ACORN Can Still Be Paid
Nov 29, 2009 Political
Congress voted to stop paying taxpayer money to the liberal support group ACORN. This took place after damning videos were released which showed members of that corrupt organization showing a pimp and prostitute how to avoid the law, how to avoid taxes, and how to bring underage girls into the country to use for prostitution.
Attorney General Eric Holder has weighed in on the matter and has ruled that ACORN may still be paid under terms of contracts that existed prior to the Congressional ban.
If Congress voted to cut funding why is it OK to continue to pay them? Are we to believe that the contracts were made with the non-corrupt branch of this organization?
Seems to me that if a defense contractor was found to be breaking the law and Congress voted to cut funding then contracts would not be paid.
It looks like Obama’s AG figured a way to continue paying the corrupt organization our hard earned money. ACORN is a partisan group that supports Democrats and only Democrats. The government gives them our money to do just that.
Big Government has been on this story and has clearly demonstrated that ACORN is a wing of the Democrat party. Documents that ACORN threw away in order to destroy evidence shows that they work to get Democrats elected. It is time to stop giving them any taxpayer money.
And it is time for the Executive Branch to stop usurping the authority of Congress.
Related:
Big Government
Big Government
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Filthy little Piggies, Doing Piggie Things, democrat
Apr 25, 2009 Political
The feeding at the public trough has commenced in earnest- if it ever really stopped, that is. I believe the feeding slowed just enough for the piggies to change places, but boy oh boy, these Democrats are really showing an appetite here, now that they know they will not be pulled back from the trough by any little thing like ethics, or a sense of moral outrage. Don’t anybody reach in, you’ll draw back a stump- piranha have better manners.
And it just keeps getting better and better, when you are a Democrat and you know the media’s got your back.
First, we have Jack Murtha, a lush who likes, for some reason, to slander our veterans with no evidence, and who pours over 100 million dollars to an airport in his district that services maybe twenty people in a day.
Yeah, Jackie- that’s real good use of our money- do you even have a brain? Twenty people a day? Oh- one of them may be you? Well, that’s OK then, because we wouldn’t want to keep you from all of those wonderful speaking engagements where you call your constituents “Rednecks and racists.” Your’e real classy.
And then, on the other side of the country, there is Senator Diane Feinstein, one of the five richest members of the Senate, a person who is not even on a banking committee, steering federal funding of more than 100 billion with a B dollars to the FDIC. OK so far, but then…
Enter her husband’s firm, which had a competitive bid in with the FDIC to handle foreclosed homes, where this firm could make from 8- 30% of the sale on these homes.
Guess who gets the contract- that’s right, Diane’s hubby, who adamantly maintains that he didn’t know a thing about this, despite the fact that he is the board Chairman.
Does ANYBODY really believe this? Perhaps in a bizarre X-Files moment, but in real life? Really, you mean to try and say that this husband and wife didn’t mention anything about all of this- it just came together like the random atoms liberals say was the beginning of life? Just a sort of financial Big Bang, right?
I have to say, if Richard Blum, Sen. Feinstein’s husband says he didn’t know this, and people believe him, these same people should also believe Jeffery Skilling, Bernie Madoff, Richard Stanford, and all the other heads of companies who maintain that they did not know what was happening. Or, for that matter, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, and anybody else who offers an explanation, because it will have become painfully evident that the explanation doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to be said, and, you know, we will believe ANYTHING.
It borders on science fiction to even try to say that all of this is coincidence- call a spade a spade, and admit that Sen. Feinstein and her hubby were stealing from the taxpayer, just as Jackie “our Army is murderin’ scum” Murtha has been stealing from the taxpayer for years. 100 million dollars for what is really an Air Park? It now has a state of the art radar facility that NOONE USES. That is correct- there is no one manning this multi million dollar radar facility. There it sits, grass growing around it, because Murtha just can’t stop spending our money.
And of course, there are many more, but it’s kind of like getting beaten- after awhile, you sort of get a little numb to all the body blows.
The Democrats are very good, some might even say world- class at stealing tax money. They have been doing that since Roosevelt. Of course, there are the bone heads, like William Jefferson (who was one last name away from feeling like a president), who thought a freezer was a fine place to store cash. (Why no, officer, I don’t think it’s odd, do you? Doesn’t everyone keep cash there? I thought the roaches would eat it if I left it out, and besides, it was going to be a present, yea, that’s it, that’s the ticket.)
Not to mention John Conyers, who has the gall to try and accuse Dick Cheney of crimes, while he himself is under investigation, or Charlie Rangel, who, in spite of being the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which oversees our tax code, can’t seem to figure out why he can’t exempt himself from the tax laws he oversees with regard to either his many rental properties (Charlie,it’s income, you have to declare it) to the cars he rents or owns.
Look, I know there are Republicans who do the same things- the media are all over them, but here’s the hypocrisy- the story about Sen, Feinstein was reported by several papers, almost all of whom had the same story, virtually word for word, like a press release, with no follow up. The story effectively has died, because when you have no one with the huevos to follow up, it’s like it never even happened.
Further, the original story actually began on Oct. 30, with the timeline horribly skewed,and nobody questioning why Richard Blum knew about the awarding of the contract on Nov. 26, while Sen. Feinstein said she didn’t know about it until Jan. 21? Don’t you think that maybe her husband, during one of the Senate’s MANY vacations, might have said,” Honey, guess what? My company has been awarded a 10 million dollar bid to sell foreclosed homes. How fortuitous, and lucky we must be. The stars must have aligned themselves just right for us, for surely this could not have been planned.” Uh Huh.
And some wonder why we don’t trust liberals.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: blum, contracts, Democrats, feinstein, Murtha, pigs, pork, trough
Obama To Overhaul Government Contracting
Mar 6, 2009 Political
Barack Obama ran on a platform of changing the way the federal government does business and his latest venture is into the government contracting process. The government is not necessarily interested in changing the way contracts are awarded and though there might be new rules from The Evil One, the reality is Congress will do what it wants. When contracts are awarded using the appropriate procedures and the contract is not awarded to whom a particular politician wanted then there are calls for investigations and a do over.
The Democrats have cried for 8 years about sole sourcing contracts to Halliburton by the Bush administration while ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton sole sourced to the same company for the same reason. They were the only one large enough to handle what was needed. Obama stated the other day that the rules were going to be rewritten to save the country billions of dollars:
President Obama on Wednesday ordered his administration to change how government contracts are awarded to private businesses, saying he intended to reverse some practices of the Bush administration and do away with no-bid contracts that have cost billions and led to corruption investigations.
~snip~
“The days of giving defense contractors a blank check are over,” Mr. Obama said. “We need more competition for contracts and more oversight as they are carried out.” New York Times [emphasis mine]
I commend Obama for indicating that there needs to be competition in the contracting process. He should exercise caution though because he will not be able to eliminate no bids all together. There are some companies who are the only ones that do what they do and others will not be able to compete. However, the competition needs to be there when practicable. Lowest bids should not be the sole determination of awarding a contract but it should play a part.
Given Obama’s statement I have a challenge for him. Barack Obama, if you truly want competition then you need to eliminate the government set asides for special groups. The government sets aside contracts for small, minority, veteran or female owned businesses and this is not necessarily the way to get the best service for our money. These businesses should be able to compete but they should not be the only ones allowed to do so. From Small Business:
GSA, like all Federal agencies, has established goals for awarding contracts to small, minority-owned, women-owned, HUBZone, veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran- owned small business owners. To meet these goals, GSA uses “small business programs”?. These programs include contact with the small business community, both to inform them about what GSA has to offer, and to help in locating and working with GSA procurement offices. Some small business programs also have “set-asides”? under which certain contracts are reserved for competition among small businesses.
Some agencies are required to purchase from these entities even if a better price is available elsewhere. I have seen many purchases for items that cost quite a bit more than the item could have been purchased for from a local store. The answer to any question is always, we have to buy from this organization.
If Obama is interested in restructuring the process then he needs to ensure that all set asides are removed and the process is opened for every business that can provide the service and who wants to compete. The goal is to save taxpayer money and to be good fiscal stewards so keeping practices that do not save money should be out of the question. That would be business as usual which is not the change we can believe in.
One thing is intriguing though. No bid contracts are the focus of this though the larger picture is to improve the entire process. The article cites over runs in the no bid process:
A review of 95 military projects by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan auditing arm of Congress, found that they [no bid contracts] exceeded the budgeted amounts by $295 billion over the course of several years.
This failed to mention how much over runs in competitive contracts cost but in any event the no bids are quite expensive. Or are they?
Given how much money the government spends on contracts this 295 billion over several years must represent only a very small percentage of the total cost.
Democrats say not to worry about pork in Congressional bills because the pork is a very small percentage of the entire bill. Harry Reid made that claim very recently and we have heard it a number of times. If the small percentage of pork does not matter and is no reason to overhaul the legislative process in DC then why is the small percentage of no bid over runs a good reason to overhaul contracting in the government?
I am all for making the contracting process more competitive and more cost effective but in total.
I am not in favor of window dressing and lip service which is generally what we get when government talks about change.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: contracts, fairness, no bid, Obama, small business
Hillary Does not Understand the Military
Apr 13, 2008 Political
Once again the Socialist part of Hillary Clinton has reared its ugly head. Clinton was speaking at a transmission plant in Indianapolis when she started discussing Pentagon contracts. Ms. Clinton told the workers that the Pentagon would have to look at how a contract affected jobs in America during the award process. Hillary must have missed my article about the Pentagon NOT being a social welfare department.
Speaking at a plant here that builds transmissions for military vehicles, Clinton said she would limit the Defense Department’s ability to buy foreign-made products, in part by making the agency consider the impact on U.S. jobs when it awards contracts. WBAL
Clinton is obviously pandering to people working on a defense project. She is trying to portray problems as a failure of the Bush administration (she used those words) and that she would ensure Americans had work because she would make the Pentagon look at the impact on American workers. This is typical of liberals because they never expect people to have to produce quality in order to be rewarded. I am sure these workers do the best job they can and are proud to be working on items for our troops and I am sure they would not want troops saddled with substandard items just to appease politicians or to ensure jobs.
The Pentagon should not have to look at how jobs are affected. The goal of the Pentagon is to procure the best equipment for our troops regardless of who makes it (short of enemy or potential enemy countries). If American companies want to win contracts then they need to put forth a proposal that shows why they are the best for the job. They need to make superior products for a reasonable cost in order to win. The Pentagon certainly does not select companies because they are the cheapest or the worst so if American companies are not winning it is because their product does not match up, plain and simple.
Once again we have a Clinton using the military as a social program. In this case it is to provide jobs and in her husband’s case it was to make homosexuality socially acceptable by allowing gays to openly serve. The Pentagon is not the social welfare department and exists to make sure we have the best equipment and best troops to defend this nation. Besides, the Pentagon provides a great number of jobs already. People can enlist in any of the branches of the service and they will have a great job.
The Pentagon does not need Clinton or anyone else playing politics with the procurement process. This in and of itself shows why she is not fit to be the President.
Clinton also addressed the issue of security and ensuring our technologies are not sold off to other countries. I wonder why nothing like this was in place when her husband sold missile technology to the Chinese in exchange for donations. Somehow I don’t think the Pentagon is what we need to worry about with regard to security. Seems to me that the Clintons are a security risk in and of themselves.
Hillary has run an abysmal campaign. She has tried to be everything to everyone. She might have had a better chance if she actually took stands and stuck with them (and did not lie) but now she is toast and she is only hanging on because she is delusional (not that I mind them continuing to ruin the party). These recent remarks clearly demonstrate another reason Hillary Clinton should never run this country.