Posts tagged GAO

GAO Now Investigating DHS Ammo Purchases



GAO Now Investigating DHS Ammo PurchasesBy Elizabeth Flock

The Government Accountability Office tells Whispers it is now investigating large ammunition purchases made by the Department of Homeland Security. Chuck Young, a spokesman for GAO, says the investigation of the purchases is “just getting underway.”

The congressional investigative agency is jumping into the fray just as legislation was introduced in both the Senate and the House to restrict the purchase of ammo by some government agencies (except the Department of Defense). The AMMO Act, introduced Friday, would prevent agencies from buying more ammunition if “stockpiles” are greater than what they were in previous administrations.

Donelle Harder, a spokeswoman for Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who introduced the legislation in the Senate, tells Whispers the bill would also require GAO to share the findings of its report on DHS purchases with Congress.

Officials at DHS have denied to both Whispers and lawmakers that it is stockpiling ammunition. The Associated Press reported in February that DHS wanted to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, but DHS officials testified last week it was only planning to buy up to 750 million.

Image Reference

Associated Press

Where Is The Treasury’s Gold? Group Demands Audit of Government Gold



Posted by Brianna Panzica on the Wealth Wire

Gold conspiracy theorists don’t trust the government…

Of course, that’s nothing new. By nature, groups like the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee(GATA), a group formed to expose control over the price of gold, are suspicious of collusion linked to the government.

But now they’re taking this suspicion into action with a petition to audit the nation’s gold reserves. According to the petition, the last full audit of bullion owned by the U.S. Treasury occurred in 1953: 60 years ago.

U.S. Gold Bullion Depository at Fort Knox
File:U.S. Bullion Depository.jpg
Credit: Wikipedia

The Treasury last claimed to have 261 million ounces in its possession on December 31, 2012. But the time lapse between that and the last time the store was officially checked is significant.

From Mineweb:

“The gold bars need to be assayed and weighed,” the petition advocates. “Once the gold is verified the paper trail must be audited to determine who really owns the gold; i.e. how much has been loaned to bankers and dealers and sold or swapped to non-Treasury entities including foreign governments.”

“The audit must include professional auditors outside of the Mint, Treasury, GAO, Inspector General and the Federal Reserve System,” the petition concludes.

The petition landed a spot on the White House website on Wednesday, January 9. By Monday morning, it had garnered 3,834 signatures.

If it reaches 25,000 by February 8, the White House has to respond. Policy experts will be required to review the request, and a public statement will be made.

Chris Powell, Secretary and Treasurer of GATA, thinks the request is likely a long shot. He wrote in an article published on GoldSeek:

Of course the U.S. government may be less likely to tell the truth about its gold than to declare signers of the petition to be terrorists and to send rocket-firing drone aircraft after them or have them hauled off to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts and beyond any claim of habeas corpus. But it’s a risk we have to take and if enough people sign and the petition has to be answered, clamor about the gold issue will increase.

If you’re interested in signing the petition or in reading the full petition text, you can check it out here.

See more at the Wealth Wire

Ron Paul Answers Questions About HR 459 And Presidential Run On

YouTube Preview Image


Also Visit:

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Noncosponsors



House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Noncosponsors

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a markup on Audit the Fed, H.R. 459,  possibly even as soon as next week!

The following members of the committee have yet to cosponsor H.R. 459, though several of them were cosponsors of H.R. 1207 in the 111th Congress.

Representative Phone Twitter
Rep. Darrell E. Issa (CA-49)*, Chairman 202-225-3906  @DarrellIssa
Rep. Christopher Murphy (CT-5)* 202-225-4476  @ChrisMurphyCT
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) 202-225-8050  @EleanorNorton
Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-1)* 202-225-2911  @BruceBraley
Rep. Mike Quigley (IL-5) 202-225-4061  @RepMikeQuigley
Rep. Danny Davis (IL-7) 202-225-5006  NONE
Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA-9) 202-225-8273  NONE
Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD-7), Ranking Member 202-225-4741  NONE
Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (MO-1)* 202-225-2406  NONE
Rep. Edolphus Towns (NY-10) 202-225-5936  @EdTowns
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) 202-225-7944  @RepMaloney
Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (NY-25) 202-225-3701  @RepBuerkle
Rep. Jim Cooper (TN-5) 202-225-4311  @RepJimCooper
Rep. Gerald Connolly (VA-11) 202-225-1492  NONE

* Denotes a cosponsor of Audit the Fed in a previous session of Congress

If your representative is on this list, urge them to cosponsor Audit the Fed and support a clean vote on H.R. 459 in committee. Politely remind them that any attempt to significantly alter the bill or restrict the GAO’s audit authority will be seen as a vote against Audit the Fed, regardless of their vote on final passage.

