that cherished gift enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, and why we are so genuinely concerned about the nomination to the Office of Legal Counsel that President Obama is making and the individual that Representative King will be speaking of.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield, what we have seen transpire is nothing short of historic. We have seen, since last year, the Federal Government become the bank of first resort and the bank of last resort. We have seen the Federal Government nationalize banks. We have seen the Federal Government step into insurance agencies, become the insurer of first resort and become the insurer of last resort and nationalize the largest insurance company in the United States, AIG.

And now what are we seeing in the Treasury Secretary's proposal that was just given out yesterday, or maybe it was the evening before that, is this: Now the Federal Government will become a hedge fund. That is essentially what we are looking at. The Federal Government will become a hedge fund. The only thing is that we will have toxic assets in the hedge fund.

How does this work? Again, the taxpayer, John Taxpayer becomes the chump that is holding the bag in all of this. Again, it is the taxpayer that is the forgotten man. Because once again, the Federal Government thinks

that the taxpayer is good enough to have to pony up the money for all of these ideas that seem to come out that have a lot more to do with centralized government planning and very little to do resembling free-market capitalism.

We are lurching. We are lurching, Madam Speaker, away from free-market capitalism when you come to the point where the Federal Government now decides to throw the dice and become a hedge fund and the taxpayer is the one who is there for all of the loss but not for the gain. I yield back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BACHMANN. Exactly. And we haven't got the question answered yet. It appears that only large institutional investors, a Goldman Sachs or someone like that, will be able to get in on these sweetheart deals. I don't know too many Joe Averages that will be able to buy into this great deal.

So think of it this way in your example: You have $1 million worth of mortgage-backed securities. How much skin in the game would this private investor have? Again, public-private? Public is $950,000 worth of Federal tax money to $50,000 worth of investment from the private person. But yet what if the yield is positive? For a $50,000 investment, you could have a $500,000 gain. That is pretty amazing. Whereas the Federal Government would be losing 95 percent, and there is nothing to lose when it comes to the private investor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BACHMANN. If there is one final thing I can add to the gentleman's remarks. It was amazing this afternoon. President Obama had made a statement when he was with the prime minister of Australia. And he was asking Congress to give more power to the Treasury Secretary. As if they don't have enough already, he wants more power to the Treasury Secretary, which means more power for himself, because the Treasury Secretary represents the President.

He wants more power for what? So that if a private corporation becomes in trouble--we are not talking about a bank now. We are talking about a private corporation that becomes in trouble, he wants the Treasury Secretary to have unilateral authority, on his own decision, to walk into a private business and essentially nationalize it, take it over and reorganize.

I'll tell you what. If investors are worried now about the Federal Government coming in, opening up private compensation contracts and deciding to lower the amount of the wage value, you ain't seen nothing yet. Because the Federal Government is going to come in with its Marxist view of economics and make a decision about who is allowed to make what wage based upon what government thinks. This is one of the scariest ideas to come down the pike.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BACHMANN. And if we could just speak a little bit more about the importance of this office, the Office of Legal Counsel. The gentleman had quoted from Newsweek magazine. Newsweek went on to say that this role as Office of Legal Counsel acts as a kind of mini Supreme Court. This office is the President's legal counsel, for all practical purposes. They issue opinions, much like judicial opinions, kind of a mini Supreme Court. Newsweek went on to say its carefully worded opinions are regarded as binding precedent, as final say on what the President and all his agencies can and cannot legally do. I can't think of a more important office to whisper into the President's ear about where the President will come down and stand on issues.

The other thing to recognize, the Office of Legal Counsel is a training ground, so to speak, for future Supreme Court justices. This individual that the President has nominated for this position, previous occupants were Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist. This is very important that we know who this person is that will be whispering in the President's ear.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BACHMANN. If I could add to the gentleman's remarks. I think that the other thing that is glaring in this statement by Ms. Johnson is the fact that she said, recognizing a compelling State interest in protecting the fetus. I would just like to remind her that the State is not only interested in protecting the fetus, the State is also interested in protecting the woman. Many States all across the United States of America have laws known as women's right to know because there is an intention that women who are abortion-minded know what the consequence of that decision will mean. Many women become infertile for life. Once they have an abortion they can never bear another child after that. And many women don't know what the consequences of an early abortion will be. That is a violent act. An abortion is a violent act to a woman's body.

