Bachmann Wants to "Reform" Social Security and Medicare, But Will She "Reform" Her Pension?

Now and then, it's a good idea to do a search with Bachmann's first name spelled with two L's.

Below is a video uploaded in May. It's Bachmann speaking in Rancho Mirage, May 15. In the beginning, Bachmann says this about Social Security and Medicare:

"This is what we have to do; we have to reform Social Security, reform Medicare, because those are the big cross [cost?]-drivers. Anyone 65 of age or older needs to keep the current level of benefits they're on, because that's what they've planned for. We cannot take that away from them. People between the ages of 55 and 65 we have to have some alterations there. People 55 and younger; we have to have a different system... "

Without this "reform" Bachmann says the United States faces "bankruptcy" and "collapse".

She also says, "we are living in an age of infantilism where people think - where's the money coming from?."

Hmmm.... the same place the money for Bachmann's excessive, self-promoting franking and farm subsidies and partisan rallies, and using her office to help a non-constituent donor obtain a presidential pardon, and her husband's faith-healing... not to mention her government pension... I assume she's expecting to get one of those. Where does the $$$ to pay for that stuff come from, Michele?

But, what I found interesting is her explanation for the collapse of the Soviet Union:

"Our national security is dependent upon a strong economy. Think back to Reagan, think back to the collapse of the Berlin wall and think back to the Soviet Union. It wasn't for lack of will that the Soviet Union collapsed and that the Cold War was over - it was because they were bankrupt. That's what happened. Reagan got that. He understood that they weren't going anywhere and if he built up our military, that the Soviet Union would try to have parity, couldn't and they would have certain collapse."

Is Bachmann comparing the United States to the Soviet Union? That's bizarre by itself.

If Bachmann is saying Reagan bled the Soviet Union dry by increasing our military budget, which included funding the Mujahideen's war to expel the Soviet Union from Afghanistan... then, aren't we also being bled dry by our occupation (using, Bachmann's assertion that the USSR and the U.S. are similar economically) of Afghanistan? How is the huge cost to the U.S. economy (not to mention the human costs) of of our occupation of Afghanistan any less destructive than the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union? In other words, if Afghanistan is another Afghanistan, why doesn't Bachmann call for an end to the occupation? So far, Bachmann has supported the occupation of Afghanistan (and Iraq), but Bachmann doesn't want to pay for it.

Reporters need to ask Bachmann the same question about the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq that she asks in this video; "Where's the money coming from?".