Skip to comments.Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Crime Syndicates?
Posted on 11/26/2009 9:53:17 AM PST by RogerFGay
They just won't let it go. Even after exposure of illegal activities, bills show up in Congress to find more ways to give money to ACORN. If there is any silver lining, it could be the awakening of taxpayers to the current reality. Beyond tax and spend, there's the eerie question of where all the money is going. A heck of a lot of it could be illegal, and in support of illegal operations, simply theft.
At most, Americans have typically gotten only a superficial view of the federal budget. Political issues are presented in big and certainly superficial terms. Much of the information given about big spending decisions is wrong. Why? Because many of the reasons for a big budget have nothing at all to do with the issues. They are merely excuses for spending. The public gets a view based on unleashed marketing practices, without normal legal constraints against out-and-out fraud.
It seems that practically the only beneficiaries of big health care reform, for example, come from a simple expansion of Medicaid. The only beneficiaries of climate change reforms are Big Energy companies and politically connected businessmen like Al Gore who are in on the scam. Both initiatives have extreme down-sides for taxpayers and the economy as a whole. These realities have little to nothing to do with what promoters are saying with exaggerated claims about the uninsured and demonization of critics.
What is the Constitutional authority for Congress to give money to ACORN? There isn't any. When Nancy Pelosi was asked for Constitutional authority for the federal government to take control of health insurance, she responded that promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. It's the kind of fundamental misinterpretation that one might expect from a grade-schooler. If it were true, it would mean that the federal government can spend money on anything it wants. There would be virtually no Constitutional limit to federal government power or abuse of that power.
They could for example, give $400 million to Al Gore just because they felt like it and he could give a percentage privately back to each Congressional supporter. It would make Al Gore happy as well as the politicians receiving the kick-backs. That would be ok under Pelosi's broad authority to promote welfare.
The Constitutional role of the federal government includes support for the general welfare of the United States, not welfare programs. The term welfare was not used in reference to social programs until long after the Constitution was written. Throughout history however, federal courts have allowed compromises and sometimes giant leaps in limit-busting expansions to federal power. What we have called the welfare program for the past few decades actually started as a veteran's benefit to provide for families of fallen and disabled soldiers, related to the federal government's authorized role in national defense. It was then expanded, bit by bit in response to butter and guns arguments, then eventually on to the creation of an all-encompassing welfare state. (More on this below.)
The slippery slope theory of American government held that allowing the federal government to exceed its Constitutional authority here and there would establish precedents that would then allow greater and more rapid expansions of government power. This would eventually lead to a collapse of the Constitutional system along with disappearance of freedom and individual rights. The theory has obviously held, for the current Congress respects no limits to their power and is addicted to proposals that would accomplish the task. It has often been said that the slippery slope leads to socialism. But is the appearance of a socialist revolution in Washington merely another marketing trick? Are we really sliding into the deepest pits of plain, old-fashioned criminal corruption? History suggests that we are.
Constraints against federal power have relaxed, more rapidly since the 1960s. In the 1970s, conservative members of Congress complained that it looked like liberals wanted to turn any good idea into a federal program. By the 1980s, the ideas no longer needed to be good. They only needed to be marketed in a manner that would make them feel like they might be good. During the 1990s, disguised as welfare reform, the federal government took over marriage and family. It was likely the greatest social and political change in American history, at least since Roe v. Wade. For the first time in history, the welfare program had grown to encompass everyone, regardless of income and no matter whether you asked to be involved or not. The federal government immediately began to collect detailed personal and financial information on every American, as if authorized to investigate alleged welfare fraud in every case. The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned it all by redefining marriage and family law from Civil Law to social policy; in effect abolishing individual rights and protections against government intrusion. (P.O.P.S. v Gardner, 1993)
Federal family law reform involved public-private partnerships. This meant creation of private companies supported by federal funds designed to carry out government functions. The marketing theme was child support enforcement and deadbeat dads who, it was alleged, burdened the welfare system by refusing to support their own children. The reform had the support of nearly all bureaucrats on federal and state payrolls and was consistently supported by government funded studies.
But subsequent private studies uncovered a pattern of collusion. Nearly all non-payment problems were due to non-ability to pay or the subject of an on-going legal dispute. Statistics supporting reform typically included all payments made late or subsequently reduced by court order rather than just money owed, were not limited to welfare cases, and often stretched back decades. Government supported studies were often conducted by people with clear conflicts of interest those who made money or stood to make money directly from the reforms. There was also a revolving door between government social system bureaucracies and the private partner companies where much more money could be made. A few state legislators were jailed after passing legislation for personal profit and a Michigan Attorney General lobbied for additional funding while running a controversial private child support enforcement organization. Legislation also included additional support for judicial operations, subject to performance measures, while ordinary support was being cut back.
If you were alive in the 1990s and had an ounce of common sense, Shakespeare's words might have come to mind. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Particularly during the mid to late part of the decade, we were deluged with a daily dose of deadbeat dad propaganda from nearly every television station, magazine, and newspaper in the country. The result of reform was an expansion of the welfare system and a much higher cost, with nearly no compensating effect. Still today, child support enforcement companies suck down billions of taxpayer dollars a year while providing no worthwhile services, bureaucrats continue through the revolving door, and ordinary citizens suffer the loss of individual rights.
Bill Clinton used deadbeat dad propaganda heavily in both presidential campaigns even though he doubtless understood it to be a marketing myth. At the time the scheme was being fully implemented, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had offices in the White House. Hillary Clinton hatched her health care reform effort, based on nothing. The parallels between the family law scheme and Gore's global warming scam are quite striking. Government studies producing false and misleading results in support of government expansion and intrusion, broad support from people on government payrolls, a massive propaganda campaign with critics attacked and demonized, public-private partnerships that receive huge contributions from government and forced contributions from the private sector while providing no worthwhile services. Gore's plan, as well as health care reform, are much larger and involve much more money. Gore's scam is global, but so was the family law scheme. Led by the USA, similar family law reform in most of the western world followed. The difference is that Gore's scheme will allow Gore to collect on all international operations, whereas public-private partnerships had previously been local.
Forty years ago, such schemes would have gone off without a hitch. The public would have been none the wiser. Politicians would have been careful to hide ulterior motives. In the past, the public accepted fundamental change pretty much without complaint, often because they were simply not told. The conservative verses liberal debate seemed like it amounted to something and we thought that the Constitution and the courts would save us eventually if something really important went wrong.
It seems that big public scamming has become more formulaic. The current generation of politicians has only known success of the method. So they geared up to bigger and bolder schemes and carry them out with less concern for getting caught. In fact, the new generation of followers do not seem to have the need to be as bright as the original creators. That brings us back to ACORN. Why not pick an existing organization one that already has a nefarious character and just funnel money to them. It's particularly easy if it has already created its own marketing myth it's own feeling of a good idea, if the president already has an established relationship, and the attack on critics is already defined racists! Domestic terrorists using the Constitution as an excuse!
But then, somebody might notice. And with so many government scams effecting so many people already the truth might generally be believed. Support for current initiatives is relatively low and diminishing as more and more critics have become more concerned about corruption. Especially with repetition, the whole master-plan the formula itself might be exposed. If stupidity isn't the reason for such brazen moves as we are watching today, what is? Maybe they just believe that they are already so powerful that there is nothing the public can do to stop them. Without Constitutional rights and protections against government intrusion and only a semblance of democracy, what can anyone do?
Yes. The syndicate is called the Federal Government!
The only diference is the traitors have made it "legal".
“promote the general welfare” . . . a very general phrase in the PREAMBLE somehow is interpreted to mean “everything” . . .above and beyond the SPECIFIC powers granted to the federal government later in the document
Right down to massive tax evasion and election corruption to protect them, all the while with a smile.
When we get our property tax bill next month, I’ll consider the check I am forced to write, to be a forced payment to organized crime.
Happy Thanksgiving! Enjoy the day!
The comments on this thread are examples of why the right tends to lose arguments. the original article contends that money is diverted by the (liberal) government from the citizenry to fund those criminal elements whose two aims are the accumulation of wealth and power. Suddenly, we are off at a tangent, led by commentators who think that the policies of a government with which they simply disagree are by their very nature, criminal.
NOT SO! Criminal is criminal, and disagreement is a democratic right. Meanwhile, the real argument is forgotten.
We're going to pay very dearly for that before too long.
The Obamao organization has many sub criminal organizations under it, and yes our taxes pay for them. That’s the whole gig.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
I don’t think the article is off on a tangent at all. It’s right at the heart of the matter. It’s not about issues with which the author simply disagrees. The article itself makes that perfectly clear. Are you receiving government funding?
Not the article - the commentators here on FR!
Oh. Yes, that can happen. Many people like to make quick comments in response to titles. That doesn’t expand their universe.
health care....cap and trade....the green movement....
all the crooks need is a dollar or two from 300,000,000 people....and have it govt sanctioned...and actually have the govt collect it....
ACORN...Wall ST....two ends of a spectrum..the Left...the Right...Houston..the American People have a problem here.
FWIW John Adams specified a Congresscritter/population ratio of 1:30000...giving us a House to day of about 7000. Which is what we need.
Didn't they already do that when they gave a whole bucket of money to Algore's car company out of the stimulus?
Looking at the mafia-like thugs in the White House and Congress, it appears that this is a very stupid question.
I agree - the House needs to be much, much larger. And paid a lot more - accompanied by a hard ban on contributions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.