Core of Conviction : My Story (9781101563571)

by Bachmann, Michele

  Later that same day, I had to get back on an airplane and fly back to Washington for more votes. Nine days later I flew out to Ukiah a second time, where I was privileged to deliver the eulogy for David. Barbara has always been and always will be a sister to me. I thank God for my family and for these dear lifelong friends.

  Yet at the same time, I could see that I was being called to serve on a larger scale. I have thanked God many times for giving me the opportunity to serve on the national level. Now the work I had begun needed to be continued. The question of America’s future was at stake, and I had the resolve to continue the fight to save it.

  CHAPTER FIFTEEN

  Called to Serve: Seeking the Presidency

  IN late 2010, friends and constituents began suggesting that I run for president. Folks credited me with playing a leading role in energizing the Republican vote in the 2010 midterm elections. They told me that I had a solid conservative record, that I was an articulate spokeswoman for all the key conservative beliefs, and that I had been right to oppose the 2008 bailouts initiated by Democrats and Republicans and continued by Democrats, as well as the big-spending foolishness perpetrated by President Obama. America needed that sort of conservative, they told me, the kind of leader who puts principle ahead of party. They also said that through my plain speaking I had helped bring disaffected swing voters over to the GOP. They also mentioned that I had an intriguing résumé. And so, they said, I should get into the race for the 2012 Republican nomination.

  At first I dismissed the idea. I was happy in the House; I felt that I had a voice and a clear role to play.

  But then I began to see that there was a lot more work to be done. The 2010 election had broken the power of the Obama presidency—but Obama was still president. The elections had brought Republican victory in the House but not in the Senate. The country was hurting, and the voters were watching; if the GOP were to slip into bad habits, it could be pitched out of power just as quickly as it had gained the majority. The real point of having power, I believed, was to follow the Constitution—that would make America a better place.

  Meanwhile, the Obama administration was at it again. Earlier, I described the many components of liberal government—and of gangster government. I described the increased spending and the increased regulating—and even the tax cheating. I decried Obamacare and the administration’s thuggish handling of the Chrysler bailout. I mentioned its handling of Fannie, Freddie, and Dodd-Frank. All of these represent the dysfunctional Beltway business-as-usual practices that shocked the conscience, and drained the wallet, of ordinary Americans.

  Yet even after his policies were repudiated by the voters in 2010, the president was still working his will through the under-the-radar bureaucracy. And to me, two incidents proved to be the two last straws. The last straws, that is, convincing me that the absolute maximum effort was needed to stop Obama-style liberalism—and gangsterism—in its tracks.

  The first straw came in February 2011. That’s when I learned from Ernest Istook, a former Oklahoma congressman turned budget watcher at the Heritage Foundation, that the Obama administration had hidden $105 billion to begin implementation of Obamacare, $105,464,000,000, to be precise, in a series of postdated checks in funding to be paid out between 2011 and 2019.

  Usually legislation to create a program such as Obamacare only authorizes the spending of funds; it takes separate legislation actually to appropriate—that is, spend—the money. But not this time. This time the liberals couldn’t wait for the familiar workings of Congress; they wanted to start spending money right away—and with “the fierce urgency of now,” as Obama always said during the 2008 campaign.

  President Obama knew the American people wouldn’t like his bill, so he didn’t want to take any chances that a 2010 election could mean the repudiation of Democratic majorities (which it did in the House), that is why he, Pelosi, and Reid prefunded Obamacare, but conveniently forgot to tell most everyone in Congress. Do a Google or even a Lexis/Nexis search on Obamacare funding—you won’t find many articles, if any, on Obamacare and $105,464,000,000 in funding. Even by Washington’s standards, that’s a lot of money. Every member of Congress who voted for Obamacare should have to answer two questions for their constituents. First, did they read the bill before voting for it? And second, did they know they were voting to spend that $105,464,000,000?

  And if they did, where were they getting the money from? The Democrats all prided themselves on the so-called “pay-go” rules, meaning they had to show they had a legitimate source to pay for their $105 billion in spending.

  So the normally required sequence—first authorization, then appropriation—was bypassed; federal money, it turned out, was already being spent to set in place the fabled crown jewel of socialism. This is the federal government we’re talking about, and so if Uncle Sam is already spending close to $4 trillion a year, despite taking in only about $2.2 trillion a year, Obama could simply borrow another $105 billion. Here’s an example: Section 1311[a] of Obamacare allows the secretary of health and human services to provide $16 billion in grants to the states to start setting up “exchanges” for the sale of Obama-approved, and-mandated, health insurance. That is, $16 billion to begin setting up a federal program; that is, to hire the consultants, rent the office space, and hold the all-important retreats at swanky resorts. It’s the good life in D.C., and the rest of us are paying for it. So we are reminded, once again, why Washington enjoys the highest median household income of any metropolitan area in the nation. I know that I’m getting pretty deep in the weeds here, but the liberal big spenders have been deep in these weeds for decades—that’s one reason that we’re in financial bankruptcy. For Republicans to be effective in countering this big-government weed patch, tough talk won’t get the job done. Instead, they are going to need, first, the ability to understand the nature of this expensive federal shrubbery, and second, of course, they are going to need the strength to mow it down.

