Michele Bachmann Predicts A Flourishing Tea Party In 2012 Elections (VIDEO)

12/23/2010 09:33 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said this week that she believes the Tea Party will play a bigger role in the 2012 elections than they did in 2010.

Asked in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News, Bachmann said that "people want what the Tea Party is talking about," which would spur more enthusiasm in 2012.

"Don't spend more money than what you're taking in, make sure that we don't raise anyone's taxes, and act within the bounds of the constitution," Bachmann explained, "those are the hallmarks of the Tea Party caucus and I think that's what people want us to do."

Bachmann also claimed that when the GOP takes the House reins next year, they wouldn't leave agenda items to be addressed in the lame duck session, which she called unconstitutional.

Asked by Van Susteren if the GOP would have their legislative concerns taken care of "on time" when they controlled the agenda, Bachmann replied:

"Yes, we will. Absolutely. And under budget."

Bachmann continued, explaining her belief that the lame duck session was "unconstitutional."

"If you want my real opinion, the lame duck is awful, and in my opinion it's also unconstitutional," Bachmann said. "The 20th Amendment that was passed back in about 1933 was meant to eliminate all future lame duck sessions. The Congress didn't want to see happen what's happening now."

Bachmann then ran down the recent list of legislative achievements that she thought were improper to have advanced during the recently expiring congressional session.

According to Bachmann, it was all about appeasing the Tea Party, whom she said had spoken "loud and clear" against increased spending in Washington. The conservative movement's message, she said, was also one of the reasons that she believed they had opposed the recent tax cut deal.

"I think that there is a division of opinion, but I think for the most part, the Tea Party was not in favor of the tax compromise, primarily because it wasn't paid for. That was the main concern they had, and when you're looking at the 2% cut to the employee share of the payroll, that's an immediate $111 billion dollar deficit that was blown open in the Social Security Trust Fund, and that's not good because that means you have to go to the general treasury to get that money to pay those checks, and so that means instantaneous deficit spending."


Suggest a correction