So the bad news is that despite the best efforts of a few heroes like Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, craven state legislators and power-hungry Democrats in Congress have assured that the massive stimulus spending will go into effect over the objection of concerned governors. In doing this Congress may well have precipitated a constitutional crisis and it is clear that the last remaining hope for those who want fiscally responsible government and oppose this massive deficit spending bill lies with legal challenges in the courts, and ultimately on the slender hope that the Supreme Court will block this massive expansion of federal power and affirm the validity of the 10th Amendment.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Maurice
Well written and terrifying!
Funny how we are always concerned with dictators like Chavez forcing their will on their citizens and yet here we have our own government seizing companies and forcing people to accept 'gifts' which are bad for them.
2 - Dave Nalle
The expansion of federal power which this represents is the scariest part. Our local and state governments are supposed to be our primary source of governance, yet congress is now attempting to usurp that power.
We've gone from Bush and his unitary executive to a congress which is even more power hungry and dictatorial. Our government is completely out of balance.
Dave
3 - Clavos
Governor Sanford is dead on with this point:
"There's something very strange about issuing debt to solve a problem caused by too much debt."
It's ironic that the people who are so afraid of the so-called "New World Order" conspiracy are failing to notice the rapidly deepening consolidation of all power in this country in the hands of the federal government and the democrats currently running it.
4 - Matthew T. Sussman
Ha. Next article:
Can The Supreme Court Rule the Stimulus Bill Unconstitutional?
5 - Roger Nowosielski
Nothing would please our friends here better!
6 - Glenn Contrarian
"billions for ACORN"?
Reference, please.
7 - Rob Daugherty
While ACORN is not specifically mentioned, recall what ACORN is:
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
The bill states:
"“For a further additional amount for ‘Community Development Fund,’ $4,190,000,000, to be used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes..."
ACORN and other nonprofit entities would be in line to receive these funds. What would these funds be used for? What exactly does "neighborhood stabilization" mean?
And why would an organization called "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now" take it upon themselves to register millions upon millions of people (i.e. democrats - real or imaginary) to vote.
So...
ACORN is not specified directly. However, what IS specified is a fund where ACORN gets its federal money.
8 - Dave Nalle
Here's a link to a more detailed explanation, Glenn.
It's basically a bunch of additional funding for a program from which ACORN already gets substantial federal dollars. IMO a gross conflict of interest. Too many partisan groups are operating under the pretense of being non-partisan on both sides of the aisle, ACORN just being the most egregious example.
Dave
9 - Dr Dreadful
What exactly does "neighborhood stabilization" mean?
Reading beyond those two words in the sentence you yourself quoted ought to give you an answer to that question.
10 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
4.19 billion dollars - that's a LOT of money, huh? And though you admitted in your reply that ACORN is not specifically mentioned, you DID state in your article:
The context of your statement is CLEAR. BILLIONS for ACORN...even though you later admitted that ACORN - whose registration efforts have not been proven to have led to even ONE fraudulent vote in the entire nation in 2008 - is not specifically mentioned.
Furthermore, Dave, since you made it clear that it is your belief (YOU made the statement, remember) that ACORN will receive billions...but do you know what ACORN's operating budget is? Do you know their funding sources? Beyond what your neo-con pundits tell you, apparently not.
As of 2006, ACORN's operating budget was about $37 million for an organization of over 200,000 people. The funding from several sources within the government added up to about $3.3 million per year from 2003-2006...in other words, less than one-tenth of ACORN's operating budget.
BUT ACCORDING TO THE LITERAL WORDS IN YOUR ARTICLE the federal government would increase ACORN's budget perhaps a thousandfold!
Next time, Dave, please be more careful to not skew the information you present...for that is certainly what you did. I strongly suspect your error was inadvertent, that you allowed your frustration and anger at Obama and ACORN to color your rhetoric beyond the point of truthfulness.
In other words, please be more careful to allow the facts to determine your belief, rather than allowing your belief to determine the facts.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
I looked at your reference - and it's a JOKE! It's titled "ACORN Could Get Billions...." - and NEVER shows ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that ACORN would receive anything more than what's it's been getting from the federal government.
In fact, go to your reference and look at the 'updated and more expansive study' - IT'S JUST AN EXCEL TABLE WITH NO REFERENCES WHATSOEVER! I looked at another reference listed by your reference - an 'analysis' by John Boehner - and it's the SAME table, and again with NO REFERENCES to back it up!
But let's say the article's right, that ACORN's operating budget for 2008 was $57 million - not surprising, considering the FACT that ACORN gets the majority of its funding from non-governmental (i.e. partisan) sources. The Boehner 'reference' also states that ACORN had receive just under $20 million from the federal government since 1998 - an average of two million dollars per year, or just under FOUR PERCENT of their operating budget for 2008.
C'mon, Dave - will you at least check your sources to make sure they're factual and verifiable? First clue - if you're reading an article with inflammatory language (which your reference certainly had), make sure your BS filter is working.