Ron Paul Has Already Changed the Future of American Politics



By Joseph Beck

Ron Paul Has Already Changed the Future of American Politics

Ron Paul Has Already Changed the Future of American Politics

The message of liberty has proven to be stronger than “9-9-9,” “Yes We Can,” or any other empty campaign rhetoric that has been incessantly repeated in  today’s election cycle. Unlike the others that merely pander to our base instincts of “Hope and Change” or our desire to have a Dr. Evil-style Moon base, there is substance to the liberty message.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has been delivering the same message of peace, sound money, and limited government for over 40 years. His entire political career has been devoted to the preservation of liberty and truth.

As George Orwell rightly said, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Unfortunately, we are in living under a state apparatus that is built on lies. Bailouts, wars, and other state-sanctioned interventions are always necessary to keep us safe from the evil economy or the evil bogeymen who reside in evil caves.

A rather significant characteristic of the message is the way it has spread: through the internet, alternative media, and grassroots movements like the Dec. 17, 2007, Tea Party money bomb that raised over $6 million in one day. That day marked the beginning of the modern day Tea Party, before it was co-opted by Fox News demagogues like Sean Hannity and other so-called conservatives in the mainstream media. The alternative media has propelled this revolution to the front lines of political discourse in this country. Thousands of students come to see Ron Paul speak on a regular basis. Paul supporters, both young and old, male and female, become students of Austrian economics and the Constitution.

An entire generation of Americans have become politically aware thanks to Paul’s efforts.

So, why has the mainstream media missed out on this intellectual, ideologically positive revolution?


The 16 Trillion Dollar Bailout The Federal Reserve Handed To The Too Big To Fail Banks



Have You Heard About The 16 Trillion Dollar Bailout The Federal Reserve Handed To The Too Big To Fail Banks?

Federal Reserve photoWhat you are about to read should absolutely astound you.  During the last financial crisis, the Federal Reserve secretly conducted the biggest bailout in the history of the world, and the Fed fought in court for several years to keep it a secret.  Do you remember the TARP bailout?  The American people were absolutely outraged that the federal government spent 700 billion dollars bailing out the “too big to fail” banks.  Well, that bailout was pocket change compared to what the Federal Reserve did.  As you will see documented below, the Federal Reserve actually handed more than 16 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free money to the “too big to fail” banks between 2007 and 2010.  So have you heard about this on the nightly news?  Probably not.  Lately Bloomberg has been reporting on some of this, but even they are not giving people the whole picture.  The American people need to be told about this 16 trillion dollar bailout, because it is a perfect example of why the Federal Reserve needs to be shut down.  The Federal Reserve has been actively picking “winners” and “losers” in the financial system, and it turns out that the “friends” of the Fed always get bailed out and always end up among the “winners”.  This is not how a free market system is supposed to work.

According to the limited GAO audit of the Federal Reserve that was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the grand total of all the secret bailouts conducted by the Federal Reserve during the last financial crisis comes to a whopping $16.1 trillion.

That is an astonishing amount of money.

Keep in mind that the GDP of the United States for the entire year of 2010 was only 14.58 trillion dollars.

The total U.S. national debt is only a bit above 15 trillion dollars right now.

So 16 trillion dollars is an almost inconceivable amount of money.

But some other dollar figures have been thrown around lately regarding these secret Federal Reserve bailouts.  Let’s take a look at them and see what they mean.

$1.2 Trillion

A recent Bloomberg article made the following statement….

The $1.2 trillion peak on Dec. 5, 2008 — the combined outstanding balance under the seven programs tallied by Bloomberg — was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and more than the total earnings of all federally insured banks in the U.S. for the decade through 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The $1.2 trillion figure represents the peak outstanding balance on these loans, not the total amount of all the loans.  On December 5, 2008 the “too big to fail” banks owed this much money to the Federal Reserve.  Many of them could not pay these short-term loans back right away and had to keep rolling them over time after time.  Each time a short-term loan got rolled over that represented a new loan.


