In breaking news on Sunday, we learned that an American citizen had been arrested on December 5th in Cuba. The yet, unnamed detainee is described as a “development worker” employed by Development Alternatives, a company under contract to the United States Agency of International Development. Curiously, this development worker was engaged in his mission of giving away lap top computers and cell phones when he was apprehended. The Cuban government says he was giving the devices to “activists” which is a pretty loose term in Cuba to define anyone that the government isn’t quite sure about.
It is apparent that the State Department hasn’t gotten the memo yet that we are in debt up to our eye-balls and I find it very curious that we are giving electronics away in a country where we have no diplomatic mission while the schools in this country are facing major budget cuts that will impact the amount of teachers, let alone computers that are available to American students.
The United States Agency of International Development is a throwback to the post World War II Marshall Plan and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Created in 1961, the US Agency of International Development or “USAID” has a current annual budget of roughly $39.5 billion dollars for foreign aid and foreign development projects. While forty-billion dollars does not seem like a lot of money in the context of a $3.6 trillion dollar Federal Budget, remember that FY2009 saw a Federal deficit of $1.4 trillion dollars so this agency, in essence is borrowing from China only to give it away to other nations.
The Marshall Plan sounded like a great idea in the days after World War II since many blamed the dismal conditions after World War I for the ascendancy of Adolph Hitler. The rationale was that rebuilding war-torn nations and encouraging economic development would create positive conditions and prevent the acts of desperation that directly lead to the carnage of the second world war; or at least, this is how it was sold. What we now know is that the Marshall Plan was not so much about the philanthropic efforts of a benevolent United States as it was about early developments and the first shots of the cold war with Soviet Russia. The infusion of American cash into Western Europe was intended to build a bulwark against communist advances. I believe that if that money had never been spent, we would be looking at a totally different and unrecognizable political landscape today so I don't particularly have a problem with that; at least in that context.
Having said that; the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991 and with their dissolution, the need for the Marshall Plan and the Foreign Assistance Act should have faded away as well. Reagan had warned that the closest thing to eternity that man would ever see was a government program. Some programs defy logic but are so bloated with heavily connected bureaucrats that they have Congressional assistance in guaranteeing their existence in perpetuity. On this particular program, foreign aid became a distasteful word when American businesses began downsizing or moving manufacturing operations overseas. The people began to demand that the interest of Congress should be on the plight of suffering Americans and that foreign aid was money best spent right here at home.
There were three possibilities. One- Continue foreign aid and hope you can find a good reason to sell it to the American people before Election Day. Two- End foreign aid and use the funds to reduce the budget deficit or to fund essential programs within the United States. Then there was number three and the one that Congress opted to adopt….change the name. There are dozens of agencies and administrations in the Federal government all designed to give taxpayer money away; the USAID being just one. The curious part of this is that with all the money the United States has distributed in aid and assistance to foreign countries, we have never bought one friend. So why do we keep doing this especially when our own financial security is in question? It’s still politics but now it is a completely different ideology.
There are many within the progressive movements that believe that capitalism is evil and consumerism promotes greed. These are the same people that drank the socialist Kool-Aid back in the ‘60’s and fervently believe that the key to a utopian society, free from war and capitalist greed is the institution of a single world government Many of the more radical activists have taken control of the environmental movement which is why their focus has shifted from responsible conservation to international government control with the UN as the base of operations. Even the progressives in our own Congress are in on this and that is why we see this massive attempt to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to a climate panel in the UN that would ultimately determine our industrial might and standard of living.
Without the knowledge of the American people, we have been using taxpayer money to fund transportation projects in foreign nations while our own infrastructure is collapsing. We have massive programs to feed famine stricken nations while churches and private charities operate food banks to feed our own poor. We are funding economic development and green initiatives in foreign lands while we allow our own business to shrivel and die under the economic weight of trying to compete with foreign companies that are not burdened with the government restrictions or taxes that we impose on our businesses at home.
I will go even further. I would say that there is sufficient waste in the Federal government to warrant a radical move to impose responsibility. We have all seen these enormous bills pass through Congress with billions of unnecessary expenditures added just to buy the votes of those that play hard to get. Congress is rife with political whores that sell their votes as long as they can show a little sugar to the voters back home. Our recent favorite is Senator Mary Landrieu, (D-LA); she peddled her vote on healthcare to Harry Reid for a measly $300 million dollars (Hi Mary!) How can we begin to solve our financial woes when every unpopular bill that passes through Congress contains bribes to obtain votes to guarantee passage?
Well if this is the “horse-trading” as they love to call it, maybe that is what needs to be capped. Demand that the Federal budget be cut by 50% and tell them this is your allowance. This is all you get so make it work. No? The banks were collapsing and needed nearly a trillion dollars or our financial system would crash. Isn’t it amazing how many of those banks are finding the resources to pay back TARP money ever since the Fed began discussing the moral necessity of capping CEO salaries of the companies that took bailout money? The salary of government workers are nearly double the national average thanks to union influence. We have had a nasty habit of funding idiotic studies because the research labs are located in states where key votes have to be “purchased”. In essence, if we actually need two billion dollars to purchase body armor to protect our soldiers in battle, we have to pay an additional million or two for a study of the sex habits of Asian transgender prostitutes in order to get the appropriations bill passed.
Now a Federal Judge in New York said it was unconstitutional for Congress to cut funds to ACORN because it was a punitive act against one group taken without due process. Excuse me? Are you saying we have to continue funding an organization that a Congressional committee identified as a criminal enterprise until we have an administration that is willing to investigate them? Can we not use the same “due process” the IRS uses against the citizens of the United States? Due process in tax cases is to freeze the assets of the accused until they can prove they are innocent so the subjects of tax inquiries are not afforded the “due process” required everywhere else in our legal system. If defunding ACORN is unconstitutional, then how is it constitutional for the IRS to ignore the presumption of innocence and force the burden of proof onto the accused? Something is very wrong.
The only research program I am willing to fund at this point is a complete and independent audit of the Federal Government. The IRS can dive back seven years into your past if they see a “red flag” on your return. I think that a $12 trillion dollars debt is a sufficiently large red flag to warrant a complete examination of what they have been doing with our money.
Paul
It is apparent that the State Department hasn’t gotten the memo yet that we are in debt up to our eye-balls and I find it very curious that we are giving electronics away in a country where we have no diplomatic mission while the schools in this country are facing major budget cuts that will impact the amount of teachers, let alone computers that are available to American students.
The United States Agency of International Development is a throwback to the post World War II Marshall Plan and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Created in 1961, the US Agency of International Development or “USAID” has a current annual budget of roughly $39.5 billion dollars for foreign aid and foreign development projects. While forty-billion dollars does not seem like a lot of money in the context of a $3.6 trillion dollar Federal Budget, remember that FY2009 saw a Federal deficit of $1.4 trillion dollars so this agency, in essence is borrowing from China only to give it away to other nations.
The Marshall Plan sounded like a great idea in the days after World War II since many blamed the dismal conditions after World War I for the ascendancy of Adolph Hitler. The rationale was that rebuilding war-torn nations and encouraging economic development would create positive conditions and prevent the acts of desperation that directly lead to the carnage of the second world war; or at least, this is how it was sold. What we now know is that the Marshall Plan was not so much about the philanthropic efforts of a benevolent United States as it was about early developments and the first shots of the cold war with Soviet Russia. The infusion of American cash into Western Europe was intended to build a bulwark against communist advances. I believe that if that money had never been spent, we would be looking at a totally different and unrecognizable political landscape today so I don't particularly have a problem with that; at least in that context.
Having said that; the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991 and with their dissolution, the need for the Marshall Plan and the Foreign Assistance Act should have faded away as well. Reagan had warned that the closest thing to eternity that man would ever see was a government program. Some programs defy logic but are so bloated with heavily connected bureaucrats that they have Congressional assistance in guaranteeing their existence in perpetuity. On this particular program, foreign aid became a distasteful word when American businesses began downsizing or moving manufacturing operations overseas. The people began to demand that the interest of Congress should be on the plight of suffering Americans and that foreign aid was money best spent right here at home.
