Used Furniture
(503) 232-7412
Office Furniture
(503) 238-4477
Home Furniture
(503) 230-7716
The Airport for No One
Excerpt from The Wall Street Journal - 2009-09-22; Page A24Republicans had their Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, and now Democrats seem intent on wrapping themselves firmly around Congressman Jack Murtha's Airport for No One in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. So much for changing the culture of spending in Washington.
Last week 53 Senators?including 51 Democrats?voted down an amendment by Republican Jim DeMint of South Carolina to stop spending federal funds on the airport that Mr. Murtha built with more than $150 million in federal subsidies and earmarks over the last two decades. (The Republicans voting against Mr. DeMint were Kit Bond and George Voinovich, neither of whom is running for re-election.) The airport has three daily commercial flights, and those are to Washington, D.C. The federal subsidies average $100 for each of the fewer than 30 passengers who use the airport each day, which means it would be cheaper for taxpayers to buy a train ticket for Mr. Murtha and other Washington D.C.-bound travelers than to keep the airport open.
Pennsylvania's two Senators, Democrats Arlen Specter and Robert P. Casey, Jr., denounced the DeMint amendment because it singled out one airport. Of course, so do Mr. Murtha's earmarks. The Senators also argued that airport funding decisions should be left to the Federal Aviation Administration. But everyone knows that Mr. Murtha's clout at the House Appropriations Committee trumps the FAA. Earlier this year the airport received $800,000 in federal stimulus money, which has been spent in part to pave a second runway, even though the first one is barely in use. Mr. Murtha also secured $8.5 million for a new radar system that's never been used.
Mr. DeMint pleaded with his colleagues that "if we can't cut funding for this project, we can't cut anything in Washington" and that the Senate will have declared "there's no such thing as waste, there's no such thing as fraud and corruption." He lost, but voters keeping score can add it to their mental tally of why we have a $1.6 trillion deficit.
Oh! What Might Have Been
Excerpt from Forbes - 2009-09-21; Page 13The U.S. focus is on health care, but soon we're going to have to face up to the oncoming entitlement train wreck. The Obama Administration is spending promiscuously even before it's done a lick of work to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. There are positive pro-growth reforms that could preserve these programs for those already on them and those about to enroll, while at the same time instituting a new, stronger system for younger people. The Administration is oblivious to these ideas, but voters ultimately won't stand for being crushed by taxes and slashed benefits.
In the meantime, we can all ponder how different--and richer--our world would be had we enacted the Clark Amendment. In 1935 the Social Security issue dominated Congress, just as health care does today. The Roosevelt Administration was proposing a system in which workers would be taxed at a certain level, with employers matching that.
Even though Democrats overwhelmingly dominated Congress in 1935, there were deep misgivings about such a plan. Senator Bennett Champ Clark (Democrat--Missouri) proposed an amendment to the pending Social Security bill. It would have allowed workers to go with the new government system or, if they wished, to have their money put into a private-insurance plan. Either way, the contributions would be mandatory. The idea of giving people such a choice proved to be extremely attractive. A majority of congressional Democrats were ready to vote for the Clark Amendment, but Franklin Roosevelt went ballistic, furiously denouncing the idea. He intensely disliked and distrusted the private sector, particularly life insurance companies. FDR lobbied hard to kill the Clark Amendment. Even so, the amendment almost passed.
Imagine if the Clark Amendment had become part of the original Social Security Act. We wouldn't be saddled with today's fiscal disaster. Hundreds of billions of dollars that politicians have "borrowed" from the Social Security trust fund for all sorts of pork spending would not have disappeared. Instead, all that capital would have been invested in the economy, leaving us a lot more prosperous. Moreover, the Clark Amendment would have been a model for state pension plans, which are now bankrupting local governments, as well as for other nations.
The Clark Amendment incident is yet another example of how disastrous Franklin Roosevelt was for the U.S. economy, and an inspiration for reforming the system for younger people today.