The Gun Runners in Washington D.C.



Posted by Karen De Coster on December 10, 2011 05:33 PM

This story, “Legal U.S. Gun Sales to Mexico Arming Cartels,” isn’t getting a whole lot of attention from the domestic media. CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has dug up some bones that brings a bit of transparency to Washington’s war on your gun rights.

The problem of weapons legally sold to Mexico – then diverted to violent cartels – is becoming more urgent. That’s because the U.S. has quietly authorized a massive escalation in the number of guns sold to Mexico through “direct commercial sales.” It’s a way foreign countries can acquire firearms faster and with less disclosure than going through the Pentagon.

Here’s how it works: A foreign government fills out an application to buy weapons from private gun manufacturers in the U.S. Then the State Department decides whether to approve.

And it did approve 2,476 guns to be sold to Mexico in 2006. In 2009, that number was up nearly 10 times, to 18,709. The State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves, and wouldn’t give CBS News figures for 2010 or 2011.

Further down the article comes this intriguing quote:

“These sales by the industry actually support U.S. national security interests,” Keane told Attkisson. “If they didn’t, the State Department wouldn’t allow them.”

Larry Keane, interestingly enough, is a lobbyist for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and he’s advocating for and speaking on behalf of gun sales to foreign countries brokered by the U.S. government.


According to, emails that were obtained by CSB show that “ATF officials discussed using the deliberate transfer of weapons to Mexican drug cartels to justify a new gun regulation known as “Demand Letter 3.’” Remember that shortly after Obama was elected, his administration, led by gun control pusher Rahm Emanuel, started circulating the falsehoods about the “problem” of illegal guns being funneled to Mexico to fuel the drug violence [See this propaganda piece, "GAO Ties US Guns to Mexico Violence," in the June 18, 2009 WSJ].

Despite the incomplete data, GAO investigators conclude that the U.S., and in particular the Southwest border states of Texas, California and Arizona, are the source of most weapons trafficked into Mexico.

I blogged about it here. That was the beginning of another new chapter in the war on peaceful American gun owners. The U.S. government pushes drugs across the border, strategically sells guns to the military {gangs}, creates and exacerbates the violence, and then it uses and magnifies the crisis it has created as a tool for pushing its anti-gun, anti-freedom agenda here in the United States.

Bookmark/Share | Suggest a Link

Ron Paul Drives the Republican Debate Agenda



Happy to share another great article from “The New American”

Written by Thomas R. Eddlem

Ron Paul stood alone in his positions on economic and foreign policy issues during the presidential election cycle of 2008. Many establishment candidates — and even debate moderators — openly mocked his views; many even laughed at him. But as national and world events have proven Ron Paul’s economic and foreign policy predictions correct, other GOP presidential aspirants are now echoing his statements.

Ignoring Ron Paul

In 2007 and 2008, all of the establishment candidates for the Republican nomination asserted that the economy was on a sound footing.

Asked about the status of the economy in an October 9, 2007 presidential debate by CNBC commentator Maria Bartiromo, Kentucky Senator Fred Thompson, a former movie actor who had just entered the presidential race as the presumed frontrunner, said: “I think there is no reason to believe that we’re headed for a recession. We’re enjoying 22 quarters of successive economic growth…. I think if you look at the short term, it’s rosy. I think if you look at a 10-year projection, it’s rosy.” Fellow frontrunner and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney followed, agreeing with Thompson. Although Romney acknowledged in a nod to the local audience that “Michigan is undergoing a one-state recession,” he added that “the rest of the country is growing and seeing low levels of unemployment.”

Only Ron Paul claimed during that debate that the recession was already emerging and would only get worse: “Today, this country is in the middle of a recession for a lot of people. Michigan knows about it. Poor people know about it. The middle class knows about it. Wall Street doesn’t know about it. Washington, D.C., doesn’t know about it. But it’s because of the monetary system and the excessive spending. As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means.”

As of January 10, 2008, the Republican Party’s other frontrunner and eventual nominee, John McCain, was still denying the looming recession. John McCain, asked about the strength of the economy in a South Carolina debate, replied, “I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong.”

