Michelle Bachmann called out big time by Bill O'Reilly (and everyone else)

Excerpts from the Washington Post's fact-check on the following:

“Here's the truth that the president won't tell you. Of every dollar that you hold in your hands, 70 cents of that dollar that's supposed to go to the poor doesn't. It actually goes to benefit the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. — 70 cents on the dollar. That's how the president's caring works in practice. So $3 in food stamps for the needy, $7 in salaries and pensions for the bureaucrats who are supposed to be taking care of the poor. So with all due respect, I ask you, how does this show that our president cares about the poor?”

— Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, March 16, 2013

"Some readers might question why we are checking a statement by Bachmann for a second day in a row. We concede that it might seem a bit much, but her assertions often reflect comments that have bounced around, unchecked, in the blogosphere.

So we were especially curious about the “truth” that 70 percent of the Food Stamp program went to “bureaucrats.” It took us a while to track down the original source of this claim, but it turns out that he believes he has been frequently misquoted. So, with all due respect to Rep. Bachmann, it seems worthwhile to set the record straight.

Remember that child’s game of telephone, in which the whispered information gets increasingly distorted? That’s what happened here.

[Link below to Washington Post's detailed description of the facts of this matter. Bottom line is, SIX PERCENT (6%) IS SPENT ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, 94% GOES TO THE POOR AND NEEDY. And, yes, the President has told us this.]

The Pinocchio Test: 

Bachmann made two key errors here. First, she misinterpreted Tanner’s point. Then, she blithely assumed [how restrained of them to put that way] the ratio was applicable to the Food Stamp program when budget data show she’s off by more than a factor of 10 (or a factor of 200, if you just count salaries.)

So Bachmann yet again earns Four Pinocchios. But there really aren’t enough Pinocchios for such misleading use of statistics in a major speech."

BTW, for the other lie the Washington Post felt necessary to rate (4 Pinocchios again)? It's that Obama has a staff member just to walk his dog. Bill O'Reilly had something very pointed to say about these things too. He seems to think the far right will soak these lies right up, but everyone else will see them for what they are, further handicapping the efforts of the GOP to once again become a sensible and respected party.

Also, just BTW, bad news for the Bachmanns--3 MORE states are considering outlawing the shysterism of gay "conversion therapy." What IS Mr. Bachmann doing this days?