One of the favorite mantras of Michele Bachmann is that she is a "tax attorney who hates taxes".
Her website touts the message clearly:
I will continue to support a conservative platform of smaller government, fewer government regulations and reduced taxes for hard working Americans.
On April 19th of this year, Michele Bachmann continued her stance of voting with the super minority by joining 25 other Representatives in voting against the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. While that would usually not garner much attention as we have come to expect nothing less than a super minority vote in Congress for the 6th District, Michele Bachmann surprised us all with the actions she took next.
After moving through the Senate with a 91-4 vote, the bill went to conference committee in order to work out the differences in the bill. On arrival in the House of Representatives, Michele Bachmann changed her vote to YES. Why? Did the bill decrease in cost? No, on the contrary, the bill increased in cost from the original House cost of $15 billion to $23 billion.
Given that the President vetoed this legislation and Michele generally follows the President like a school girl after a rock star, you have to wonder what is in this bill?
Larry Schumacher has a write up today describing the vote and there is an article in the Star Tribune discussing the veto override. I called Heidi Frederickson to see if there was further explanation about what made Bachmann support a bill with $8 billion of increased cost from the original bill and she directed me to the article in the Star Tribune.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., voted to override after voting against the bill when it passed the House in April. She said she changed sides because of stronger cost accounting measures for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
It appears as though Bachmann has rationalized her new found love of government programs as long as the Army Corps of Engineers can justify the project. So, a qualifier really ought to be placed on her issues page to accommodate this new position:
I will continue to support a conservative platform of smaller government (unless we in the government find it to be a good program!), fewer government regulations and reduced taxes for hard working Americans.
Personally, I don't buy this story and would hope those in the media (That's you Larry!) would ask why this particular bill was acceptable for passage with "accounting measures", but bills such as the National Dam Safety Program Act were unacceptable. Aren't these "accounting measures"?
`SEC. 8A. REHABILITATION AND REPAIR OF DEFICIENT DAMS.
`(a) Establishment of Program- The Director shall establish, within FEMA, a program to provide grant assistance to States for use in rehabilitation of publicly-owned deficient dams.
`(b) Award of Grants-
`(1) APPLICATION- A State interested in receiving a grant under this section may submit to the Director an application for such grant. Applications submitted to the Director under this section shall be submitted at such times, be in such form, and contain such information, as the Director may prescribe by regulation.
`(2) IN GENERAL- Subject to the provisions of this section, the Director may make a grant for rehabilitation of a deficient dam to a State that submits an application for the grant in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Director. The Director shall enter into a project grant agreement with the State to establish the terms of the grant and the project, including the amount of the grant.
`(3) APPLICABILITY OF STANDARDS- The Director shall require States that apply for grants under this section to comply with the standards of section 611(j)(9) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5196(j)(9)), as in effect on the date of enactment of this section, with respect to projects assisted under this section in the same manner as recipients are required to comply in order to receive financial contributions from the Director for emergency preparedness purposes.
`(c) Priority System- The Director, in consultation with the Board, shall develop a risk-based priority system for use in identifying deficient dams for which grants may be made under this section.
`(d) Allocation of Funds- The total amount of funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (f)(1) for a fiscal year shall be allocated for making grants under this section to States applying for such grants for that fiscal year as follows:
`(1) One-third divided equally among applying States.
`(2) Two-thirds among applying States based on the ratio that--
`(A) the number of non-Federal publicly-owned dams that the Secretary of the Army identifies in the national inventory of dams maintained under section 6 as constituting a danger to human health and that are located within the boundaries of the State; bears to
`(B) the number of non-Federal publicly-owned dams that are so identified and that are located within the boundaries of all applying States.
`(e) Cost Sharing- The Federal share of the cost of rehabilitation of a deficient dam for which a grant is made under this section may not exceed 65 percent of the cost of such rehabilitation.
I pose a challenge to anyone to find me "accounting measures" in HR 1495 any more stringent than those found in the National Dam Safety Program Act which Bachmann chose to vote against. If you cannot, then Bachmann has some serious explaining to do concerning how she decides to vote on given spending measures. If accounting measures are the only requirements needed to gain her support, let us as constituents remind her of accounting measures found in EVERY bill so that we might get some future things accomplished in the United States House of Representatives. This could usher in a new era of Bachmann support on measures ranging from SCHIP with "accounting measures" to Education Funding with "accounting measures".
Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann
