Tuesday, February 03, 2009

ACORN, La Raza, NACA, LCCR All To Get "Stimulus" Money: Tip of the Iceberg?

There is a reason that so many politicians of both parties are saying "we have to pass the stimulus bill now." They don't want you to know what's in there. Meanwhile, details are coming out about where some of the last "bailout" bill money went. Specifically, that Bank of America is directing two million dollars to ACORN and the National Council of La Raza, as "charity." Michelle Malkin has a long list of ACORN and NCLR branches that the bank is "spreading the wealth around" to. The bank states "Economic emergency: For efforts to prevent foreclosures and educate people about finances and purchasing homes: $2,000,000 to Acorn Housing Corporation (Chicago, Illinois), in it's "charitable" donation announcement.

This brings us back to the bill that is in the Senate now. Any legislation that is being openly "rushed" through the legislative process is suspect, and it doesn't help if the minority party is united against it, coming out of the House. It turns out that there's plenty to oppose in this bill, including ninety million set aside for the "Leadership Conference on Civil Rights" and a group called the "National Association of Area Agencies on Aging." This "earmark" is taken out of the larger two hundred million dollars earmarked for the "digital to analog converter program." This money will presumably be used to teach poor and old people how to adapt their TV's for the coming "digital conversion."

It sounds like you could buy a "digital ready" TV for every poor and old person in the US, for that kind of money (BTW, there are new TV's that wtill receive digital broadcast signals, if you search). No, I don't think this money is being "earmarked" to help the poor or the aging get TV. I tend to agree with Erick Erickson's take, on the Red State blog:

Here's where it gets funny. Each group is now only getting about $2 million.

The Senate believes it needs to give $90 million more - and only these organizations will be able to get their hands on the money. Only these two groups - one group that helps senior citizens and one group whose members were Democrat foot soldiers in 2008 and, with the "administrative costs" they'll be able to take in overhead, will be well funded for coming elections.

It gets worse: Ms. Malkin also illuminate's "the 'Community Development Fund' in the House version of the stimulus bill. Some $4.19 billion would be 'used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes.' The legislation changes the way the fund would be disbursed and loosens lobbying restrictions." Now wait a minute. This money is going to be used for already forclosed homes? ACORN seems to be "playing both sides of the fence," and profiting in both positions.

They get millions to "counsel" people how to avoid forclosure, but get billions to "redevelop" foreclosed properties. Follow the money, and see where thie "stimulus" is for groups like ACORN. They have no interest in keeping people in their homes. They profit from "disenfranchised" minorities, to justify their political racket. How much are they going to rake out of this, and how many people will they actually help?

El Rushbo labeled this bill "porkulus"; it's also been called the "spendulus" bill, and the "Generational Theft" bill, by other luminaries. This post highlights a tiny fraction of the whole bill, and will no doubt be dismissed as such, by it's proponents. I say let's start looking at the details of this huge cluster of law that our legislators are writing, one line at a time. To paraphrase The Who, "(DON'T) GET FOOLED AGAIN! This can't be done "quickly," which casts a cloud over the "rush it through" crowd. Call me a skeptic, but I bet the whole thing's filled with similar pork.

I wonder what Treasury Secretary Geithner thinks about this bill; he hasn't said a word. That's funny, because I thought his input was so "important" to the process, that we had to overlook his tax problems. The primary drivers behind this bill seem to be liberal congressional interests, with Obama giving "lip service" to the GOP, while "dissing" the conservative rank and file. It's interesting political theater, but there is too much at stake to dismiss it as such. Does the Senate GOP really believe that payoffs to liberal interest groups are going to help the economy in any way, or is that something that they are willing to continue caving in on?

Will the Senate fully debate this bill? Minority Leader O'Connell is equivocating, judging by this excerpt from Ms. Malkin:

"Our goal is not to kill it," McConnell said. "Our goal is to make it
better." The GOP, he insisted, "has an open mind." And: "Nobody that I know of
is trying to keep a package from passing."

That sounds alot like playing "prevent" defense in Football: All you "prevent" is your own victory, with that strategy. A "victory" for the nation will be achieved when most people can make an honest buck again, without some "government stimulus" being involved.


Mike Schau said...

Good writing here. All true of course!! Your blog should be widely read and linked to!

Anonymous said...

Umm…dude the names of the organizations that you mentioned in your post they do not even appear in the bill, whether it’s foreclosures or the digital transition. And the only time the term charity appears in the bill is in reference to incentives for hospitals. Go to Thomas.gov read the bill and research the grant process before you repeat that garbage you read on Michelle Malkin’s chatty blog.

CHRIS LEAV said...

Maybe you didn't read my post, dude. I only mentioned the Bank of America using the bailout money for "charity." I made no mention of this bill regarding charity.

As for the names of these organizations not being in the bill, why does that matter? My question to you is "will they be getting the money?"