Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is hilarious. It turns out that anti-government, pro-free market conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann is cashing in on lots and lots of government farm subsidies.
Michele Bachmann has become well known for her anti-government tea-bagger antics, protesting health care reform and every other government "handout" as socialism. What her followers probably don't know is that Rep. Bachmann is, to use that anti-government slur, something of a welfare queen. That's right, the anti-government insurrectionist has taken more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts thanks to corrupt farming subsidies she has been collecting for at least a decade.
The details:
But data compiled from federal records by Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit watchdog that tracks the recipients of agricultural subsidies in the United States, shows that Bachmann has an inner Marxist that is perfectly at ease with profiting from taxpayer largesse. According to the organization's records, Bachmann's family farm received $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006. The farm had been managed by Bachmann's recently deceased father-in-law and took in roughly $20,000 in 2006 and $28,000 in 2005, with the bulk of the subsidies going to dairy and corn. Both dairy and corn are heavily subsidized--or "socialized"--businesses in America (in 2005 alone, Washington spent $4.8 billion propping up corn prices) and are subject to strict government price controls. These subsidies are at the heart of America's bizarre planned agricultural economy and as far away from Michele Bachmann's free-market dream world as Cuba's free medical system. If American farms such as hers were forced to compete in the global free market, they would collapse.However, Bachmann doesn't think other Americans should benefit from such protection and assistance. She voted against every foreclosure relief bill aimed at helping average homeowners (despite the fact that her district had the highest foreclosure rate in Minnesota), saying that bailing out homeowners would be "rewarding the irresponsible while punishing those who have been playing by the rules." That's right, the subsidy queen wants the rest of us to be responsible.
Bachmann's financial disclosure forms indicate that her personal stake in the family farm is worth up to $250,000. They also show that she has been earning income from the farm business, and that the income grew in just a few years from $2,000 to as much as $50,000 for 2008. This has provided her with a second government-subsidized income to go with her job as a government-paid congresswoman who makes $174,000 per year (in addition to having top-notch government medical benefits). "If she has an interest in a farm getting federal subsidy payments, she is benefiting from them," Sandra Schubert, director of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, told Gannett News Service in 2007, when the subsidies to Bachmann were first publicly disclosed.
My guess is that she has a personal stake in it because a huge family farm has been split up among a number of family members in order to get around means-testing criteria that exempt farms over a certain size from getting subsidies (which is the same way huge corporate farms get around those restrictions -- they get more than 90% of all farm subsidies).
There are limits on many of the subsidies, like a ban on subsidies to any farmer with an adjusted gross income of more than $1.5 million (though the USDA does a lousy job of enforcing those limits). The way around those limits? Divide up the ownership of a huge farm and turn it into a bunch of smaller farms so the income for each person is below the limits.
If that is indeed what the Bachmann family did in order to keep the money flowing, this story is even worse than it appears because that means she took deliberate steps to find a loophole in the law to keep the government money flowing.
And Bachmann is not alone:
Chuck Grassley, the longtime Republican senator from Iowa who warns his constituents of Obama's "trend toward socialism," has seen his family collect $1 million in federal handouts over an 11-year period, with Grassley's son receiving $699,248 and the senator himself pocketing $238,974. Even Grassley's grandson is learning to ride through life on training wheels, snagging $5,964 in 2005 and $2,363 in 2006. In the Grassley family they learn early how to enjoy other people's money.
Grassley, however, at least argues in favor of farm subsidies. I imagine Bachmann opposes them in Congress despite benefiting from them.
Politics
Comments
It's amazing how the stigma associated with accepting government subsidies diminishes inversely with the amount of government largesse received. Receive a section voucher, you're a lazy, immoral whore/thug (depending on gender). Receive 238,974 in farm subsidies, you're a captain of industry and a story of free-market success.
Posted by: History Punk | December 24, 2009 9:37 AM
What exactly does that mean? That they didn't pay more taxes than they owed? Do you deliberately overpay on your taxes? Do you know anyone who does?
Or do you mean they pay the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was a measure passed under a bicameral Democratic majority to avoid the problem of very wealthy households paying little or no tax.
Actually no, Ed is not a scientist. He's a journalist.
Posted by: DaveL | December 24, 2009 9:58 AM
Doesn't count if you're getting richer...Duh.