Again, Ron Paul replied to McCain in the same debate that the looming recession was a fait accompli. Paul said, “To solve this problem, you have to understand why we’re in a recession. I believe we’re in a recession. I think it’s going to get a lot worse if we continue to do the wrong things that we’ve done in the past, that it’s going to be delayed, just as what happened in the Depression. But you have to understand that over-stimulation in an economy by artificially low interest rates by the Federal Reserve is the source of the recession. The recession has been predictable.”

Ron Paul Dominates

History has demonstrated that Ron Paul was completely right in his economic analysis, based upon his study of the free-market, Austrian-school economics, while all the GOP frontrunners of 2008 were completely wrong. Indeed, as Ron Paul warned, the Federal Reserve has continued to suppress interest rates to zero up until this day (just as the Federal Reserve did to a lesser degree during the Great Depression), and the economy has not experienced the typical 3-5 percent annual GDP growth Americans have been accustomed to during most economic recoveries.

The usually humble Ron Paul has been forced to acknowledge his accurate predictions and analysis publicly. Ron Paul told for June 27, 2011, “In the debates last go-around, if I brought up monetary policy they literally would laugh or snicker,” he said. “I don’t think that’s there anymore because people are realizing the current system isn’t working that well.”

Thus, it should hardly be surprising that many of the Republican candidates for President are concocting talking points in which they claim they are reading Austrian-school economic texts and are critical of the Federal Reserve Bank. Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann has claimed she takes texts authored by Austrian-school economist Ludwig von Mises to the beach to read and favors an audit of the Fed. Texas Governor Rick Perry has claimed that he was most influenced by Austrian-school economist Frederick von Hayek, and called Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke guilty of “treasonous” behavior for printing more money. Even former Federal Reserve official Herman Cain has recently publicly favored an audit of the Fed, to the point where he has recently flip-flopped on the issue. He had opposed an audit of the Fed as recently December 29, 2010 on the Neil Boortz Show, when he said, “I don’t know why people think we’re going to learn this great amount of information by auditing the Federal Reserve…. We don’t need to waste money with another commission or an audit.”

Representative Paul has for years sought an independent audit of the Federal Reserve Bank, winning the cosponsorship of his bill from every Republican in the House and a third of the Democrats back in 2010. While the audit was substantially watered down in the conference committee version, an audit of sorts was eventually signed into law. The Government Accountability Office audit revealed in July 2011 that the Federal Reserve Bank had secretly lent some $16 trillion to U.S. and foreign banks since 2008, more money than all other federal spending during the same time period.

As Ron Paul’s opponents mimeograph his talking points, this trend has even attracted notice from Ron Paul’s critics, such as Brent Budowsky of The Hill. Budowsky concluded, “Ron Paul is wrong, dead wrong, fatally wrong, disastrously wrong and catastrophically wrong to attack the concept of using monetary policy, properly applied, and to use fiscal policy, properly applied, to increase growth and create jobs during a recession or depression.” But nevertheless, Budowsky notes that the entire Republican Party is imitating him, at least in part:

When Republican House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) threaten the Fed if it tries to help the economy with monetary policy, their low-concept imitation of Ron Paul is economically ignorant and historically unprecedented. When Republican candidate Rick Perry threatens the Fed with charges of treason and comes close to threatening violence if the Fed chairman visits Texas, his polyester impersonation of Paul makes him intellectually and morally unfit for the presidency…. When the books are written, one story of the 2012 campaign will be the full magnitude of influence that Ron Paul has achieved over Republican economic policy. For better or worse, it is an enormous achievement for Paul that his lifetime body of work is now a consensus policy of the Republican Party…. Ron Paul has won the debate within the Republican Party and is now dominating the debate in Republican circles.

Ron Paul Ridiculed on Foreign Policy

Just as critics laughed at or ignored Representative Paul in 2007-08 on the economy, they did the same on foreign policy. Fox News’ Chris Wallace mockingly asked the following question of Paul at a University of South Carolina presidential debate on May 15, 2007: “Now you say we should pull our troops out. A recent poll found that 77 percent of Republicans disapprove of the idea of setting a timetable for withdrawal. Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?” The question ended in audience laughter at Paul.

