Federal "grant money" is still tax payer money

There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money. - Margaret Thatcher

I have long decried the local municipality paradigm of looking to the federal government for a source of funding for every pet project.  Not every single "good idea" or even "nice idea" needs to be funded at the public expense.

I remember one local mayor that was praising a US Congressman for constantly helping get road funding for his little town from the national coffers.  I have a better idea.  Instead of extracting the money from local taxpayers to begin with, why not leave the money in the pockets of the populace so that the local governments can finance their own expenditures?

I am so tired of the mentality that keeps people and lower levels of government dependent upon Washington, DC for their monetary needs and desires.  I have seen this here in my little town of Selma, NC.  For years the town has repeatedly looked to the US Government for loans and grants to fund water, sewer, roads, building renovations, and now even a civic center.  Our town only has about 6,000 residents.  We already have a parks and recreation department, a local Lions Club building that the public can rent, and an entire former school complex that is used as a gymnasium, workout center, meeting place, and can be used for civic events.

An old gymnasium has been re-incarnated as a utility contractor's building and was later given to the local American Legion, who in turn sold it to the town under the guise of building a civic center.  OK, this is a nice idea for our little town, but I sure don't want to spend our tax dollars on it.  The town was already hoodwinked into paying $60,000 for the facility.  Well, that facility needs an additional $300,000 in renovations in order to be usable.  The concept was sold to the town that private fundraising could bring in the money necessary, but a couple of years later, no such thing has happened.

The town has applied for and is waiting on the results of the grant application from the USDA.  The USDA?  Why is the US Department of Agriculture involved in any way, shape, form, or fashion in the funding of a small-town civic center?  Of what importance is this to the topic of agriculture?  For that matter, why has it been the USDA that has been involved in our town's loans for sewer line projects?  I fail to see a single provision in the US Constitution that allows for Congress to make provision for any such program or projects.  Why should someone in Montana be paying tax dollars to help renovate a civic center in Podunk, North Carolina?  I commented on this very project on my TV commentary as far back as 2015.

Whenever a town gets money from the federal government, it is still money extracted from the pockets of taxpayers.  When a town borrows money from the feds, it is even worse.  We have to be taxed to supply the funds lent to the town.  Then we have to pay taxes to the town to repay the loan to the feds at interest, so we get doubly taxed on all such subsidies and loans.  The only good thing about a grant is that we pay the tax money once, not twice.

I, for one, am tired of seeing small towns attempting to suckle off the federal government teat and often settling for the crumbs that fall from Caesar's table, instead.  I am tired of seeing our government run money laundering schemes and overtaxing the citizenry for the sake of retaining power over people and local governments.  I am tired of local politicians agreeing to be beholden to the national pork barrel spending projects that are bleeding us taxpayers dry.  And I am tired of seeing the national government spend money upon projects that are wholly unconstitutional.

Being fair, giving honor where it is due

I am often critical of Representative Bob Etheridge, my representative to Congress. I often disagree with Bob on many issues. When he does what is right, I also give him his due. In this case, he is doing what is right, but just not quite far enough. I just wish he went a little further and sought to totally eliminate the estate tax. Barring that, this is a good step in the right direction.

From WTSB's news site.

Etheridge Co-Sponors Estate Tax Bill
U .S. Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-Lillington) has co-sponsored the Certain Estate Tax Relief Act of 2009. The bill would make permanent the current $3.5 million individual estate tax exemption, providing estate tax certainty for all Americans and will benefit family farmers and small business owners. “This legislation is a fiscally responsible way to protect small business owners and family farmers from the unintended effect of the estate tax,” said Etheridge. “This bill will end the estate tax for 99.7 percent of Americans and, equally as important, provide certainty in estate planning for those few who are affected.” The legislation would reform the nation’s tax code by maintaining the individual estate tax exemption at $3.5 million ($7 million per couple). Less than 0.3% of Americans would be subject to the estate tax with this exemption. Current tax law repeals the estate tax in 2010 for just one year. Under current law, the estate tax returns in 2011 with only a $1 million exemption, which would then affect nearly 50,000 Americans and 3,000 family farms. The Certain Estate Tax Relief Act of 2009 offers a fiscally responsible alternative that allows families the ability to plan for their estates with certainty.

