I thought James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles's undercover videos exposing the willingness of ACORN employees to aid and abet a scheme to smuggle underage girls into the country for prostitution were outrageous. But they have been upstaged in the outrage department by their latest expose on ACORN's San Bernadino office, where an employee of the disgraced organization talks about killing her husband and threatening others who would unveil her discussions with the investigative journalists posing as pimp and prostitute. On its surface, their work is an expose of ACORN; probe more deeply, and one realizes it is an expose of the mainstream media. Why on earth does it take a 25-year old and a 20-year old to do the work that 60 Minutes and the New York Times should be doing? The federal government gave ACORN more than $25 million last year and the president of the United States once served as their counsel in a lawsuit and headed up the organization's Project Vote. Beam me up, Scotty!

LOL @ 25 million! Did you actually attempt to express outrage at a $25 million dollar subsidy? It's adorable when the corporate crew gets upset over government subsidies.

Oh, just a run-down of subsidies for FY 2008 (keep in mind this does not include the Bush/Paulson multi-trillion dollar rape).

1.
Medicare prescription drug benefit (93.770)
$62,000,000,000
2.
Homeland security grants (97.067)
$1,040,000,000
3.
Local firefighter staffing grants (97.083)
$180,500,000
4.
Clean diesel funding assistance (66.039)
$156,000,000
5.
Healthy marriage promotion (93.086)
$150,000,000
6.
Community abstinence education (93.010)
$117,054,000
7.
Education data systems grants (84.372)
$100,000,000
8.
Small shipyard grants (20.814)
$98,000,000
9.
Bioenergy fuels grants (10.078)
$80,000,000
10.
Anti-gang state grants (16.744)
$45,000,000
11.
Laura Bush librarian program (45.313)
$26,500,000
12.
Specialty crop block grant (10.170)
$49,000,000
13.
Senior farmers market program (10.576)
$22,000,000
14.
EPA community action grants (66.035)
$2,400,000
15.
Drug-free workplace grants (59.070)
$990,000
Source: Author, based on the CFDA. In some cases, the cost is for 2008.

You hypocritical conservatives should be ashamed of yourselves, bleating and braying at side-shows. I guess that's what the birthers and tea-baggers are all about: misdirected anger.

You're missing the point PMA. But, I'll play -

ACORN - 4,000,000,000 via one of the biggest wastes in government spending history, the Stimulus.

Did any of the big ticket items involve husband murdering or running prostitutes?

The first segment of the show last evening was particularly good. Exposing ACORN for what it is and Obama’s affiliation with it is just another example of how the Community Organizer in Chief is way over his head.

Some very animated discussion on both sides of the mic/phone and it never ceases to amaze that when the lefties get caught and are proven stone cold wrong, how it always comes back to somehow being Bush and the Republicans fault. Even when there is no logical tie in.

Good job staying on topic. Very entertaining.

Dan,

I made that very point about the NYT and Post on Foxnews.com. Exactly right.

Mal

PMA,

Yes, you completely missed the main points of this post. And then you haphazardly and with complete ignorance charged Dan with being a hypocrite on the tangential point. These are to be expected from one with a knee-jerk agenda, more concerned with making a political point than with accuracy.

Perhaps you are relatively new to this blog, which would explain your ignorance (but not you reckless character assassination). Because if you have been around for much time and if you've been paying attention, Dan has always been very much opposed to all the programs you list him as hypocritically in support of. Few conservatives have been as clear and persistent in their opposition of so much of what the Bush Administration did, including and esp. the prescription drug program, which is the largest expansion of the entitlement state since LBJ's "Great Society."

In fact, most real conservatives oppose the programs you list. I certainly do -- every one of them. It is the party hacks who are the hypocrites, and I see a plethora of those in Washington in both major parties.