Posted by: mgordon1 | December 24, 2009 10:00 AM
Grassley, however, at least argues in favor of farm subsidies. I imagine Bachmann opposes them in Congress despite benefiting from them.
Doesn't that make Bachmann more honorable than Grassley? I mean, she benefits from them and she wants them gone - that's worth something, right? What do you expect her to do, just return the money?
Posted by: Jeff | December 24, 2009 10:26 AM
This is old news that truthdig plagiarized from articles published more than two years ago:
http://tinyurl.com/6dq326
http://tinyurl.com/5t6rqf
Posted by: Karl | December 24, 2009 10:54 AM
Remember, it's not socialism if it benefits rich white people.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 24, 2009 11:02 AM
Wow--conservative greed and hypocrisy. Not something you see every day.
Posted by: gary l. day | December 24, 2009 11:12 AM
You don't mention how Bachmann votes on farming subsidies. Omitting that from your argument makes the argument hit only air.
Posted by: TheDude | December 24, 2009 11:42 AM
Ed - if only we had known when we had our pics taken with her, we could have asked her for a couple of our dollars back! Well, better late than never.
Posted by: Barry | December 24, 2009 12:12 PM
Grassley, remember, suggested to Iowans who want government funded healthcare should simply do what he does: work for the government.
Posted by: william e emba | December 24, 2009 12:23 PM
TheDude: It doesn't matter how she votes on farm subsidies. She's against "socialism", so if she votes for them she's a hypocrite and if she votes against them (but accepts them herself) she's a hypocrite.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 24, 2009 12:26 PM
I'm no fan of Bachmann, but she did indeed vote against the farm bill, making her political positions consistent. Dairy and corn are so heavily subsidized, you can't compete on price without taking the subsidies, so it's either take them or sell the farm to someone who will. This attack is pretty poorly thought out.
I work in an industry that Congress decided to subsidize over my opposition (wrote to my congressjerks saying not to, but I'm pretty sure the CEO wrote too and contributed a lot more to their campaigns than I did) - do I have to quit my job now?
Posted by: MattXIV | December 24, 2009 12:34 PM
TheDude: Stunningly nonsequitir.
Karl@5: Obviously, it bears repeating.
MattXIV: As Ed says, the overwhelming majority of farm subsidies go to corporations that depend on cost accounting to be "poor" at tax time and well to do when they're looking for loans or venture capital. Farming subsidies to the tobacco industry made it possible for Liggett & Meyers, Philip Morris and other tobacco companies to kill about 10 million Americans--and profit on the scheme.
No, you don't have to quit your job, until the other hypocrites like Grassley, Bachmann and, never forget, Sarah Palin, quit taking the gubmints money with the hand that isn't shaking it's finger at government "waste".
Posted by: democommie | December 24, 2009 1:00 PM
MattXIV wrote:
Huh? She voted against subsidies but she makes money off them, and you think is consistent? You could argue, as you attempted to do, that the inconsistency is justified by some other fact. But to pretend that it's not inconsistent is just silly.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 24, 2009 1:07 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but collecting subsidies involves WORK, right? Like, you have to fill out forms and prove you meet criteria and such, no?
If so, then Bachmann is being the opposite of consistent. It is HARDER for her to collect the ebil gubmint money then it is to leave it alone!
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 1:16 PM
This whole "government" vs "private sector" argument is simply a crock. They are 100% mutually interdependent. Just try having a business in a place without the things that government provides-roads, air traffic control, a civil society in which contracts are enforced and corporate officers are shielded from personal liability. That would be places like Somalia or Afghanistan -great spots for piracy and drug trafficing perhaps, but pretty poor locales for most businesses.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | December 24, 2009 1:21 PM
Ed,
It's consistent with her other political stances to vote against them and the majority of the post is exerpts from the article complaining about her opposition to legislation with a presumed support for farm subsidies.
As for taking the subsidies, what do you expect someone who is in an industry that is subsidized against their will to do? As I pointed out above, I benefit from corporate welfare despite my clearly expressed opposition to it. The only way I could avoid doing so is to quit my job and start anew in a different industry - if I could start a competing company and only do business where no subsidies are involved I would, but I wouldn't be able to stay in business. You can't compete against someone who has the same cost structure who takes the subsidies if you're not taking them - they can always undercut you on price due to the subsidy. I'm very strongly against farm subsidies, but I don't blame farmers that are opposed to them for taking them since they can't match the prices of someone recieving them, but I'm more concerned about improving ag policy than point scoring. I don't expect people to self-destruct their business to avoid being part of a policy they opposed - that's pretty unreasonable. The "welfare for me but not for thee" argument applies quite well to Grassley and other politicians who claim to be pro-market but vote for subsidies for their state's pet industry, but I'm not going to begrudge someone who opposed them when they were up for a vote the ability to stay in business in that industry.
