|
Michele Bachmann on Welfare & Poverty
Republican Representative (MN-6); 2011 GOP frontrunner
|
|
|
Government subsidizes idleness, dependency, and delinquency
In our efforts to protect the family, I began to see that our government was often on the wrong side. Government officials were praising, even subsidizing, the worst kinds of behavior--not just abortion but also idleness, dependency, and delinquency.
The pundits of [the 1970s and 1980s] called it "justice" and "liberation." But here on the ground, in real-world America, where I was living, the rest of us could see that government was fostering injustice and anarchy.
Indeed, in the seventies the bad trends were moving steadily up and the bad trends were moving down: abortion, crime, divorce, drug abuse, and venereal disease were on the rise, while test scores, the purchasing power of the dollar, and traditional
family values were drastically falling.
Good moral behavior, I realized, is not just the path to a virtuous civil society; it is the prerequisite for economic growth. A healthy society; a healthy economy.
Source: Core of Conviction, by Michele Bachmann, p. 48
, Nov 21, 2011
Liability shield to allow charities to provide healthcare
Bachmann called for a "liability shield" for doctors to boost access to health care. The "shield" would protect health care providers from lawsuits in connection with free health care offered to those who couldn't otherwise afford it.Bachmann said tha
doctors and others who once provided charity care are scared off today by the legal risks associated with it. The "liability shield" would allay those fears. "Why not do that? Why not take care of poor people?" Bachmann said. "Why not make your lives
cheaper and better so you don't have to worry about health care?"
In Iowa, something very similar to such a shield is already in place. Doctors who enter into a "protection agreement" under the program receive legal defense and indemnification for care
provided to uninsured and underinsured patients.
Bachmann's proposal was light on details, but ostensibly would be a federal program, conflicting with her typical health-care rhetoric, which is sharply critical of federal involvement in medicine.
Source: Jason Noble in Des Moines Register, "Bachmann charity care"
, Oct 28, 2011
Voted YES on maintaining work requirement for welfare recipients.
Congressional Summary:- Prohibits any experimental pilot or demonstration project that: waives compliance with mandatory work requirements
- Rescinds and nullifies any such waiver granted before the enactment of this Act.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
Rep. REICHERT: Congress must ensure that work continues to be the centerpiece of the TANF welfare program. We are here today debating the Obama administration's efforts to undermine work requirements. Bipartisan discussions were actually happening before the Obama administration announced they would waive work requirements for welfare recipients last summer. That announcement completely undermined bipartisan negotiations in our committee about ways to strengthen this program. Usually, if an administration wants to change the law, they must submit a legislative proposal for Congress to consider, but that's not what the Obama administration did with its proposal to waive the TANF work
requirements.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
- Rep. LEVIN: Last summer the administration proposed that states would be allowed to apply for waivers and have some flexibility in terms of the application of the work requirements--not the end of them or changing them, but the implementation of them. The idea that the administration is going to try to overturn welfare reform is ridiculous. States have to apply individually for waivers, and they have to explain in detail why the approach would lead to either more employment or better jobs for people who are trying to stay off welfare.
- Rep. NEAL: I chaired the Democratic position [on 1990s welfare reform]. One of the goals of welfare reform was to move unemployed Americans from welfare to work, and it did work. The legislation has been very successful in meeting that goal. Welfare reform put people back on the work rolls. Welfare rolls have dropped by half, & poverty amongst children has dropped as well.
Reference: Preserving the Welfare Work Requirement & TANF Extension Act;
Bill H.R.890
; vote number 13-HV068
on Mar 13, 2013
Voted NO on instituting National Service as a new social invention.
Congressional Summary:Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act: Adds to National and Community Service Act of 1990 (NCSA) purposes:- providing year-round opportunities in service-learning;
- involving program participants in emergency and disaster preparedness, relief, and recovery;
- increasing service opportunities for retiring professionals;
- encouraging service by individuals age 55 or older and continued service by national service alumni;
- focusing national service on the areas of national need.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D, MD): [In developing national service over many years] we were not in the business of creating another new social program. What we were in the business of was creating a new social invention. What do I mean by that? In our country, we are known for our technological inventions. But also often overlooked, and sometimes undervalued, is our social inventions.
We created national service to let young people find opportunity to be of service and also to make an important contribution. But not all was rosy. In 2003, when I was the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee funding national service, they created a debacle. One of their most colossal errors was that they enrolled over 20,000 volunteers and could not afford to pay for it. That is how sloppy they were in their accounting. I called them the "Enron of nonprofits."
And they worked on it. But all that is history. We are going to expand AmeriCorps activity into specialized corps. One, an education corps; another, a health futures corps; another, a veterans corps; and another called opportunity corps. These are not outside of AmeriCorps. They will be subsets because we find this is where compelling human need is and at the same time offers great opportunity for volunteers to do it.
Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.
Reference: Serve America Act/GIVE Act;
Bill H.R. 1388
; vote number 2009-H169
on Mar 31, 2009
Page last updated: Feb 25, 2016