At least I know that someone on Congressman Price's staff has read my rant

I found this on my site statistics today. I will assume it is Congressman Price's staff, although it could be someone else. Somebody emailed the link to my blog. Thank you, whomever. I hope that the Congressman enjoys being in the same category as communists and hippies. I see others have seen my blog this post being emailed, as well. Cool.

Domain Name : house.gov (U.S. Government)
IP Address : 143.231.249.# (Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives)
ISP : Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives
Continent : North America
Country : United States
State : District of Columbia
City : Washington
Language : English (U.S.)
Operating System: Microsoft WinXP
Browser: Internet Explorer 7.0
Time of Visit Aug 4 2008 9:18:11 am
Page Views 1
Referring URL http://mail.google.c...sp&ver=1qygpcgurkovy
Visit Entry Page http://troylaplante....moonbat-wannabe.html
Visitor's Time Aug 4 2008 9:18:11 am

More asinine apologies for slavery

I dealt with this subject once already for a complete hour. It is just plain asinine to offer apologies for something that happened hundreds of years ago and ended over 140 years ago. The United States Congress acquiesced and offered a formal apology for slavery as the State of North Carolina did over a year ago. Give me a break. NOBODY who was a slave owner is alive today. The lawmakers who passed Jim Crowe laws are long dead.

The concept of slavery was dealt with in the 1860's at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives. What is not often mentioned is that there were a lot of Negro slave owners here in America. In addition to that, it was Negroes who sold other Negroes into slavery. That is a side issue, but still relevant.

Here is the article on the apology. Here are a couple of paragraphs from the article.

US lawmakers Tuesday offered the federal government's first formal apology for the "fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity" of slavery and the legal segregation of African-Americans.

The resolution, passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote, "apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery" formal segregation laws known as "Jim Crow."

Lawmakers also said they were committed to rectifying "the lingering consequences" of slavery and segregation.

Here is how to listen to my talk show episode on the subject when it came up here in North Carolina last year.

Mortgage bail out bothers me as a matter of fairness as well as legality

I have written about this before and I probably will again. I am tremendously bothered by the idea that the federal government is about to bail out mortgage lenders and mortgage payers. I busted my tail to get good enough credit and income to be able to have a house. I did not buy more house than I could afford. I settled for a house that was within my desired price range and within the quality, size, and comfort levels I desired. Overall, I have been happy with that decision and I have never failed to be able to pay my mortgage as a result. As with any older home, there are things I have needed to dump money into for repairs and improvements. I would obviously prefer not to have to pay the money for such, but that is part of home ownership.

Neal Boortz wrote about this very concept this morning on his news page. It echoes my sentiments.

ANOTHER GUMMIT BAILOUT

This one could cost $25 billion, but what the hell. Actually ... that's a minimum estimate. Some analysts think the mortgage bail-out that Bush is oh-so-eagerly going to sign this week could cost $300 billion. The politicians who curry favor and buy votes with this money don't have to worry about where the money comes from. They're going to be long-gone when the bill comes due. They only have to worry about doing what they need to do to buy votes so they can enjoy the prestige and privileges of power until that time.

Who are these people who are going to be bailed out?

* People who knew they were buying more house than they could afford, and who thought that they would be bailed out by rising equity.
* People who got home loans in spite of bad credit ratings ... loans spurred by media and government anguish over the unavailability of home loans to bad credit risks.
* People who bought the house, took out the loan, and moved on in knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to make the payments when the interest rates went up. But what the hell .. they would just ride the cheap rates until then, and throw in the keys.

Yes...I know that there were some bad actors in the mortgage business. There are bad actors in every business. Me, for instance. But I can remember a dozen or so years ago when almost every major newspaper in the country was running investigative reports on the evils of the mortgage business. These reports told us that these evil mortgage companies were not doing enough to bring the American dream of home ownership to poorer people. The nasty mortgage lenders were actually using criteria such as income, job stability, credit ratings, loan-to-value ratio and other anti-inclusive measurements to intentionally keep minorities, single women and other poor, poor pitiful victims out of the home market. So --- before the feds stepped in and made them do it – the evil mortgage lenders started lending to people that should be renting. And here we are.

Remember...over 95% of the people in this country with home loans are making those payments each and every month. So what kind of crisis is this really? Can't it be said we're weeding out the chaff here?