Posted by: MattXIV | December 24, 2009 1:43 PM
And since you guys are so interested in politicians who fought against policies but benefited from them when they got signed into law, I suggest you check what happened to the extra chunk of their paychecks the Democrats who voted against the Bush tax cuts got to keep ended up - I'm guessing they didn't forward too much of it on to the IRS on their own accord.
Posted by: MattXIV | December 24, 2009 1:50 PM
"It's consistent with her other political stances to vote against them and the majority of the post is exerpts from the article complaining about her opposition to legislation with a presumed support for farm subsidies.
As for taking the subsidies, what do you expect someone who is in an industry that is subsidized against their will to do? As I pointed out above, I benefit from corporate welfare despite my clearly expressed opposition to it. The only way I could avoid doing so is to quit my job and start anew in a different industry - if I could start a competing company and only do business where no subsidies are involved I would, but I wouldn't be able to stay in business. You can't compete against someone who has the same cost structure who takes the subsidies if you're not taking them - they can always undercut you on price due to the subsidy. I'm very strongly against farm subsidies, but I don't blame farmers that are opposed to them for taking them since they can't match the prices of someone recieving them, but I'm more concerned about improving ag policy than point scoring. I don't expect people to self-destruct their business to avoid being part of a policy they opposed - that's pretty unreasonable. The "welfare for me but not for thee" argument applies quite well to Grassley and other politicians who claim to be pro-market but vote for subsidies for their state's pet industry, but I'm not going to begrudge someone who opposed them when they were up for a vote the ability to stay in business in that industry."
If she actually wanted to accept them as a necessary EVIL, she would try to call for stricter accounting that prevents the sort of loopholes she exploited. Big Business doesn't need a subsidy to compete with small farms.
@18, same guy: Probably not! But it's not equivalent to going out of your way to restructure your holdings to abuse loopholes in subsidy law.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 1:58 PM
This warms my anarchist heart.
Was it Gore Vidal who said we have capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich?
Posted by: Three Wolf Shirt | December 24, 2009 2:08 PM
Just because someone has a conservative economic viewpoint does not imply they ought to exclude themself from a particular sector, such as agriculture. I fail to see how the argument absolves itself of this absurdity. There is greater integrity in voting consistently to one's philosophy, however misguided it may be, than in contradicting their philosophy when it benefits them financially.
Ed has made many funny and insightful criticisms of Bachmann, but this is one of his rare misses, I'm sorry to see.
Posted by: TheDude | December 24, 2009 2:12 PM
Her taking the money and lobbying against the policy is not necessarily inconsistent. If she ever attempted to vilify those individuals who TAKE handouts, however ("socialist parasites" etc)... it would be more than a tad two-faced.
Posted by: nathan | December 24, 2009 2:53 PM
Where I'm from we'd call that a conflict of interest. If they deliberately split the family farm to meet criteria for subsidy, we'd call that sneaky, but maybe clever.
However, if you're a government official who trumpets the evils of the government teat, whilst sucking off an immense amount of funds, at the same time.....I find that a huge issue.
She's ok with taking government subsidy when it suits her. I see. I think Ed's bang on the money here, as it were.
Posted by: nico | December 24, 2009 3:12 PM
She did one better and flat out voted against the bill authorizing them. Even if your business could be profitable in the absence of subsidies, when they're present you won't be able to stay in business without taking the same subsidies since your competitors can make money while undercutting your price. Do you think the other farms are holding back on structuring their holdings to get as many dollars as possible? When subsidies are introduced, you need to game the system just as aggressively as your competitors to stay competitive.
Please start making some sense people - all this defending the Stepford mullah is making me nauseous.
Posted by: MattXIV | December 24, 2009 3:14 PM
Stepford Mullah? I don't understand.
I am making sense, however. "Damn, I can't stop subsidies"
Correct response if you don't believe in them:
Try to limit them.
Response taken: "Might as well get my hands on as much as I can!"
They are not equivalent responses.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 3:19 PM
Rutee,
Do you think a freshman member of the minority party in the House who isn't on the ag committee could get a vote scheduled for an amendment like that? If she could, it would be nice, but even getting a floor vote on that's not a winnable fight, let alone actually passing it.
"Stepford Mullah" is a reference to her social policy views.
Posted by: MattXIV | December 24, 2009 3:43 PM
Not on her own! Is it general policy to utterly ignore members of your own party just because they're not on a committee? I feel reasonably certain that if she cared, she could have done something.
She certainly did not have to *restructure her holdings to abuse a loophole*
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 3:49 PM
Rutee,
It is difficult when the ranking member of the committee in your party is enthusiastically pro-subsidy - it's not party line issue. As I said before, if your competitors are restructuring, they're going to eat you for lunch if you don't, so it's either that or sell the farm.
I don't want to give her too much credit either - she's not an anti-subsidy crusader, but when there were enough pro-subsidy votes to override a veto of the bill authorizing them, it's not hard to be better than average.
Posted by: MattXIV | December 24, 2009 4:16 PM
If Ms Bachmann and the farm she was involved in,were to refuse the subsidy and still trade profitably, then she would have an issue with which to beat the parasitic,socialist,communist,welfaringist bad people. Until then she is a hypocrite and hasn't a leg to stand on.
I dont 'spose the farmers of her electorate would be to enamoured with her if she was to make a humungous fuss about getting rid of farm subsidies. Principal can be a very expensive thing, especially compared to hypocrisy.
Posted by: wobert | December 24, 2009 5:37 PM
She's only doing it because of those goddam European Communist-ity socialist farmers getting subsidies
Posted by: mrcreosote | December 24, 2009 8:45 PM
MattXIV holds a nuanced position on Michelle Bachman's exploitation of government subsidies, and extends sympathy toward her ... two things Michelle Bachman seems incapable of doing.
Posted by: llewelly | December 24, 2009 8:46 PM
@MattXIV: "When subsidies are introduced, you need to game the system just as aggressively as your competitors to stay competitive."
If you're opposing the subsidies on moral grounds, as Bachmann is ostensibly doing, then no, you don't. If it's not possible to stay in business without accepting the subsidies, you get out of that business.
One cannot participate in an immoral enterprise and pretend to be acting morally while so doing. If Bachmann opposes "government welfare" and is voting against subsidies on moral grounds, and based on her statements she appears to be, then it is indeed hypocritical and immoral for her to then turn around and accept said subsidies. Pragmatic concerns are irrelevant to the question.
It may be impossible to compete in world manufacturing markets without employing slave labor, but that doesn't make it acceptable to vote against slave labor and then employ slaves because otherwise you'd have to go out of business: wrong is wrong is wrong.
Posted by: Bill Snedden | December 25, 2009 12:47 PM
Probably not! But it's not equivalent to going out of your way to restructure your holdings to abuse loopholes in subsidy law.
Rahm Emanuel turned his private home into a non-profit organization (it's not really) to avoid paying property taxes.
Why don't all conservatives do what Ron Paul does? He's never voted to raise congressional pay. He's never taken a government-paid junket. He refuses to participate in the lucrative congressional pension program and he returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Posted by: Juice | December 25, 2009 2:58 PM
"Do you think a freshman member of the minority party in the House..."
Bachmann's not a freshman, she's a second-termer.
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 27, 2009 6:36 AM
"Why don't all conservatives do what Ron Paul does?"
Such as taking money from avowed White Supremacists? Or building a sizable campaign war chest and then not spending it on, y'know, campaigning? His idiot son, Rand, is apparently going Papa Ron one better. He's not just taking money from racist assholes, one of his campaign staff is a publicly racist asshole (assuming the decon team hasn't sanitized that mess of a blog he had.
Yeah, the Paul family will save MurKKKa for the REAL MurKKKIns, you betcha!
Posted by: democommie | December 27, 2009 10:04 AM
Oh, excuse my previous comment's digressing from the matter at hand.
Michelle Bachmann is lying piece of shit. That she would happily avail herself of the public trough while squealing about it's unholiness is emblematic of the GOP's rank and file.
Posted by: democommie | December 27, 2009 10:06 AM