Acorn Runs Off the Rails
Excerpt from The Wall Street Journal - 2009-09-16; Page A27On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted 83-7 to strip Acorn, the premier community organizing group on the left, of more than $1.6 million in federal housing money meant to assist low-income people obtain loans and prepare tax forms. This dramatic step followed last Friday's decision by the U.S. Census Bureau to sever its ties with the organization, one of several community groups it was partnering with to conduct the nation's head count.
Both of these actions came after secretly recorded videos involving employees in Acorn's Brooklyn, N.Y., Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Md. and San Bernardino, Calif. offices were televised on Fox News. The videos were recorded by two independent filmmakers who posed as a prostitute and a pimp and said they were planning to import underage women from El Salvador for the sex trade. They asked for and received advice on getting a housing loan and evading federal taxes.
In response, Acorn has so far fired four of the employees seen on the videos. But it claimed the videos were "doctored" and accused critics of a smear campaign and "racist coverage" of the incidents.
Such rhetoric in the past has deflected scrutiny of Acorn tactics, such as street demonstrations and boycotts against banks to force lower credit standards for home loans, which a congressional report found contributed to the subprime loan mess. But now Acorn may be finally running off the rails.
Last week, 11 of its workers were accused by Florida prosecutors of falsifying information on 888 voter registration forms. Last month, Acorn's former Las Vegas, Nev., field director, Christopher Edwards, agreed to testify against the group in a case in which Las Vegas election officials say 48% of the voter registration forms the group turned in were "clearly fraudulent." Acorn itself is charged with 13 counts of illegally using a quota system to compensate workers in an effort to boost the number of registrations. (Acorn has denied wrongdoing in all of these cases.)
A growing number of people once affiliated with Acorn want nothing more to do with the group. Marcel Reid, for example, was one of eight national Acorn board members who were removed last year after demanding an audit of the group's books. She notes that Acorn received $7.4 million in contributions from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) between 2005 and 2008 but actively fights unionization efforts by its own employees. Ms. Reid also notes that Acorn was sanctioned by the National Labor Relations Board in 2003 for illegally firing workers trying to organize a union.
In 1995, Acorn unsuccessfully sued California to be exempt from the minimum wage, claiming that "the more that Acorn must pay each individual outreach worker . . . the fewer outreach workers it will be able to hire." The decision to file that lawsuit was made by Wade Rathke, who founded Acorn in 1970 and was its long-time leader. He was forced by the group's board to resign last year after it found that he'd engaged in a cover-up of a nearly $1 million embezzlement of Acorn funds by his brother Dale, then the group's chief financial officer.
Mr. Rathke now the chief organizer of a New Orleans-based local of the SEIU, a key Acorn ally is out with a new book, "Citizen Wealth," in which he touts a vision of "maximum eligible participation" by Americans in welfare programs as a way to force radical social change.
Regardless of the wisdom of that vision, it's time to follow the lead of the Census Bureau and cut the government's ties to the highly dubious characters surrounding Acorn. (The group has taken in more than $53 million in direct funding from the federal government since 1994, and substantially more indirectly through states and cities that receive federal block grants.)
Acorn's allies in Congress have long stopped every move to rein it in. Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa), for example, has tried six times to get House floor votes restricting Acorn's access to federal funds but has been blocked by Speaker Nancy Pelosi's hand-picked Rules Committee members. Some Democrats have grumbled. Michigan's John Conyers, chair of the Judiciary Committee, urged a hearing be held on Acorn abuses in March, but later told the Washington Times "the powers that be decided against it."
There is a chance the latest scandals will convince Democrats that Acorn is too toxic a political partner. And President Barack Obama, who once ran a voter-registration program for an Acorn partner (Project Vote) and then worked for Acorn as a lawyer on key cases, has every incentive to distance himself further from the organization.
Former Acorn board members tell me the group has always been confident it will be protected. After the Nevada voter-registration fraud indictment last May, Bonnie Greathouse, Acorn's chief organizer in the state, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that "we've had bad publicity before" and survived. "People always come forward to our defense. We're just community organizers, just like the president used to be."
By JOHN FUND (Columnist for WSJ.com)