  Moreover, in this instance, we saw the recurrence of a baleful pattern: The feds began “giving” grants to the states to set up their own satellite programs—and only too late did the states wake up and realize that not only did they have a bad program on their hands, but they were spending more to run it than they were actually getting from the feds. That total of $105 billion, to put it in perspective, was enough to fund the entire operation of the state of Minnesota for three years or the state of Iowa for seventeen years.

  So in regard to this stealth $105 billion, I was livid and thought the world should know what most members of Congress should know. When twelve-digit sums get spent with virutally no knowledge of those doing the voting, that’s gangsterism on steroids. On March 6, 2011, I went on NBC’s Meet the Press, holding up a sign reading “$105,464,000,000”; I explained, as best I could in a few moments, the outrageousness of this latest scam. So many outrages occur every day in Washington that to many members of Congress it seemed just too complicated, too much trouble to worry about. I thought, Our team needed to fight over that $105 billion in nontransparent spending. Otherwise, what’s to stop Obama from doing it again? For more? And what if Republicans had slipped in $105 billion into the largest piece of legislation to come along in a generation, and we had failed to disclose this material term to the Democrats? The Democrats would have gone ballistic, and rightly so. And the media would have gone equally ballistic. But instead, our side just let it go.

  The second straw came in May 2011. That’s when 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 four thousand new jobs. Yet the NLRB, fired up by new Obama appointees, filed suit to stop the production, accusing Boeing of engaging in an “unfair labor practice” by opening a plant
in right-to-work South Carolina as opposed to prounion Washington State. It was an unprecedented legal argument from the NLRB and threatened grave damage not only to Boeing but also to South Carolina. The Palmetto State’s charismatic new governor, Nikki Haley, denounced the action: “This is a direct assault on everything we know America to be.” She was right. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a former chief economist at the Labor Department, noted a further absurdity: the NLRB’s saying that Boeing was taking assets away from Washington State. After all, Boeing was continuing to make 787s at a unionized plant in Everett; it was simply planning on building more 787s at the second plant in North Charleston. And because Boeing currently had backlogged orders of some 850 planes, both plants had many years of full-capacity production to look forward to. I asked myself: What’s the problem here? And why would the Obama administration, operating through the cat’s paw of the NLRB, seek to shut down production and jobs? Is this the Obama economic plan—at a time of staggeringly high unemployment? Is this his big idea, to take a company that is winning in the world competitive marketplace—and clobber it?

  It was another gangster move. According to two legal experts at the Heritage Foundation, Hans von Spakovsky and James Sherk, the NLRB’s action was “an unbridled, unauthorized, and unlawful expansion of the regulatory power of an executive agency.” That is, the NLRB was operating as a rogue agency, pushing beyond its authorized functions, pushing beyond liberalism, beyond activism, all the way to “unlawful.”

  Furthermore, the two Heritage experts noted the likely dire consequences: “If allowed to stand, [the NLRB’s] actions threaten business investment and job creation as well as the employment of both unionized and nonunion workers.” In other words, the NLRB was threatening employment for all Americans, both union and nonunion. It was adding yet another threat to America’s already endangered job market.

  And it was worse than that. The NLRB, created in 1935, is nominally an independent agency, charged with monitoring unions and union elections. And yet during the last few years, the Obama administration has taken extraordinary steps to increase the agency’s influence and reach. The NLRB is authorized to have five board members, all confirmed by the U.S. Senate; in early 2011, when it had only three members, Obama nominated a fourth prospective member, Craig Becker, a well-known union activist, most recently associate general counsel to the Service Employees International Union. Yet Becker was seen as so outspokenly liberal that the Senate refused to confirm him. So Obama appointed him anyway, using a legal but dubious maneuver called a “recess appointment”; the purpose of a recess appointment is to fill a gap, but now, instead, the Obama administration was using the recess-appointment process to advance a specific liberal agenda. This appointment enabled Becker to sit as a voting member of the NLRB through the end of 2012. In addition, Obama appointed a second liberal, prounion ideologue, Lafe Solomon, to be the general counsel of the NLRB; this position entails extensive agenda-setting powers within the agency, including the setting of board policy. Yet for Solomon too the Senate would not give confirmation, and so the Obama administration blithely named him acting general counsel.

  One might think, of course, that both Becker and Solomon would feel chastened by their failure to gain the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate and that, as a result, they would feel somewhat constrained in their actions. But instead, both men seemed to take their temporary status as an incentive to get as much done for the prounion cause as they could in the time available. So now, under the impetus of Becker and Solomon, the NLRB was attacking Boeing and, by extension, all of American business.