But as to Dan's tangential point re: the federal subsidies of ACORN, and to the point of the tax dollars forcefully redistributed from American workers to fund politicians pet projects, let me paraphrase the late great Leonard Read in saying that whether we are talking millions (or billions!) of dollars or just one dollar, the principle is the same: it is all theft; legal plunder. Or, as Rep. James Clyburn, third ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, recently conceded: "Most of what we do is not authorized by the Constitution."

Excellent an@lysis. Nice to have you back occasionally Eric.

Few conservatives have been as clear and persistent in their opposition of so much of what the Bush Administration did, including and esp. the prescription drug program, which is the largest expansion of the entitlement state since LBJ's "Great Society."

Mr. Flynn has been more consistent than most in his commentary, but on the fundamental issue of our generation, the most important theft quite possibly in the history of America, he, along with his comrades on the right, have been strangely silent(I think there may have been a handful of blog posts during the 2008 election, otherwise he's kept his "mouth shut"). Regardless, the hypocritical tag is appropriate and was meant more generally than specifically. You hypocrites know who you are.

If the right had any integrity whatsoever they would've been in arms and made sure that Wall Street was held to the same standards they want poor mothers and children to be held to. That they don't (or whether they tacitly disapprove, which is about the same thing) shows how hypocritical and pathetic they are.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:5 (KJV)

The biggest loser in this is NOT ACORN or Obama though they are definitely losers (both literally and figuratively). No the biggest loser in this is the MSM (or as someone said-believe it was Bernie Goldberg- "They are not the MSM- as less and less people watch them") who completely ignored this story until they have been forced to somewhat. If this were a sting operation on a conservative group or groups- Awards would be forthcoming to the intrepid reporters. But oh no- to the far left nutjobs this MCCarthyism and sneeky blah, blah blah. Even though McCarthy had the backing of the federal government at his disposal. The lefty's are a laughing stock- I even saw Norah ODonnell with a pained look on her face- priceless.

You're missing the point PMA. But, I'll play -

Freudian projection, anyone? Is there any point to this pathetic fixation on ACORN, teabagging, and birthing, when our nation has been raped by Wall Street (for trillions), our manufacturing base is destroyed, we're torturing people by proxy and we're flushing trillions down a rathole that only serves to foment international terror, all with tacit and even vociferous approval (in the case of the Becks, Limbaughs, and Wieners) of conservatives.

Hey PMA- I love that we "torture" our enemies!!! But hey, your torturing me! But it's humorous torture!

“the Bush/Paulson multi-trillion dollar rape” Explain the math on this to me. Please. “multi-trillion”?

Anyway, I’m not sure where you get your info or if you just don’t listen to the Becks, Limbaughs and Wieners (whoever that is?), but those first two gents and anybody who considers themselves “Conservative” consistently talk loudly and frequently about big government spending and how wrong and out of control it is no matter what the political affiliation of those perpetrating the crime. Whether you’ve noticed it or not (or maybe you’ve just had your liberal blinders on), many on this site have excoriated Bush for the errors of his profligate spending ways.

Also, like many, I think you lump all Conservatives in with Republicans and the set talking points thereof without taking the time to notice the details.

I'll try to address these comments, and maybe you folks can find better sources than the ones I find as this will take only a few minutes.

Hey PMA- I love that we "torture" our enemies!!! But hey, your torturing me! But it's humorous torture!

I can't quite figure this comment out, whether you're celebrating big government torture, or if you deny these big government atrocities. I'm going to assume the latter and respond with this article.

Big Government Torture

That article is rigorously sourced.

...and Wieners (whoever that is?)

Michael "Savage" Wiener, his legal last name is Wiener.

“the Bush/Paulson multi-trillion dollar rape” Explain the math on this to me. Please. “multi-trillion”?

From a Dec. 16, 2008 Politico article:

Bailout Payout Tops $8 Trillion

One of the more interesting facts highlighted in the article is the comparison of costs to taxpayers of Roosevelt's New Deal, The Marshall Plan, and the Louisiana Purchase, adjusted for inflation in current U.S. dollars. Those three items are dwarfed by the Bush/Paulson regime's bailouts. It's unbelievable.