Representative Paul replied straight-faced: “But you have to realize that the base of the Republican Party shrunk last year because of the war issue. So that percentage represents less people. If you look at 65 to 70 percent of the American people, they want us out of there. They want the war over.”

Foreign policy weariness was a big part of the reason Obama was elected in 2008, and it’s still true. Recent polls indicate that 62 percent of Americans want more cuts in troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan than what President Obama has promised. Even a majority of Iraq and Afghan military veterans now agree it’s time to come home. Only a third of Afghan and Iraqi veterans say the wars were “worth fighting.”

Flash forward to 2011, and candidates are singing a different tune. At a debate on June 13, 2011 in Manchester, New Hampshire, even traditionally interventionist candidates sounded like Ron Paul:

Mitt Romney: It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes to our generals that we can hand the country over to the Taliban military in a way that they’re able to defend themselves. Excuse me, the Afghan military to defend themselves from the Taliban. That’s an important distinction.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: I think that we need to think fundamentally about reassessing our entire strategy in the region. I think that we should say to the generals we would like to figure out [how] to get out as rapidly as possible with the safety of the troops involved.

Paul responded to Gingrich and Romney at that debate, both of whom said they would follow the advice of their generals: “I wouldn’t wait for my generals. I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I’d bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan.”

Paul’s issue-based dominance over the debate agenda in Manchester, New Hampshire, sent the guardians of GOP establishment interventionism into conniptions. Over the next week, Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina loudly criticized what they labeled the “isolationist wing” of the Republican Party for controlling the debate.

The Washington Post’s Marc A. Theissen fretted June 20, “In the GOP debate, we saw a similar failure of leadership on the part of the Republican candidates. Not one stepped forward to argue for success in Afghanistan or to lay out a vision for a vigorous conservative internationalism — and some, like Mitt Romney, pandered to perceived isolationist sentiment by talking withdrawal instead of victory. This is troubling.” Theissen is an official of the war-mongering American Enterprise Institute and a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

Romney had backpedaled by the time of the August 13 debate in Ames, Iowa, claiming in Ames that troops should only be withdrawn “according to, as I said in that last debate, according to the time table established and communicated by the generals in the field. And those generals recommended to President Obama that we should not start drawing our troops down until after the fighting season in 2012.”

But Ron Paul’s call for ending wars — which, in the wake of the death of Osama bin Laden, are no longer focused upon punishing the 9/11 perpetrators — remains the primary U.S. foreign policy issue.

Paul’s anti-war message was partly ignored for partisan reasons in the 2008 campaign; he was campaigning in the Republican primary against an Iraq War being waged by a sitting Republican President who was still popular with Republicans. Moreover, in 2007, President Bush’s “surge” policy in Iraq appeared to be succeeding. Today, the Iraq War continues and American soldiers continue to die there, though at a lower rate than previous years, but without any clear withdrawal strategy by the Obama administration. And the Afghan War continues with increased casualties and without any clear exit strategy.

Perhaps the biggest part of the reason Ron Paul is no longer alone in calling for bringing America’s soldiers home from wars abroad is the death of Osama bin Laden. It was never clear that a full-fledged war was needed to bring bin Laden to justice; indeed, bin Laden was destroyed by a small strike force rather than a broader war. In the wake of bin Laden’s death at the hands of U.S. special forces, there’s no clear and compelling national security reason to be engaged in the same broad-based combat abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan that failed for 10 years to bring him to justice.

Paul told CNN’s Candy Crowley on June 5, 2011, “You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more. The people are coming over here. So, I would say whatever happens is going to be good because the people have woke up.”

Ron Paul has been right all along on the two most important issues of our generation, the economy and foreign wars. But in 2008, all of the planets seemed aligned against him. In the 2012 cycle, the planets appear to be aligned in his favor. That’s a theme that official Ron Paul campaign blogger Jack Hunter has noticed. “Only Ron Paul comprehensively represents the direction most Americans have been trending politically,” Hunter noted October 1. “Paul hasn’t moved toward the American majority; Americans en masse continue to move toward Paul.”