It is NOT the job of the taxpayers of this nation to bail out those who have taken bad financial decisions in life. It is not my fault that others have taken loans they can not repay. It is not my fault that some people were stupid enough to take variable interest rate loans and are now paying the price for that stupidity. It is not my fault that people got mortgages that they had no intention of being able to repay over the long haul. It is not my fault or the fault of the rest of the tax payers who are or have been faithful in paying for our homes. Not only that, I do not recall any provision in the Constitution that would allow Congress or the President to spend taxpayer money on any such thing.

This is just another boondoggle in which we are getting screwed by our elected officials so that they can look like the knight in shining armor that came to the defense of the average citizen. No, they are the thieves who took from the average citizen and gave the collective wealth to corporations that should never have undertaken such bad business decisions and to other citizens who should never have been allowed to get such risky loans to begin with. Were it not for threats of government action to begin with, the mortgage companies probably would never have underwritten such loans.

We have the largest budget in world history. We have an unfathomable amount of national debt. We have spending on special interest projects that do not benefit the public good. We waste more money than some nations have as a GDP. We have confiscatory taxation levels that would cause a tea party and disgust the Founding Fathers. Quite frankly, I am sick of it all. Unfortunately, I see no end in sight. The world's system is corrupting our government and bankrupting our nation.

Here is a news article on the pending bail out. Bend over, grab ankles.

The measure, regarded as the most significant housing legislation in decades, lets homeowners who cannot afford their payments refinance into more affordable government-backed loans rather than losing their homes.

It offers a temporary financial lifeline to troubled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- pillars of the home loan market whose losses have sparked investor fears -- and tightens controls over the two government-sponsored businesses.

Furthermore, the article states:

The legislation overhauls the Depression-era FHA. It requires lenders to show how high a borrower's payment could get under the terms of his mortgage. It provides $180 million in pre-foreclosure counseling for struggling homeowners.

The Treasury Department gains unlimited power, until the end of 2009, to lend money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or buy their stock should they need it. The Federal Reserve takes on a new "consultative" role overseeing the companies.

The measure includes $15 billion in tax cuts, including a significant expansion of the low-income housing tax credit and a credit of up to $7,500 for first-time home buyers for houses purchased between April 9, 2008, and July 1, 2009.

This is just unfair to others who have been faithful in their mortgage payments and the tax payers who have to foot the bill. This sucks royally.

I am not fond of a church 501(c)(3) status. The money changers love it.

I realize that the government is supposed to be a servant of the Lord. The Church is supposed to be the of the Lord, as well. There are issues I see with churches having a tax exempt status. There has been a lot of abuse with that status in the name of freedom of religion. There are tax breaks for ministers that most people do not get. I had some web sites bookmarked for years. One of them dealt with churches and 501(c)(3) status. Unfortunately, that URL no longer is valid, or I would link you there.

There are a lot of churches who do finances correctly. They are prudent with their money and respect how it is spent. Other ministries become the personal wealth machine of hucksters. That is one major reason why I left the Word of Faith Movement (WOF) in the mid 1990's. I have no problem with apostolic authority, but I do have a problem with stacking the deck of a ministry's board of directors with family and/or "yes men". It is the unfortunate consequence of tax exempt status that a not for profit corporation has to have a board. I have seen some churches with only family on the board.

It is sad to see that people make money off the fears of others. WOF preachers scare parishioners into tithing and giving to "the man of God" so that they will themselves be blessed. Of course those tithes and offerings can go to no other ministers much less fellow believers or God will be angry at them and curse them. I sat through a lot of sermons to that end, as well as read plenty of books teaching those heresies. Yes, I believe that God honors your giving and blesses you for it. I do not, however, believe that people are going to be cursed by God if they do not give 10% of their income to their local congregation. I live under a new covenant, established upon better promises. Nonetheless, these WOF preachers will pull all sorts of cursings out of the Old Testament to back their claims. The most popular is the old Malachi 3:10. However, you never hear those preachers share the intended recipients of the message. I am not a Jew, I never was a Jew, and never was under the Law.

The sad truth is that people who often can not pay their own bills ignorantly pour money into the pockets of such charlatans, believing that God will honor their faithfulness and owes them more money in return, as if there is a formula or equation in Heaven to follow. I have seen poor people give money when they could not afford groceries of to pay the electricity bill with the expectation that God will bless them mightily. Years later, they are still poor. Do not get me wrong. I do believe that God does honor giving. He is not obligated, however, to honor a covenant that is not yours to begin with or giving in fear of his wrath.

Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Jesse Duplantis, Jerry Savelle, Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, Marilyn Hickey, Oral Roberts, Frederick Price, John Avanzini, Morris Cerullo, E.W. Kenyon, and a host of others preach the "name it and claim it" gospel; the "blab it and grab it" theology, or the health and wealth gospel. Pick your term, I don't care. You see many of these same people and their ilk on television regularly. I have personally met some of them, been in their services, read their books, etc. Had I compromised, I would probably be a millionaire raking in millions of dollars every year and have a world wide TV ministry. God would not let me do so, and for that I am grateful. Thank you, Lord, for your grace and your mercy.

Side note: I am reminded of a joke.

A Christian Scientist and a WOF preacher both died and ended up in Hell. They both looked around at their surroundings and figured out their location. The Christian Scientist started confessing, "There is no such thing as Hell. There is no such thing as Hell. There is no such thing as Hell." The WOF preacher started confessing, "I'm in Heaven. I'm in Heaven. I'm in Heaven."

Those who understand the theologies involved will enjoy that one.

For some time now, the US Congress, having solved all other major issues in the country, have decided to start auditing and questioning televangelists and their ministry finances. I realize as well as anyone that there is a serious First Amendment consideration here. However, keep in mind that we are talking about a 501(c)(3) corporation here, not just a ministry. There is supposed to be some degree of accountability. Rest assured that if there is no accountability now, there will be in the future, and that will be to the supreme judge.

I believe it to be wrong that the IRS can threaten to take away the tax exempt status for a preacher that makes political statements in the pulpit. There is a righteous standard that a minister is supposed to uphold. Those standards transcends into politics. If the government is ordained of God, then we have a responsibility to ensure that the proper ethics are employed in selecting leaders who will exemplify God's character and nature. Not only that, but there is an abridgment of First Amendment freedom of speech when preachers are disallowed to preach righteousness to their congregations and encourage them to vote according to their ethics that are based upon their faith.

When people abuse their authority, then they must face the minister of God, as enumerated in Romans 13. When a church or para-church organization abrogates their responsibilities and fails to pay their employees, they have legal issues, not just church issues. When a charter is handed out by the state, the state can regulate and hold you accountable. For instance, a pastor I know was purchasing a radio station and failed to live up to his end of the purchase agreement. He owed several employees, myself included, thousands of dollars in back wages. One man was owed ten fold of what I was owed. That pastor insisted that nobody could sue him. Well, it is not exactly easy to go before a church when he runs that church body. I sued a corporation. Had that same pastor not committed perjury by lying his butt off in court about his involvement and stake in the operations of that radio station, he would have lost that lawsuit. He had to resort to dishonesty to win. That is sad. Here some of us employees had to move out of our housing because we were not getting paid, some had not even enough gas money to show up for work or get home, and others ran up debt to help keep the radio station going. Promises were made but not kept, and we all suffered. Sin affects other people.

I weep for my brethren who are still mired in WOF theology. There were people that I loved dearly that were and may still be stuck in the preaching of manna and false hope for healing. I believe in healing. I have personally laid hands on the sick and injured and watched them be healed before my very eyes. The problem with WOF teaching is that they proclaim that if you are not healed, it is their own fault for not having sufficient faith to be healed. What a crock of BS. If someone calls for an elder of the church and asks for prayer and laying on of hands to be healed, then according to James chapter 5, the prayer of faith is the burden of the elder, not the one who is sick. That is the great heresy. Blaming someone else for your inaccurate theology to the detriment and possible destruction of the afflicted just pisses me off royally.

I have seen this many times. One such instance stands out in my mind in that a church held a healing service. There were ads on the radio asking for anyone who is sick to attend this special anointed healing service. I should know, I made the ads. After a message delivered about having faith to be healed, one person came up in a wheelchair asking for God's healing touch. After struggling to her feet and the pastor laying hands on the woman, she was none the better. The pastor actually chided the woman for not having sufficient faith to be healed. As I recall, he told her to go study about having faith sufficient for her healing. I was disgusted, but I could not vent my frustrations at the time.