Keep in mind Neil Barofsky, the mighty SIGTARP who has single-handedly been battling Wall Street and Timmy Turbotax, estimates the Bush/Paulson regime bailouts at a potential 27 trillion in a worst case scenario.

Bailout article is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/16620

I figured it out: he's a Naderite!

Here's an interesting article today on ACORN and on "the most important theft quite possibly in the history of America":

Fed-ACORN Criminality

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is once again in the news, with some of its "tax counselors" being videotaped giving advice on tax evasion to two people posing as a pimp and a hooker and looking for a government-subsidized loan for a brothel. The two imposters also told the ACORN "counselors" that they intended to bring dozens of teenage girls into the country illegally from Central America to "work" in the brothel. On the videotape the counselors happily advised them on how to go about doing this without the legal authorities finding out about it. They seemed quite knowledgeable and experienced in such matters.

The organization is also being investigated by government authorities for allegedly perpetrating vote fraud, among other possible crimes. (Recall that ACORN is the organization that Barack Obama attached himself to after earning his Harvard law degree. During the presidential campaign his main claim to having the experience that would qualify him to be president was his "community organizing" experience while working for ACORN).

ACORN may be found guilty of the relatively petty crimes it is now being accused of, but there is a much larger issue that is being ignored. Over the past thirty years or so, ACORN has been a major player in what can be described as a legalized extortion racket administered by the Federal Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency, among other federal government agencies. The racket started with Jimmy Carter’s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which empowered "community groups" like ACORN to effectively extort billions (yes, billions with a "b") of dollars from banks. Much of the money is then used for ACORN’s political activities, which involve the mass registration of Democratic Party voters; supporting left-wing political candidates at all levels of government; organizing rallies, protests, and lobbying efforts for various planks of its "People’s Platform," which is essentially the same as the Socialist Party Platform of 1922. The "People’s Platform" once promised, "We will continue our fight until the American way is just one way, until we have shared the wealth . . ." Accordingly, the organization has advocated the government takeover of the energy and healthcare industries, punishing taxation, massive income redistribution, pervasive price controls, and just about every asinine socialistic policy that one can think of.

The Federal Reserve Board has been ACORN’s "partner" in this endeavor ever since 1977, when the Fed was given responsibility (along with the Comptroller of the Currency) for enforcing the CRA. For those who are not yet familiar with the CRA, which was significantly strengthened during the Clinton administration, it works like this: The ostensible purpose of the Act is to get banks to make more mort-gage loans in "minority and low-income" neighborhoods. These loans have been defined by the government as "sub-prime" loans, implying that the borrowers have credit ratings just a tiny, tiny smidgen below the "prime" or highest-credit-rating borrowers. This of course is a farce, as nearly everyone now knows. The Fed keeps track of such loans, and gives each lender a CRA ranking. A poor ranking can destroy a bank’s plans for branch expansions, mergers, and other activities.

So-called "community groups" like ACORN, which is one of the biggest, are empowered by the law to "protest" proposed bank expansions or mergers. This is the main "business" that ACORN has been in for the past thirty years. They file a protest with the Fed, while demanding that the bank that is proposing the expansion or merger give it – ACORN – millions or sometimes billions of dollars, to be lent to sub-prime borrowers by ACORN, which keeps for itself some of the loot. (WaMu bank, which is now defunct, once boasted of having made $375 billion in CRA loans; the Fed gave Countrywide Bank an award after it made $600 billion in such loans. It, too, was bankrupted by the loans.)

