Michelle Bachmann says that she didn't benefit from $30,000 in State and Federal money to her husbands clinic or in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal money to her father in laws farm (she is a partner). This defies logic. The State money was used to train employees. Come on Michelle you are supposed to be a business woman. Great the money was used to train employees, or stated another way it was $30,000 that you didn't have to spend. How is this not a personal benefit? With the farm she reported income. She can say that it went to her in laws , but without these subsidies would the farm have been profitable enough to have paid her income? It is unlikely. She would end such programs. I agree that we should end farm subsidies and set price by public trading. Such a program will no doubt lower farm income and quite possibly the price of food. That is what farm subsidies do, the artificially increase the price of farm commodities. Michelle Bachmann really needs to study the issues of what government pays for.
On another note she has interest in a farm in Wisconsin yet has never mentioned the unfair nature of the Eau Claire rule in setting (government) milk prices.
Also, isn't ironic that the person most opposed to health reform owns a clinic?
No comments:
Post a Comment