or Login to see your representatives.



Public Statements

Fox News "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace" - Transcript


Location: Unknown


WALLACE: Dominic Di-Natale reporting from Libya -- Dominic, thanks for that.

With the first Republican presidential debate to be shown on here FOX News Channel only four days away, the field is far from settled. One potential candidate who enjoys strong support in the Tea Party joins us now.





Question -- Paul Ryan doesn't go far enough?























WALLACE: But not a voucher plan?




WALLACE: You're a hardliner. I think you would agree on the question of the debt ceiling. You say you won't vote to raise it. You won't vote to raise the nation's debt ceiling unless Obamacare is defunded. And you suggest that the government should pay its debt first and then worry about its other obligations and perhaps cut some of the spending for other obligations.

Here is the problem with that, Congresswoman -- Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin says, "Adopting a policy that payments to investors should take precedence over other U.S. legal obligations would merely be default by another name." So, you're willing to default on our debt?

BACHMANN: Well, let's face it. If we continue on the trajectory that we're going right now of borrowing money that we don't have, because 41 cents of every dollar the federal government spends today is borrowed money. So, every hour, we are borrowing $188 million. So, about a fifth of $1 billion in the hour you're on today, we will borrow.

We can't do that. This -- the music is about to end. The game is going to be over.

So, don't let anyone tell you that by increasing the debt limit, the ability for the federal government to keep borrowing, that somehow that's going to show the world that we're even more credit-worthy because we're borrowing? Very soon, Chris, we are going to be at the point where we're going to be -- we're going to be borrowing more money so that we're essentially having a $4 trillion budget and $2 trillion of it will be borrowed money. We can't live that way.

WALLACE: But here's the question.



BACHMANN: Who is advocating defaulting? I'm not. No one is advocating defaulting. That's why Senator Pat Toomey and Representative Tom McClintock have a bill that would direct the treasury secretary to first pay off all obligations, and after that, prioritize spending.

WALLACE: But you just heard the deputy treasury secretary say that's default by another name.

BACHMANN: Well, that is his opinion. My opinion is we could go with the Toomey-McClintock plan. We could pay off the debts first and prioritize. What a shock to the ruling class in Washington, D.C. They don't have all the money they want to spend. We never did have that ability to be able to spend all that money.

WALLACE: Don't you worry , I mean, what our creditors would say, what the financial markets would say if we don't raise the debt ceiling and we have to start doing that? As I say, everybody from Ben Bernanke to your speaker, John Boehner, say it would be a financial disaster.

BACHMANN: Well, I don't know if you heard what I said. I am not calling for default.

WALLACE: But if you don't raise the debt ceiling, that is what is going to happen.

BACHMANN: But that's not true. Because what we would do is, again, we'd prioritize spending. Just because Congress has authorized spending for various programs doesn't mean that we have to fulfill that spending.

If you look at the off-the-charts increases in spending from 2008 until today, we have accumulated $4 trillion in debt just in the time that President Obama has been in office. We just can't do that. Just because Congress in its wisdom has authorized almost 50 percent more spending than what we can afford doesn't mean that we should do it.

It's like if my family was overspending or if your neighbor's family was overspending, you cut up your credit cards, you'd sell the boat. You'd sell your vacation home if you had one. You wouldn't be going out to eat.

You'd make every decision you could to scale back and then you'd consolidate. Everyone else is doing that. The only one not doing that is the political class here in Washington, D.C. And all I'm saying is that if we continue this fantasy of thinking that if we can continue to raise the debt ceiling, somehow that will bring prosperity.

It's game over. It is not happening. We have to realize we're only accelerating decline for the United States. That is not going to bring us into prosperity.

WALLACE: I want to switch to foreign policy. You say that we should have stayed out of Libya.


WALLACE: We're going to have Lindsey Graham on in a moment. Is he wrong when he says in fact we should get more deeply involved and in fact should take out Qaddafi? I would also like your reaction to the missile strike overnight that apparently killed some of Qaddafi's family.

BACHMANN: Well, remember, Defense Secretary Gates said we were not attacked by Qaddafi, nor were we threatened attack. He also said we have no vital national American interest in Libya. Those are the two prerequisites for our United States military entry.

He was later asked what our military goal was in Libya. He couldn't state what our military goal is. What in the world are we doing in Libya if we don't know what our military goal is? And if we still aren't sure about who the opposition forces are? What possible benefits--

WALLACE: When you say the opposition, you mean the rebels?

BACHMANN: The rebels. What possible benefit could there be for the United States if in fact we could potentially be benefiting Al Qaida of North Africa or Hezbollah, which is a very strong likelihood?