Also, women have tremendous emotional pain that they may deal with, not just for an afternoon, or not just for a weekend, they may, for the next 10 years, suffer with depression and all manner of disorders that they may have to deal with emotionally for years and years because they didn't fully comprehend the consequences of their decision.

And while women should never be viewed as fetal containers--I have never heard any more crass language in my life than the imagery that Dawn Johnson brought up--it is also true that babies are more than a product of tissue. Babies are a gift. Just as women are a gift, babies are a gift. Human life is to be cherished, not discarded.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BACHMANN. As if there are unwanted children. Every child is a wanted child.

I can attest to the fact that there are open arms for every child who is born. If a child is considered less than perfect, has a physical or a mental disability, there are homes all across the United States that are begging and pleading and waiting for a child. None of us can ever forget the words of Mother Teresa, who said, ``If you don't want the children, I want the children. Give them to me. I will take them,'' this diminutive, little nun from Calcutta who was willing to take any child from across the planet. Here in the United States, we have willing, open hearts that would take every child who is born in this country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BACHMANN. I would add that, with all due respect, this is one of the most ignorant comments that I have ever heard--that the experience is no longer traumatic. Speak to anyone who deals in the aftermath of dealing with women who have had abortions.

My best friend runs a crisis pregnancy center. She has given her life and has poured her life out because she loves women and she loves abortion-minded women. She wants to meet them at the point of their deepest crises. She has told me that, for women who come in who are considering abortion and also for women who have had an abortion and who come to her, it is completely traumatic. They agonize as they walk into the clinic. They agonize, the women who have had previous abortions, after they have had the abortion. It is traumatic.

There are reams of scientific papers that have been done that speak loudly to the trauma that the woman has experienced, let alone the trauma that the baby has experienced. That baby's life was taken in cold blood.

That baby was murdered in cold blood. Not traumatic? It was traumatic for that innocent child, but it was equally as traumatic for the mother. The mother realizes and understands what has occurred. This is traumatic. To make that statement, to me, is heartless at worst and ignorant at best.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BACHMANN. One of the most gruesome quotes--and I don't know if the gentleman has this one--is when she is referring to her beliefs and to people who are like-minded.

She said, ``Progressives,'' which would be far-left liberals, ``must not portray all abortions as tragedies. Absent unforeseen technological and medical changes, abortion is unlikely to become truly rare and certainly not nonexistent.''

In this statement, she is lamenting the fact that abortion could become rare. She wants abortion to occur. When do you ever hear anyone say that they don't want abortion to be rare? But that is what Dawn Johnson is saying.

When President Bill Clinton was running for President, he said he wanted abortions safe, legal and rare. Hillary Clinton said the same thing when she was running for President. Barack Obama--I'm not sure what his words were, but those were the words of the people running for President. Dawn Johnson is refuting that. She doesn't want abortion to be rare. She wants to see abortions occur. That is in the realm of the macabre. I am amazed at that statement.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BACHMANN. You know, I would say that this heavy tax burden that the Obama administration is laying upon the American people has more to do with involuntary servitude than the fact of a woman who has the opportunity to carry an unborn child to term and to give life to that baby. Most women consider that a privilege and a blessing, and they pray for that opportunity so that they can have the chance to share in the joy of motherhood together with their husband, to be able to bring life and to cooperate with God and bring life into the world.

Life is a beautiful thing. It is precious. It is something not to be wasted. It certainly cannot be equated with involuntary servitude, which is slavery. Slavery is what we are looking at right now with the debt burden that we are seeing from the Obama administration, where we are looking at having more debt under President Obama than under all previous 43 Presidents combined. That is involuntary servitude when a person has to work three-quarters of the year just to pay their tax bill, and that is what we are looking at down the road for our kids and grandkids, because this Obama administration is clearly spending too much, taxing too much and borrowing too much.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source:
Skip to top
Back to top