12 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, I'll stop posting my opinion that ACORN is at least in part the target of some of this money when you agree that ACORN is involved in a wide variety of unscrupulous and partisan activities while taking large amounts of federal funds, which is utterly reprehensible.
In addition, ACORN operates through hundreds of front groups and affiliates to mask their involvement and to allow them to avoid federal grant limitations and other types of oversight.
And keep in mind that the point of this article is not the details or the degree of ACORN's funding, but the attempt to take away the right of states to restrict and regulate federal spending in their territory. Whether it's a penny or a trillion for ACORN is largely irrelevant.
But by all means defend the most corrupt organization in the US until you turn blue in the face. I'm not going to cut them any slack.
Dave
13 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Next time, Dave, please be more careful to not skew the information you present..."
Is that anything like saying a comment by Rob Daugherty is the same as a comment by Dave Nalle?
14 - Dave Nalle
Um, who the hell is Rob Daugherty?
And I do wish that people would pay some attention to the serious issue raised in this article, rather than falling for Glenn's transparent attempt at misdirection.
Dave
15 - handyguy
Most states are begging for this money. And most or all of it is sorely needed.
Gov Sanford and his legislature have clashed a number of times before. The rigidity of his libertarianism gets in the way of humanitarian assistance, because [like Dave?] he basically doesn't believe in welfare and would like to see it abolished.
And what would some of the writers and commenters do on here without Acorn to kick around? It's highly comical.
16 - Clavos
Most states are begging for this money. And most or all of it is sorely needed.
In which case, it's a shame indeed that the administration and Congress won't simply return the money to the states without strings, especially since that's where the damn money came from in the first place.
The arrogance of the clowns in Washington knows no bounds.
17 - Dan(Miller)
Clav,
The arrogance of the clowns in Washington knows no bounds. I suggest, sir, that there are no bounds, because we, the voters, impose none.
Dan(Miller)
18 - Clavos
Point taken, Sr. Miller.
We should start, and the sooner the better.
19 - Cindy D
Where will you get the money to buy the "representatives"?
20 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy D,
They are not for sale. They are, however, available for rent.
Dan(Miller)
21 - Maurice
This over balance of power by the federal government could lead to bad things.
22 - Lumpy
handy. why should our government be in the businesss of handouts? do you prefer that method of helping the needy because you're too lazy to help them yourself or because you'd prefer to see them helped with someone else's money. either way i'd peg u as the one who really doesn't cate. certainly not enough to take responsibility with your owm precious time or money. heattless.
23 - Al Barger
I don't see how the states could do much to stop the "stimulus" bill anyway. Seems like the most they could do even in theory would be to refuse their little chunks of the state aid, which is what, 10% of the total?
And it's tough to ask someone NOT to take money that the feds are shoving at them. We don't get any choice in paying for this nonsense. It's not like if Sarah Palin refused their cut, then Alaskans wouldn't have to pay the taxes or endure the inflation that will be used to pay for the whole mess.
24 - handyguy
Hi Lumpy. Lovely to see you as always.
I am on the receiving end of government benefits right now, receiving the princely sum of $405 per week in unemployment benefits [minus 10% for tax withholding].
I have not yet applied for food stamps, and I must admit like most middle class Americans I don't even know how, or what the eligibility requirements are. But soon, I may get to find out. I lost my job at the end of August last year. I am attempting to live my life in New York City, not an inexpensive place, as you may have heard.
Certainly I believe there should be a strong government safety net. The idea that people should be allowed to go without food or healthcare because they are down on their luck is quite repugnant to me. Maybe you've just hardened yourself to it. I won't try to read the motivation for your unpleasant attitude.
In a time of economic crisis, the poorest in our society become even more vulnerable. [I don't include myself there, thankfully, and I hope I don't have to.] And as has been pointed out, cash benefits to the poor are nearly always spent, 100%, and they do serve as some kind of immediate stimulus to the economy through grocery stores etc.
Without federal subsidies, states may have to cut back on benefits significantly, and may have to lay off teachers, police, nurses, and other state employees.
The money in the stimulus that is going to the states is not frivolous. There are a lot of people hurting right now. I'm glad we have a government that isn't looking for ways to kick the poor when they're down. Or whatever nicer sounding way you'd like to put it.
25 - Al Barger
Suss sez: Can The Supreme Court Rule the Stimulus Bill Unconstitutional?
Answer: They probably SHOULD, at least some good chunks of it. Then again, it's not like the constitution actually means that much anyway. It would be just foolishness to expect the SCOTUS to ask the president or congress where the constitution gives them a right to do something. Pretty much the only clear restriction that the US Constitution places on government power is that they're absolutely not allowed to stop women from killing their unborn babies.
Other than that though, it's anything goes. And what's a trillion here and federalizing my medical data there amongst friends?