That same pastor taught more than once that if you did not tithe, that you were a "God robber" according to Malachi 3:10 and that as a thief, you would go to Hell. Funny, that same verse talks about extortioners. Obtaining money from people under a false or even real threat of punishment or retribution is extorting from people.

Main Entry: ex·tort
: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power : wring; also
: to gain especially by ingenuity or compelling argument

It is not hard for me to equate WOF teachers with the money changers in the temple during Jesus' time. They twisted the law, extorted money, and made profit from the people of God. It is ironic that Jesus said, "make not my Father's house an house of merchandise" and yet when you go to many churches, there are book stores, tapes, CDs, videos, and books for sale of the preacher, singing group, or guest evangelist for sale. I have seen one particular preacher hock his books for some fifteen or twenty minutes. I have been in services where a so called prophet claimed to have a word from God as to how much money people should give that night. Another night, the special word from God was to take out your largest denomination bill and give it in the offering and you would get a 1000 fold increase by the end of the week. Another night he said that the Lord showed him that someone in the audience was keeping a $100 bill tucked away in his wallet in case a special need or occasion came up and that God instructed for him to give it in the offering. I saw this guy several times and it was amazing that in two totally different services in two different locations, God amazingly gave the exact same words of knowledge about money squirreled away in wallets and giving the largest size bill. Because I did not tolerate that crap or want any part of it, I was removed as a deacon in one church.

Not surprisingly, those who deal loosely with the truth or are downright deceived about the truth about money have a real motivation to keep these things private. Jim Bakker can attest to that. Somewhere here at the house, I have a recording of his first message after he got out of prison. I have his book, I Was Wrong on my book shelf. One by one, dirty ministers are being exposed. I wrote about one earlier this week.

Kenneth Copeland is refusing to let Congress see his ministry finances, hiding behind the First Amendment. He has some validity to his claim there, however I firmly believe that if the government is the one chartering a non-profit organization then they have the right to inspect to ensure that it is indeed non-profit. There is more than accountability to God, there is accountability in this world. Since Copeland elected to use the world's system to obtain tax exemption, he is bound to be accountable to that same system. Hiding behind the pretense of ministry and freedom of religion is might shady and casts a dubious light upon him, not that there was not one already.

The Bible has a stern warning about people who teach about greed and wealth. They usually covet it themselves. Convincing others that they will be wealthy by giving to your own ministry is self serving and as I pointed out earlier, extortion.

Here is one parting thought about those who extort money from the flock. I call it fleecing the sheep.

1Timothy 6:6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into [this] world, [and it is] certain we can carry nothing out. 8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. 9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and [into] many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Don't screw over the millions of responsible people because of the irresponsibility of others

I fully realize that there are people in this world to whom stuff happens. I know that a downturn in the economy can hurt people. Also there are people who just plain make bad decisions in their finances such as taking out a mortgage that they can not really afford. There are others who are just plain irresponsible. Just because there are some people like that plus the unfortunate cases, does not mean that the rest of the citizenry need to pay for relief of their mortgages. There is no "mortgage crisis". There is only the end result of companies that wrote loans they should not have written and customers failing to meet the obligations they could not afford to meet to begin with.

Of course the nanny state believes it has to come to the aid of people who are going through tough economic times. Let us forget the fact that there is no such provision in the US Constitution that allows government backed loans for personal mortgages. How about common sense? How about the belief that if someone made a mistake, they it is their consequence to deal with, not that of everybody else?

I have written of this previously, but it still frosts my flakes that this garbage is still going on in the Congress.

From the Yahoo news page:

WASHINGTON - Hundreds of thousands of homeowners could get safe, cheaper loans rather than losing their homes under a massive election-year mortgage rescue that's drawing bipartisan support.

The housing aid package — on track for Senate passage as early as Thursday — is far from completed, however, with House leaders planning to rewrite key portions and the White House still threatening a veto.

The centerpiece of the plan would let the Federal Housing Administration back up to $300 billion in new loans to provide struggling homeowners with more affordable, fixed-rate mortgages. It allows lenders who agree to take a substantial loss on the mortgages to reclaim at least some money and avoid a costly foreclosure.

It is NOT the responsibility of the government to bail everybody out of their mortgages. It is not MY responsibility to help pay for someone else's housing. It is not the problem of the entire nation to foot the bill for a small portion of the populace. We are no longer a republic. We are a socialist state.