It’s this very same trend that has led Fox News personality Juan Williams to write, “It is becoming increasingly clear that we are living in a time when Republican politics are being shaped by a 75-year-old, 12-term Texas congressman with a son in the Senate…. If you have not been paying attention, it is time to look around and realize that we are living in the political age of Rep. Ron Paul.”

— Photo of Ron Paul: AP Images

You may be running late, but you’re not too late. BLACK THIS OUT!!!

Please donate TODAY! Thank you :)

ACORN-affiliated group gets $300,000 more in taxpayer money



By Matthew Boyle – The Daily Caller

SAN FRANCISCO - NOVEMBER 25: Members of the community organization ACORN hold signs as they protest inside of a Wachovia bank branch November 25, 2008 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) Read more:

An affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) received another $300,000 in taxpayer funding in early August, The Daily Caller has learned.

President Barack Obama’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded the $300,000 grant to the post-ACORN ally: The Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA). The Obama administration awarded the money despite a 2010 law saying no taxpayer funds could be issued to ACORN “or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations.”

AHCOA was previously named “Acorn Housing Corporation,” a group that did a lot of business with ACORN. Acorn Housing changed its name to AHCOA in late 2009.

Until the end of August, AHCOA’s website boasted that it was “formerly Acorn Housing Corporation.” The organization has since removed that bit of history.

The “new” organization has the same Chicago address and phone number as Acorn Housing did. AHCOA has also been using Acorn Housing’s old Data Universal Number System (DUNS) code to apply for and receive taxpayer-funded grants. A DUNS number is unique, organization-specific and location-specific, implying that AHCOA may be no different from Acorn Housing.

The way HUD and the Obama administration justify funding AHCOA is by saying it’s not “affiliated” or “allied” with ACORN. To make their case, the Obama officials rely on a September 29, 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report arguing the case that AHCOA isn’t “affiliated” or “allied” with ACORN.

The GAO argument is that since AHCOA changed its name and cut off official financial ties with ACORN, it’s still legally allowed to receive taxpayer money, as AHCOA is not technically connected with ACORN when applying the legal definition of “affiliated” or “allied.”

Dan Epstein, executive director of the Freedom Through Justice Foundation, told The Daily Caller that the administration and GAO’s interpretation of the law is twisted, and it’s pretty clear that AHCOA shouldn’t be getting taxpayer cash. Epstein said the latest $300,000 grant is a violation of the law that was supposed to have defunded ACORN.

“The recent grant of $300,000 of taxpayer dollars to the Affordable Housing Centers of America reflects the degree to which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has ignored the will of the Congress and the people it represents to stop wasting federal funds on organizations which have a history of mismanagement and fraud,” Epstein said. “ACORN, its affiliates and subsidiaries, represent the kind of fraud that put all Americans in this economic recession in the first place.”

HUD spokesman Jereon Brown cited the aforementioned GAO report as a legal basis for giving taxpayer cash to AHCOA.*

Senators Issue Letter to House GOP Colleagues in Opposition to Debt Limit Extension Bill



WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today Republican Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee (Utah), Jim DeMint (S.C.), and David Vitter (La.) issued a Dear Colleague letter to their Republican House brethren, stating their opposition to tomorrow’s House vote on the debt limit extension and urging them to stand in opposition as well.


Upon issuing the letter, Sen. Paul offered the following statement:

“Members of both chambers of Congress who wish to protect American taxpayers must stand together in opposition of the current debt ‘deal.’ Tomorrow the House of Representatives will have that opportunity, and I hope they will find the courage to do so.

“The ‘deal’ at hand would lead to an increase of our national debt over the next 10 years by at least $7 trillion, and the amount of ‘cuts’ introduced in the first year are a measly $7 billion. More so, it doesn’t even balance the budget and all but guarantees a U.S. downgrade. There are so many things wrong with this legislation that will be passed on to the American taxpayer if enacted, the urgency of denying its passage is great.”




July 26, 2011

Dear Colleagues:


We write you today in strong opposition to the Debt Limit extension you will be considering in the House tomorrow. For many reasons, we cannot support this bill and urge you to protect the American taxpayers by strongly opposing this bill.


1)         The bill will lead to an increase of our national debt of at least $7 trillion in the next 10 years, assuming the maximum cuts in the bill actually materialize.  Using less optimistic CBO numbers, new debt could easily approach $10 trillion.


Go to Top