Michele Bachmann on Jobs

Republican Representative (MN-6)

NRLB shouldn't stop Boeing's factory in right-to-work state

In May 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against the Boeing Company aimed at stopping the opening of a new airplane plant that Boeing had built--at a cost of some $750 million--in South Carolina. The plant was built to expand production of Boeing's new 787 "Dreamliner" passenger jet, creating 4,000 new jobs. Yet the NRLB, fired up by new Obama appointees, filed suit to stop the production, accusing Boeing of engaging in "unfair labor practice" by opening a plant in right-to-work S.C. as opposed to pro-union Washington state.

A further absurdity: the NRLB said that Boeing was taking assets away from Washington state, [but] Boeing was continuing to make 787s at a unionized plant in Everett WA. Both plants had many years of full capacity production [to fulfill] backlogged orders of some 850 planes.

The NRLB was operating as a rogue agency, pushing beyond its authorized functions, pushing beyond liberalism, beyond activism, all the way to "unlawful."

Source: Core of Conviction, by Michele Bachmann, p.194-195 , Nov 21, 2011

#1 reason why employers aren't hiring is ObamaCare

Q: With regards to jobs, how are you going to turn this country around?

BACHMANN: It's time to reach for the brass ring of liberty once again. And we can. The signature issue of Barack Obama and his presidency has been the passage of Obamacare. This week, a study said the number-one reason why employers aren't hiring is because of Obamacare. That's why I introduced the bill to repeal Obamacare. And as president of the United States, that's the very first thing I would do, is repeal Obamacare.

Source: 2011 GOP Google debate in Orlando FL , Sep 22, 2011

Longer unemployment means people less likely to find jobs

Q: What did you think of the president's speech tonight [on the American Jobs Act]?

A: Well, it wasn't a plan, it was a political speech. And I think--my bottom line is, so what's new about what we heard? The president gave no new ideas. And I think the real problem is that, again, this was political. We need to do what works because quite simply, to extend payroll tax deductions--there's no credible supporting evidence that shows that created any new jobs. Not only that, extending the unemployment benefits--if you look at the president's own new economic adviser, he said in two different studies that the longer you keep people on unemployment, the less likely it is they're going to find a job. That doesn't work. More stimulus? Do we really need "son of stimulus"? We passed a trillion dollars in stimulus. Will billions more do the job? There is nothing new here!

Source: Response to 2011 Jobs Speech on Fox News "On The Record" , Sep 8, 2011

Attract jobs by cutting job creator taxes

Q: Can a president create jobs without expanding the role of the federal government?

A: Yes; 3 priorities: Attract jobs by cutting job creator taxes. Keep dollars in private sector by reducing government spending. Simplify tax code for small business: repeal the death tax, increase access to capital by repealing Frank-Dodd, & repeal Obamacare to reduce healthcare costs. Government overregulation is the single biggest jobs killer. The three biggest offenders are the EPA, Obamacare, & Frank-Dodd.

Source: 2011 Republican primary debate on Twitter.com , Jul 21, 2011

Omnibus bill to repeal job-killing bills, starting with EPA

Q: How to get new jobs in manufacturing?

A: The federal government and the states have done numerous job training programs over the year with mixed results. Today the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. I'm a former federal tax lawyer. I've seen the devastation. We've got to bring that tax rate down substantially so that we're among the lowest in the industrialized world.

Here's the other thing. Every time the liberals get into office, they pass an omnibus bill of big spending projects. What we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills, but it's the repeal bill that will get a job killing regulations. And I would begin with the EPA, because there is no other agency like the EPA. It should really be renamed the job-killing organization of America.

Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in Manchester NH , Jun 13, 2011

FactCheck: bailout cost $25B, not $700B; and no IRS police

Bachmann exaggerated about spending: "After the $700 billion bailout, and the trillion-dollar stimulus...."

Let's take the most egregious exaggeration: "the $700 billion bailout." That figure is grossly outdated. Bachmann is referring to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which President Bush signed into law in 2008. As the CBO explained, the "authority for TARP was originally set at a maximum of $700 billion; however, that total was reduced to $475 billion." But the estimated net cost to taxpayers will be $25 billion after the government sells its stocks and the companies repay the money, as CBO estimated in its report.

Bachmann is flat-out wrong when she claims the need to hire "16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing Obama's health care bill." The CBO estimated in 2010 that IRS administrative costs would increase by $5 billion over 10 years. But that money will go to administering tax credit programs, not for IRS agents in charge of policing mandates.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2011 State of the Union Tea Party response , Jan 26, 2011

$700B bailout & 9000 earmarks didn't keep unemployment at 8%

Two years ago, unemployment was 7.8%. The White House promised us that all the spending would keep unemployment under 8%. It hasn't been [under 8%] for 20 straight months. While the government grew, we lost more than 2 million jobs.

After the $700 billion bailout, the trillion-dollar stimulus, and the massive budget bill with over 9,000 earmarks, many of you implored Washington to please stop spending money that we don't have. But instead of cutting, we saw an unprecedented explosion of government spending and debt. It was unlike anything we have seen in the history of the country.

Deficits were unacceptably high under President Bush, but they exploded under President Obama's direction, growing the national debt by an astounding $3.1 trillion. What did we buy? Instead of a leaner, smarter government, we bought a bureaucracy that now tells us which light bulbs to buy, and which will put 16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing President Obama's health care bill.

Source: 2011 State of the Union Tea Party response , Jan 26, 2011

Voted NO on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks.

Congressional Summary:Revises the formula for Tier-1 amounts a state credits to an applicant's emergency unemployment compensation account. Increases the figures in the formula from 50% to 80% of the total amount of regular compensation ; and from 13 to 20 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:

Rep. CHARLES RANGEL (D, NY-15): The House, for weeks, has attempted to save the free world from a fiscal disaster. We have bailed out the banks and those who held mortgages. At the same time, we provided for energy extensions, we provided tax breaks for those people that tax provisions have expired. We provided for hurricane relief, for mental health. So over $1 trillion is out there for this House to ease the pain of millions of Americans.

While we were dealing with these gigantic powers, we overlooked the fact that over the last 12 months the number of unemployed workers has jumped by over 2 million, leaving 10 million Americans struggling for work. These are hardworking people that have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Rep. JERRY WELLER (R, IL-11): This important legislation provides additional needed assistance to the long-term unemployed. It's important that we pass this legislation today as our last act before we leave for the election campaign.

This legislation focuses the most additional benefits on workers and States where the unemployment rate is highest and where jobs are hardest to find. This program continues the requirement that those benefiting from extended unemployment benefits had to have worked at least 20 weeks. Americans were rightly concerned about proposals to eliminate that work requirement and allow 39 weeks or, under the legislation before us today, as many as 59 weeks of total unemployment benefits to be paid to those who have previously only worked for a few weeks.

Opponent's argument to vote No:None voiced.

Reference: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act; Bill HR.6867 ; vote number 2008-H683 on Oct 3, 2008

Voted NO on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This bill was vetoed twice! Congress passed an identical bill in May, which Pres. Bush vetoed. Congress then discovered that a clerical error. A replacement bill was passed; then vetoed again by the President; and this is its "final" veto override.

Congressional Summary: Provides for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY2012. Revises agricultural and related programs, including provisions respecting:

  1. commodity programs;
  2. conservation;
  3. trade;
  4. nutrition;
  5. credit;
  6. rural development;
  7. research and related matters;
  8. forestry;
  9. energy;
  10. horticulture and organic agriculture;
  11. livestock;
  12. crop insurance and disaster assistance;
  13. socially disadvantaged and limited resource producers; and
  14. miscellaneous programs.
President's veto message: I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 6124. The bill that I vetoed on May 21, 2008, H.R. 2419, did not include the title III (trade) provisions that are in this bill. In passing H.R. 6124, the Congress had an opportunity to improve on H.R. 2419 by modifying certain objectionable, onerous, and fiscally imprudent provisions [but did not].

This bill lacks fiscal discipline. It continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase. It is inconsistent with our trade objectives of securing greater market access for American farmers. [Hence] I must veto H.R. 6124.

Proponents argument for voting YEA: We had a meeting this morning with the Secretary of Agriculture to talk about implementation. So [despite the two vetoes], the work has been going on within the department of agriculture to get ready for implementation.

This is a good bill. It has wide support in the Congress. It does address all of the issues that have been brought to the Agriculture Committee.

Reference: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; Bill HR6124 ; vote number 2008-417 on Jun 18, 2008

Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing.

    To enable employees to form & join labor organizations, and to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts. Requires investigation that an employer:
    1. discharged or discriminated against an employee to discourage membership in a labor organization;
    2. threatened to discharge employees in the exercise of guaranteed collective bargaining rights; and
    3. adds to remedies for such violations: back pay plus liquidated damages; and additional civil penalties.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    The principle at stake here is the freedom that all workers should have to organize for better working conditions & fair wages. There are many employers around the country who honor this freedom. Unfortunately, there are also many employers who do not. These employers attempt to prevent workers from unionizing by using tactics that amount to harassment, if not outright firing. In fact, one in five people who try to organize unions are fired. These tactics are already illegal, but the penalties are so minor, they are not effective deterrents.

    Opponents support voting NO because:

    Democracy itself is placed at risk by this bill. The sanctity of the secret ballot is the backbone of our democratic process. Not one voter signed a card to send us here to Congress. None of us sent our campaign workers out to voters' houses armed with candidate information & a stack of authorization cards. No. We trusted democracy. We trusted the voters to cast their ballots like adults, freely, openly, without intimidation, and we live with the results. But here we are, poised to advance legislation to kill a secret ballot process.

    Let's be clear. Every American has the right to organize. No one is debating that. This is a right we believe in so strongly we have codified it and made it possible for workers to do so through a secret ballot.

    Reference: The Employee Free Choice Act; Bill H R 800 ; vote number 2007-118 on Mar 1, 2007

    Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.

    Increase the federal minimum wage to:
    1. $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after enactment;
    2. $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
    3. $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    We have waited for over 10 years to have a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this country Low-wage workers had their wages frozen in time, from 10 years ago, but when they go to the supermarket, the food prices are higher; when they put gasoline in the car, the gasoline prices are higher; when they pay the utility bills, the utility bills are higher; when their kids get sick, the medical bills are higher. All of those things are higher. They are living in 2007, but in their wages they are living in 1997.

    Opponents support voting NO because:

    This bill is marked more by what is not in the bill than what is in it. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create two-thirds of our Nation's new jobs, and they represent 98% of the new businesses in the US. What protection does this bill provide them? None whatsoever.

    We can do better. In the interest of sending the President a final measure that provides consideration for small businesses and their workers, the very men and women who are responsible for our economy's recent growth and strength, we must do better.

    Reference: Fair Minimum Wage Act; Bill HR 2 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-018 on Jan 10, 2007

    Other candidates on Jobs: Michele Bachmann on other issues:
    Pres.Barack Obama
    V.P.Joe Biden
    GOP Candidates:
    Rep.Michele Bachmann(MN)
    Herman Cain(GA)
    Rep.Newt Gingrich(GA)
    Gov.Jon Huntsman(UT)
    Gov.Gary Johnson(NM)
    Rep.Thaddeus McCotter(MI)
    Rep.Ron Paul(TX)
    Gov.Rick Perry(TX)
    Gov.Buddy Roemer(LA)
    Gov.Mitt Romney(MA)
    Sen.Rick Santorum(PA)
    GOP Withdrawals:
    Gov.Haley Barbour(MS)
    Gov.Chris Cristie(NJ)
    Mayor Rudy Giuliani(NYC)
    Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR)
    Gov.Bobby Jindal(LA)
    Gov.Sarah Palin(AK)
    Gov.Tim Pawlenty(MN)
    Donald Trump(NY)
    Civil Rights
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    Govt. Reform
    Gun Control
    Health Care
    Homeland Security
    Social Security
    Tax Reform

    Page last updated: Feb 23, 2012