The CRA itself is based on a falsehood – that banks will systematically walk away from billions of dollars in profits that are just waiting to be picked up by someone in low-income and minority-dominated neighborhoods. This argument is made by the same ACORN-style socialists (like Barack Obama) who argue that bankers are greedy, money-grubbing capitalist pigs. In reality, business people do not have to be forced by the Fed to make money. The fact that force or the threat of force is used by the Fed and its ACORN allies is proof that the loans that are being made are bad loans to unqualified borrowers. During the Fed-induced housing bubble, thousands of CRA sub-prime loans for $300,000–$400,000 houses were made to high school dropouts on welfare or in jobs paying barely more than minimum wage. The Fed – and many other agencies of the federal government – was essentially telling these low-income and minority borrowers the following: "Yes, traditionally, people who own homes do so by working at a job, sticking with it, saving their money, and avoiding excessively extravagant spending on cars, vacations, etc., until they can afford a home. Forget about that! The hell with financial responsibility! We will fix things for you so that you can be fiscally irresponsible and get a home. And the housing bubble inflation we have created will even potentially make you rich! This way, we will share the wealth! Just like the ACORN People’s Platform says!"

When Forbes magazine columnists Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer interrogated Boston Fed official Alicia Munnell about the Fed’s claims of systemic lending discrimination in the early 1990s, Munnell was forced to admit that she had no evidence of it. She and other Fed officials (and the Clinton administration) continued to step up CRA enforcement anyway. This suggests that the goal has always been a forced redistribution of wealth through Fed banking regulation. Charges of systemic discrimination have been used as a ruse to intimidate any un-cooperating mort-gage lenders (Not that stupid and self-destructive bankers who discriminate on the basis of race do not exist.)

In order to avoid having their business plans voided by the Fed, or being prosecuted for housing discrimination, mort-gage lenders are forced to participate in what is essentially a legalized extortion racket. But then again, what is government but just another criminal gang? (As Murray Rothbard used to say.)

September 17, 2009

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe; and, How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Let me guess: That LewRockwell (lol!) article blames poor people for Wall Street and state-sponsored theft.

Yeah, you're completely wrong, I'm a small "d" democrat (not the Democratic Party) and libertarian. Never have I supported a Nader candidacy.

I believe in economic democracy. Here's an oversimplified definition of it:

"Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that suggests transfer of decision-making authority from a small minority of corporate shareholders to the larger majority of public stakeholders (workers, consumers, related communities, etc). While there is no single definition or approach, all theories and real-world examples of economic democracy are based on a core set of fundamental assumptions.

Proponents generally agree that modern economic conditions tend to hinder or prevent society from earning enough income to purchase its output production. Centralized corporate monopoly of common resources typically forces conditions of artificial scarcity upon the greater majority, resulting in socio-economic imbalances that restrict workers from access to economic opportunity and diminish consumer purchasing power.[1][2]

As either a component of larger socioeconomic ideologies or as a stand-alone theory, economic democracy promotes universal access to common resources that are typically privatized by corporate capitalism and centralized by state socialism. Assuming full political rights cannot be won without full economic rights,[3] economic democracy suggests alternative models and reform agendas for solving problems of economic instability and deficiency of effective demand. As an alternative model, both market and non-market theories of economic democracy have been proposed. As a reform agenda, supporting theories and real-world examples include democratic cooperatives, fair trade, social credit, and the regionalization of food production and currency.

Right - you are a socialist by other means. And I still think you would feel right at home with the Greens or Nader's group, whatever they are calling themselves nowadays. You should check them out! Because one thing for sure: you aren't even close to being a libertarian.

And FYI - DiLorenzo and all the folks at LRC do not blame the poor for the depression we have entered. Rather, the Federal Reserve's artificially created credit boom, our bi-partisan out of control spending and entitlement state, and various lending mandates through the CRA (via Fannie/Freddie, etc) are the chief culprits for our current woes.

But the good news is you don't have to guess (not that you need my permission to "let" you do so) at hwat the article is about. Rather, you could actually read for yourself. Takes the guess work right out of it, PMA! It's amazing!

In fact, you could read any number of works by Rose Wilder Lane, Leonard Read, Sheldon Richman, Rothbard, Chodorov, Hayek, Hazlitt, Rand, Boaz, Mises, Friedman, Hoppe, Roepke, Ron Paul, Tibor Machen, Bastiat, Jim Powell, Julian Sanchez, Sowell, Walter Williams, Nozick, Sobran, Higgs, Charles Murray, Burt Folsom, etc. - and you would no longer have to guess at what it means to be a libertarian!

PMA – suffice it say that I’m skeptical. First off, Bianco Research is largely basing its findings on dollar projections. And I’m sure that Mr.Bianco is eminently qualified but anybody could project those numbers in any way they might see fit. As was stated in the article, “Asked just how much the taxpayers are on the hook for, Bianco said: “I just say you should use the number infinity, because nobody understands these numbers, and I would include the Treasury Secretary and Chairman of the Fed in that group.” Exactly. Nobody understands these numbers. Not even the one crunching and projecting them.

Also, take note that on December 16, 2008 G.W. was on his way out and was quite the lame duck president for a majority of that year. You will get no argument from me that he was weak and uninvolved. The key here is the two years where the Democrats controlled Congress. Especially, as specifically referenced, the 110th Congress that created the “potential taxpayer commitments for loans, guarantees and other bout goodies for businesses and distressed homeowners.” I mean, tie Bush into it as justifiably complicit but as lefties like to blame Bush for everything including post nasal drip, their pin the tail on the donkey seems hollow when considering that the Democrats in Congress were cooking up all of the goodies in the first place.

And this – “They are promising a newer and bigger stimulus package early next year — one that could make last spring’s $168 billion government giveaway to taxpayers (remember that fixer?) look like pocket change.”

Exactly correct. But who? The Community Organizer in Chief and his band of thieves in Congress, that’s who! Again. And those numbers we do know.

Although, that too HAS TO BE Bush’s fault I suppose. Even 10 months after the fact.

asdf,

Shockingly good argumentation, but I'm not sure over what we're arguing. Whether the 8 trillion projection is correct, or a 4 trillion, or 30 trillion dollar projection is correct isn't my point, my point is that the Wall Street wealth-funnel rape was multi-trillion, which created a group of Wall Street welfare case wards of the state. My guess is that the recession isn't close to being over (neither is the raping), as there will still need to be "adjustments" in commercial real estate pricing, and we haven't even begun to understand or tackle consumer debt, which is in the tens of trillions and will come back to haunt those with collateralized debt obligations (incompetent, indolent, parsasitic Wall Street welfare cases who will no doubt be returning for a big government handout). This debt is a natural outgrowth of "free"-market fundamentalist absurdities, a decimation of the manufacturing base, and a full-scale war waged upon workers that started toward the end of the Carter administration which was initiated by the Bushies and Reaganites with a concurrent redistribution of wealth upwards. During the golden era of American prosperity (1945-1979), middle income grew commensurate with productivity gains. Sadly, even though the American worker is one of if not the most productive worker on the face of the earth, since 1979 their income has not grown commensurate with productivity gains; it has stagnated or declined (hence the exponential growth of consumer debt in the trillions and an almost negative savings rate post 1979).

There is a big difference between TARP and the stimulus, regardless of how ineffective and wasteful the stimulus is.

Well, yeah. I mean it certainly seems as though the White House has recently been a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office, doesn't it? And with Henry Paulson floating around in that orbit, what else were we to expect than $850 billion (minus the Democrat's first $150 billion 'stimulus' package) and more going for a phony baloney prop up of Wall Street.

One thing that puzzles me is how you can rail about how Wall Street and big business in general is in the pocket of government yet you have no problem with the same government managing and allocating our money for massive bogus social programs that won't work and will see the budget and the impending deficit go out of sight. Seems inconsistent to me somehow.