  Those two incidents—the $105 billion Obamacare slush fund and the NLRB attack on Boeing—reminded me that while Republicans had won much in 2010, they needed to win much more in 2012. We needed a real sweep for Republican reformers, not just nominal wins for Republican time servers.

  So I began to look around to see, who would have the backbone to stop these abuses? Who is going to possess the insight and the energy to reach into the innards of the executive branch and put the clamp on these violations of custom and law? Moreover, who would take the case to the people? Who would be an effective champion of transparency and good government as well as, of course, limited constitutional government? We needed to stop $105 billion slush funds. We needed to stop left-wing activists from honeycombing into regulatory agencies. We needed to take our country back.

  I knew that the next president needed to do more than manage the problem; the next president would have to dismantle the problem. The next president couldn’t just continue piling up debt. Nor impose an unconstitutional health plan that costs too much and provides little value. Nor allow political correctness to stand in the way of jobs. Nor appoint liberal judges to advance antifamily policies. Nor fail to secure the border. Nor fail to lead overseas.

  Marcus and I had to face the hard question: Was I the right person to reverse Obama’s policies? Was I the right person to bring about reform and change? People were looking to me. And so, of course, Marcus and I prayed. As Proverbs tells us, we can make our own plans, but the Lord gives the right answer. Some politicos, of course, said that it was too late for me to announce, that other candidates had been running for months, even years, and were too far ahead in organization and fund-raising. Then I sensed an answer. I knew what I was being directed to do. I was called to serve.

  I announced my bid for the White House on June 27, 2011. I went back to my Waterloo birthplace, joined by my family and friends. “It’s great to be in Iowa,” I declared. Yes, Iowa. Home to all those Ambles and Munsons and Johnsons and Thompsons—all those hardworking folks who since the 1850s had made the Hawkeye State into the breadbasket of the world, who had raised patriotic families as well. “And even better to be in Waterloo where I was born.” Yes, I could think back to my happy childhood, when I learned so much from my parents, grandparents, and relatives and when I learned also about the Sullivan brothers, who enlisted to fight for their country and for freedom. As one of Sullivans wrote, “We will make a team together that can’t be beat.”

  I continued:

  I stand here today in front of many friends and family to formally announce my candidacy for President of the United States. I do so because I am grateful for the blessings God and this country have given to me, and not because of the position of the office, but because I am determined that every American deserves these blessings and that together we can once again strengthen America and restore the promise of the future.

  And I closed with:

  Together, we can do this. Together we can rein in all the corruption and waste that has become Washington and instead leave a better America for future generations.

  Together we can make a team that can’t be beat!

  Together we can secure the promise of the future.

  Together we can—and together we will!

  God bless you and God bless the United States of America!

  That was my announcement speech. So now, what is my campaign plan? How do I plan to win the Republican nomination? And then the White House?

  My campaign plan is simple. I am going to say true things. I love these words from Paul’s epistle to the Philippians: “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Those are important words for faith, for life—and even for politics.

  So here’s what I think, in four parts.

  First: I am a national-security conservative. I believe that a president’s most important role is to be commander in chief. I believe in peace through strength. That is, I believe in defending America, defending our allies—and defeating terrorism. Sitting as I do on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am reminded that every day, some people around the world wake up thinking about ho
w they’re going to destroy the United States. Many of these America haters work in the Iranian government. Indeed, they run the Iranian government. So when I learn more about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s nuclear ambitions and his declared determination to destroy Israel and the United States, I take him seriously. If history has taught us anything, it is that when a madman speaks, you listen, and then you work to defeat him. At the same time, of course, we must obey the Constitution, and that means that the president must seek authorization from Congress for military action.

  And as we oppose our enemies, we will stand by our friends. So I will reverse the Obama administration’s pressure on Israel, which seeks to force Israel back to its indefensible 1967 borders. Obama’s policy threatens Israel’s security, even as it encourages Israel’s enemies to think that they can use terror, and the threat of terror, to extract dangerous concessions.

  Meanwhile, we will defend the homeland. We will have no more politically correct nonsense about terrorism; we will keep Guantánamo open, and we will use it to lock up terrorists who seek to kill Americans. We will defend our southern border—and all our borders and coastlines.

  Overall, I emphatically believe that America has been the greatest force for good in world history. I believe we should continue to be a city upon a hill, a light unto nations. That vision is often associated with Ronald Reagan—the greatest president of my lifetime and one of the greats of American history—but in fact, others shared the same vision. John F. Kennedy also spoke of America as a city upon a hill, back in 1961. And both Ronald Reagan and JFK, of course, were quoting the Puritan leader John Winthrop, who in 1630 set great goals for the new land called America—goals I believe we have reached. So while I admire Winthrop’s idealism, I also admire the realism of those who put his vision into practice across so many centuries. The original inspiration for Winthrop came from the Book of Matthew, in which Christ proclaimed from the mount, “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.” Two thousand years later, I have faith that we can yet again, through our hands and feet, be that shining city.