GOVERNMENT WASTE

.
I’m sure that, by now, we’ve all heard of the illegal conduct that seems to be the standard operating procedure of ACORN, from facilitating the smuggling into the country of minors for the purpose of prostitution to their eagerness to provide mortgages to unqualified applicants for illegal purposes.

The excuse given for the misconduct of ACORN employees was that they are assigned a quota of mortgages they must process each day. Thus, their advice, "You won't get a mortgage if you don't lie."

But… wait a minute… Wasn't that precisely the problem with the recent "housing crisis"? Mortgages were given to people who were not qualified for them, who lied on their applications? And many of those unqualified borrowers defaulted on those mortgages because they couldn’t make the payments, and so investors were left holding billions of dollars of worthless paper. So, why is ACORN still processing mortgages for unqualified applicants? Won’t that only exacerbate the problem?

A better question might be this: If it's necessary to assign a quota and if ACORN employees are having such a difficult time filling that quota legally — is it possible that low-income housing programs are being OVERFUNDED??

And take the food stamp program. I've seen large billboards advertising the program at who-knows-what cost to the taxpayers. Most people who are in extreme financial trouble go to the public welfare office. There, they are offered a variety of assistance, from food stamps to fuel assistance. If you don't know you need food stamps, or if you don't think you qualify for food stamps, YOU PROBABLY DON'T NEED FOOD STAMPS!!! Could this possibly be another government program that is grossly overfunded?

Yet every time conservatives try to limit the excess in these programs, they’re accused of wanting to starve children. I mean, what’s that about?! Even if it’s suggested that the federal government simply hold the line on such programs, liberals and their allies in the media complain about welfare “cuts”. Since when is “no increase” synonymous with “cut”?

I have no problem with providing a safety net for families in need and people temporarily unemployed, but something definitely needs to change when welfare becomes a way of life for entire neighborhoods. Here’s a heads-up for liberals: “promote the general welfare” does NOT mean “put everyone ON welfare”!

As for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and programs such as the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, I can find no constitutional authority for either the federal or state governments to engage in the mortgage business. The Constitution does NOT guarantee that every citizen should have his or her own house! If you can’t afford to buy a house then, for crying out loud, rent an apartment!

If Congress wants to cut spending — and I see nothing to suggest that they do, they could begin by taking a long, hard look at their motives for funding such corrupt organizations as ACORN and then deal with the superfluous spending on welfare and housing.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.