There were three possibilities. One- Continue foreign aid and hope you can find a good reason to sell it to the American people before Election Day. Two- End foreign aid and use the funds to reduce the budget deficit or to fund essential programs within the United States. Then there was number three and the one that Congress opted to adopt….change the name. There are dozens of agencies and administrations in the Federal government all designed to give taxpayer money away; the USAID being just one. The curious part of this is that with all the money the United States has distributed in aid and assistance to foreign countries, we have never bought one friend. So why do we keep doing this especially when our own financial security is in question? It’s still politics but now it is a completely different ideology.
There are many within the progressive movements that believe that capitalism is evil and consumerism promotes greed. These are the same people that drank the socialist Kool-Aid back in the ‘60’s and fervently believe that the key to a utopian society, free from war and capitalist greed is the institution of a single world government Many of the more radical activists have taken control of the environmental movement which is why their focus has shifted from responsible conservation to international government control with the UN as the base of operations. Even the progressives in our own Congress are in on this and that is why we see this massive attempt to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to a climate panel in the UN that would ultimately determine our industrial might and standard of living.
Without the knowledge of the American people, we have been using taxpayer money to fund transportation projects in foreign nations while our own infrastructure is collapsing. We have massive programs to feed famine stricken nations while churches and private charities operate food banks to feed our own poor. We are funding economic development and green initiatives in foreign lands while we allow our own business to shrivel and die under the economic weight of trying to compete with foreign companies that are not burdened with the government restrictions or taxes that we impose on our businesses at home.
I will go even further. I would say that there is sufficient waste in the Federal government to warrant a radical move to impose responsibility. We have all seen these enormous bills pass through Congress with billions of unnecessary expenditures added just to buy the votes of those that play hard to get. Congress is rife with political whores that sell their votes as long as they can show a little sugar to the voters back home. Our recent favorite is Senator Mary Landrieu, (D-LA); she peddled her vote on healthcare to Harry Reid for a measly $300 million dollars (Hi Mary!) How can we begin to solve our financial woes when every unpopular bill that passes through Congress contains bribes to obtain votes to guarantee passage?
Well if this is the “horse-trading” as they love to call it, maybe that is what needs to be capped. Demand that the Federal budget be cut by 50% and tell them this is your allowance. This is all you get so make it work. No? The banks were collapsing and needed nearly a trillion dollars or our financial system would crash. Isn’t it amazing how many of those banks are finding the resources to pay back TARP money ever since the Fed began discussing the moral necessity of capping CEO salaries of the companies that took bailout money? The salary of government workers are nearly double the national average thanks to union influence. We have had a nasty habit of funding idiotic studies because the research labs are located in states where key votes have to be “purchased”. In essence, if we actually need two billion dollars to purchase body armor to protect our soldiers in battle, we have to pay an additional million or two for a study of the sex habits of Asian transgender prostitutes in order to get the appropriations bill passed.
Now a Federal Judge in New York said it was unconstitutional for Congress to cut funds to ACORN because it was a punitive act against one group taken without due process. Excuse me? Are you saying we have to continue funding an organization that a Congressional committee identified as a criminal enterprise until we have an administration that is willing to investigate them? Can we not use the same “due process” the IRS uses against the citizens of the United States? Due process in tax cases is to freeze the assets of the accused until they can prove they are innocent so the subjects of tax inquiries are not afforded the “due process” required everywhere else in our legal system. If defunding ACORN is unconstitutional, then how is it constitutional for the IRS to ignore the presumption of innocence and force the burden of proof onto the accused? Something is very wrong.
The only research program I am willing to fund at this point is a complete and independent audit of the Federal Government. The IRS can dive back seven years into your past if they see a “red flag” on your return. I think that a $12 trillion dollars debt is a sufficiently large red flag to warrant a complete examination of what they have been doing with our money.
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment