Republican protests that any propositions forwarded for consideration in the "bail-out" discussions have a root cause to them. Original proposals included a plan for some of the profits earned by the governmental loaning of funds to financial institutions to go to ACORN, a group closely associated with the Democratic party that does work to ensure Democrats are elected to office. Republican opposition members issued a statement on Saturday expressing their outrage at such inclusion on the part of the Democrats, outlining the reasons they would not support any proposal including monies allocated for ACORN.
In issuing the statement, House leaders are reflecting -- and also feeding -- a reaction to the provision that has exploded in the last day or more. Our colleague Ben Smith says he's gotten more than a dozen anti-ACORN e-mails in just the last few hours. The viral uprising is both organic and institutionally driven. Prominent bloggers have fed the flames and so has the Wall Street Journal editorial page; several of the e-mails sent to Smith reference a House leadership alert on the "ACORN Slush Fund" and others refer to the Journal opinion. On Thursday night, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told The Crypt that his friend Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) opposes the provision.
"The draft bill includes a left-wing giveaway that would force taxpayers to bankroll a slush fund for a discredited ally of the Democratic Party," reads one leadership alert. "At issue is ACORN, an organization fraught with controversy for, among other scandals, its fraudulent voter registration activities on behalf of Democratic candidates. Rather than returning any profits made in the long-term from the economic rescue package, Democrats want to first reward their radical allies at ACORN for their (often illegal) help in getting Democrats elected to office."
In the end, how much of the bailout's potential profits are earmarked for ACORN? "None. Absolutely none. All funds would go to state and local governments," said Steven Adamske, spokesman for Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and a lead negotiator.
A proposal rife with the possibility of more corruption, more mismanagement, and more mishandling of money, proposed by the democrats? But how can this be, out of the party that had promised that if elected to majority status in 2006 it wouldn't be "politics as usual?" So far, and especially in light of the most recent situation regarding the financial market, that has been exactly what the majority party has given the American people. Despite this shady and underhanded attempt by Democrats, Nancy Pelosi has deemed to accuse Republicans of being "unpatriotic."
Fortunately, perhaps, all references and inclusions of ACORN in the Democratic proposals have been removed from their offerings, as shown in a side by side comparison of proposals that have been considered.
The question of the Constitutionality of the entire process has still not been answered completely, in the minds of many Americans. One can look throughout the contents of the Constitution and be hard pressed to find anything regarding the nation's economy, other than powers of levying taxes and tariffs and the responsibility of Congress to mint the nation's money.
We have reached, perhaps, a cross-roads, as a nation, one in which it must be decided whether to remain a free-market nation, or one that begins to turn a hard turn to socialism. The efforts of the Roosevelt administration during the great depression put the United States on the road to a quasi-socialistic state of economy that the nation has existed under ever since, growing the government larger and more intrusive into the lives of the American citizenry by leaps and bounds with each passing year.The current economic crisis, if not handled carefully and with cool heads, could change the scope of not only the American economy in coming years, but the very structure under which we, as a nation, exist. Socialism, the control of business and industry by the state, and capitalism can not exist side by side under the same roof. If the past nearly 70 years has not shown that, nothing will.
Once and Always, an American Fighting Man