What I found particularly interesting about this article is the ire it drew from everyone's favorite libertarian economist from St. Cloud State University, Mr. King Banaian. Standing in for Don Lyons today on the KNSI morning show, Banaian took Ms. Cyson (and Mensa for that matter) to task for daring to question the spending practices of Michele Bachmann. While I was always under the impression that a libertarian decried government spending in all its forms, Banaian has apparently rewritten the rules to exclude those with whom he agrees. Yes, Mr. Banaian, Bachmann and other representatives in Congress have a budget for this kind of material and have every right to use that budget. Unfortunately, you are mistaken in saying that this money is going to be spent anyway. There happens to be a representative to the south of us who graciously returned upwards of $100,000 in unused office funds back to the U.S. Treasury to help pay down the burgeoning debt (it's not much, but it seems to be $100,000 more than Michele Bachmann has returned). Perhaps, Mr. Banaian, if Michele Bachmann spent a little less money sending out glossy mailers and more time working for the people of the district, then she too would have some extra office funds to send back to the U.S. Treasury.
From the St. Cloud Times:
Times Writers Group: Bachmann's mailer cost us
By Karen Cyson
Published: February 15. 2008 12:30AM
Has the amount of mail you receive lessened since December?Mine sure has. In December every day brought catalogs (free shipping for last-minute shoppers!), credit card applications (gift now, pay later), cards and letters, and the usual bills.
One thing I received that I wasn't expecting was a mailing from my congressional representative, 6th District Rep. Michele Bachmann. I'm sure if you live in her district you received one also. It was a full-color, glossy cardstock, trifold brochure on Internet safety and, of course, featured a picture of her carefully coifed visage.
For the life of me I can't figure out why Bachmann felt it necessary to spend money on photography, production, printing and postage to send out information that is not needed by constituents who don't use the Internet and is easily found elsewhere by those who do.
I'm fairly sure disseminating information of this type does not fall under her list of responsibilities as our representative, and I'm quite certain it could have been done less expensively.
A postcard (white with black ink) with a Web site link, for example, would have sufficed. And I wondered: How much of our money was spent on this extravagant effort?
Looking for an answer
I called her local office and left a message asking that question. I left my name, address, phone number and e-mail address. I did this week after week after week. By mid-January, when I had yet to receive a reply, I attempted to elicit a response by contacting my representative via her Web site.
According to Bachmann's Web site, she only has time to respond to constituents of her district, and e-mails are screened by asking the writer for their ZIP code.
... Anyone can type in a local ZIP code and fool you. Duh.
Bachmann is proud of Minnesotans. According to her, we are the "workingest" (sic) state, some of us even "working two jobs" (to make ends meet, which apparently had not occurred to her). She, however, isn't working overtime answering inquiries from legitimate constituents.
For more than a month now (two months if we count the phone inquiries) I have yet to receive a reply.
Which scenario?
All of this begs the question: Does she not know how much she spent or does she not want us to know how much she spent?
Either scenario smacks of irresponsibility and a lack of accountability.
Our nation is already in a precarious financial mess.
When President Clinton left office, the national debt — the amount each one of us would have to cough up to make the country solvent — was $20,392. As I write this, the debt is $30,395, an increase of almost 50 percent on "Dubya's" watch. Once money is borrowed to send out our pseudo-rebates (you don't really think they have the money, do you?), each of us will OWE another $600.
Committee assignment
Bachmann's current committee assignment in the House is on the Financial Services Committee. It is to be hoped that one requirement to serve on this committee would be an understanding of finances. If Bachmann possesses such an understanding, it shouldn't be too terribly difficult for her to ascertain how much her own office is spending on propaganda and self-aggrandizing publicity.
I realize that members of Congress have the right to send mailings to the citizens they represent and that there are franking privileges to cover postage costs, but it boggles my mind that my representative would choose such a small issue and such a lavish presentation to ensure that, come December, her face would arrive in glossy full-color (like a Christmas card, perhaps? Hummm) in each household of her constituency.
I know to the penny how much I spent on my holiday cards and the postage it took to deliver them. So tell us, Rep. Bachmann, how much (of our money) did you spend on your December mailing?
This is the opinion of Karen Cyson, a child care provider in Stearns County and vice president of Minnesota Mensa. Her column is published the third Friday of the month.
Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann
6 responses to "Times Writers Group: Bachmann & Franking Privilege"
That "representative to the south" voted against each anti-pork amendment offered in the House last year while Michele Bachmann voted for 48 of the 50 anti-pork amendments. The difference is billions of dollars.
Good point Gary. Still, if Tim Walz gave back some of his office money, I say good for him. He deserves some praise for that. Perhaps he could introduce a bill cutting by $100k the budgets of ALL House members. As I do the math, that comes up to $43.5 million saved, requires no help from the Senate or the Bush Administration, and could help pay for some of that pork he's been supporting.
I'm also happy to know that Eric is a listener of the KNSI Morning Show! Please call with something like that next time -- I would have loved to have had this discussion on the air!
First, you guys seem to be changing the subject to try and deflect the apparent waste in the Bachmann offices. Second, it is quite easy now for Bachmann, being in the minority, to vote against pork knowing full well that it will pass and she will receive some of that pork regardless of that vote. In fact, It seems as though the Republicans gave up on their pork battle by giving John Boehner the committee assignment coveted by the anti-pork crowd.
It would have been interesting to see how she would have voted in the previous six years given that pork was a tool of the trade for the Republican Party.
Yes, King, I occasionally tune into KNSI in the morning when I commute to work. However, since the demise of Andy Barnett it has been far less interesting. Barnett was full of inaccuracy and became a bloggers dream.
One might also actually take a look at the basis for that Club for Growth scorecard, as I did last summer.
--Ollie Ox at Bluestem Prairie
Great Post Ollie!
It is quite easy now for Bachmann, being in the minority, to vote against pork knowing full well that it will pass and she will receive some of that pork regardless of that vote.
Eric, that's one of the most laughable comments I've heard lately. Michele has a long track record of fighting against wasteful government spending.
If you don't believe me, just ask the editorial writers who complain that she didn't vote for this or that thing.
You can't have it both ways.