This would be a terrible mistake for this reason, because if we give Al Qaida of North Africa access to sustained revenues from oil, they could continue to fund global terrorism. How is that going to help anyone? This is a disaster in the making.

That's why President Obama's policy of leading from behind is an outrage. And people should be outraged at the foolishness of the president's decision. He said he wanted to go in for humanitarian purposes, and overnight we are hearing that potentially 10,000 to 30,000 people could have been killed in the strike. Those are some of the reports.

WALLACE: In the NATO strikes, 10,000 to 30,000 people?

BACHMANN: There is a report that came out from an ambassador from Tripoli that said we won't know until we're able to go in.

WALLACE: But did the NATO strikes killed 10,000 to 30,000 people?

BACHMANN: A report that came out last night from the Tripoli ambassador said that potentially there could be 10,000 to 30,000 --

WALLACE: When you said the Tripoli ambassador, you mean the Libyans?


WALLACE: So you're believing the Qaddafi regime?

BACHMANN: We don't know. We don't know. All I'm saying is that --

WALLACE: Do you think Muammar Qaddafi is a reliable person?

BACHMANN: I don't think anyone thinks that. When President Obama went in, his doctrine was to enter into Libya for humanitarian purposes.

The point of what I'm saying is that we are seeing many, many lives lost including innocent civilians' lives. What will be the ultimate objective and gain? I don't see it. I think it was a foolish decision to have gotten involved.

WALLACE: We are running out of time. You're a tax lawyer, which may surprise some people. You're a successful businesswoman. But the rap against Michele Bachmann is that you say some -- forgive me -- flaky things.

I want to run through a couple of them. One, in March, you told a crowd in New Hampshire this.


BACHMANN: New Hampshire, what we have in common is our extreme love for liberty. You're the state where the shot was heard around the world Lexington and Concord.


WALLACE: Lexington and Concord, New Hampshire?

BACHMANN: Well, you know, after that, I promised I would never again use President Obama's teleprompter and I intend to keep that promise.

WALLACE: OK. In 2010, you said this at a Tea Party rally.


BACHMANN: Now the federal government owns or controls 51 percent of the private economy. We're on to them. We're on to this gangster government and we are not going to let them have their way.


WALLACE: Briefly, what does "gangster government" mean? And secondly, our brain room, which is the Fox News Research Department checked it out. They say if you add up all the companies that the U.S. government has a stake in -- General Motors, Chrysler, Fannie, Freddie, AIG, on and on -- it only adds up to 1.3 percent of the private economy. Not 51 percent, 1.3 percent.

BACHMANN: Well, the numbers that I had gotten were ones that I had read from a professor of economics who had said we were over 51 percent. And that was something that was reported in the "Investors Business Daily." And that was my source for that comment, and I stand by that source that I've cited at the time. And the previous question that you had was?

WALLACE: Gangster government.

BACHMANN: Yes, well, I think that it is gangster government when you have President Obama taking away the property rights of the secured preferred bondholders of Chrysler and essentially giving their private property interest over to the union interest in Chrysler.

We had over 3,400 pink slips given to dealerships across America by the Automobile Task Force. These are privately owned and held automobile dealerships, and the federal government pulled the rug out from under those dealerships and essentially took away their private property interest.

That's a gangster government when government makes the decision, as opposed to the free market, about who will win and who will not survive. If you are politically connected, you survive, and if you aren't, you don't. That is a gangster government.

WALLACE: Finally, Congresswoman, one last question about, explicitly about the campaign. I'm curious about the fact you're appearing here. You appear in a lot of places, but you are unwilling to go up against your fellow candidates in South Carolina at the debate Thursday night. Do you not feel you are ready for primetime?

BACHMANN: Well, I was just on primetime yesterday and the evening before. I was in New Hampshire --

WALLACE: But you weren't in a debate with the other candidates.

BACHMANN: Well, I was with Mitt Romney, with Tim Pawlenty, with Rick Santorum --

WALLACE: Yes, but separate speeches.

BACHMANN: And with Herman Cain. Well, we were back-to-back with each other and all on the same topic and all being asked questions. So I've already been there, done that.

I'm not making my formal announcement either way until June. So I didn't feel that it was appropriate to be in the first official debate, which Fox will be sponsoring on--


WALLACE: Are you going to get in the race?

BACHMANN: I'll let you know in June.

WALLACE: Congresswoman, thank you so much. Thanks for coming in. Please come back and tell us whether or not you're going to run. Perhaps we'll be seeing you on the campaign trail.

BACHMANN: Thank you, Chris.


Back to top