If it looks like an ACORN and it acts like an ACORN ...
Republicans say they know an ACORN when they see it, and just because the community activist organization says it's disbanding, that doesn't mean it's gone.
"Just as criminals change their aliases, ACORN is changing its name," California Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in a written statement. "But make no mistake about it, just because they change their name, doesn't mean anything has really changed at all."
Issa led an investigation into the group, which announced on Monday that it is closing after a series of undercover videos last year showed its employees offering tax advice to a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute, tarnishing the group's reputation and crippling its source of funding.
The congressman said ACORN's announcement is just another scheme designed to get its hands on taxpayer funds.
"As this most recent presidential election has showed us, just because you profess change, doesn't mean you're going to change," Issa said. "The bottom line is, whatever they decide to call themselves, they are still the same corporation with the same board, staff and people. Ultimately, the real question is: aside from their name, what is really going to change?"
ACORN's board decided to close state affiliates and field offices by April 1, with some national operations continuing to operate for at least several weeks before they shut down for good, spokesman Kevin Whelan told The Associated Press. While the group's political operations, including its much-criticized voter registration efforts, will close, the housing unit will remain open.
But most of the 20 chapters of ACORN are organizing under new names, a source within the group told Reuters.
Several of its largest affiliates, including ACORN New York and ACORN California, already broke away this year and changed their names in a bid to shed their parent organization's tarnished image and restore revenue that ran dry in the wake of the video scandal.
But the only difference between the new groups and ACORN is the names, Issa said. The groups are keeping the same employees and the same tax identification numbers. For example, Issa said, Affordable Housing Centers of America was formerly ACORN Housing. The new corporation has the same tax ID and employee identification number as ACORN Housing, which received millions of dollars in funding from the Department of Housing Urban and Development.
The Chicago office seems to have at one time been the headquarters for ACORN Housing, according to Matthew Vadum of Capital Research Center. A company brochure says AHCOA is a" HUD approved housing counseling agency" with "access to 43 mortgage servicers."
In Missouri, Jeff Ordower, a former head organizer for ACORN in that state, founded Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, which focuses on jobs, education and housing advocacy.
He did not return repeated messages left on voicemail seeking comment.
Other groups that bear a very strong resemblance to ACORN are the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, New York Communities for Change, New England United for Justice in Massachusetts and Arkansas Community Organizations.
On its Web site, the California group takes pains to distinguish itself from ACORN, saying it has no legal, financial or structural ties to ACORN.
But the executive director of the group, Amy Schur, is the former executive director of California ACORN, and Edgar Hilbert, a member of the group's interim board of directors, is a former member of the ACORN state chapter.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/27/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the clean end of a turd
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2010 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
apparently Comprehensive is, as Oblahblah confused Liability with it. Since he's the smartest man in America (proof? See Sheriff Joe Biden, VP), nobody else can figure it out
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2010 18:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Are Christian Science members excused? How about Jehovah's Witnesses? Is having a Native American medicine man a qualified health care plan?
[Iran Press TV Latest] Government aid is underway for homeowners in the US as President Barack Obama's administration has decided to erase mortgages and lower payments in a bid to stem foreclosures.
The Obama administration on Friday pledged USD 14 billion in aid to provide lenders with incentives to write off some mortgage debts and reduce payments for the unemployed.
Banks and other mortgage providers would have to lower the payments to no more than 31 percent of a borrower's income, which would typically be the amount of unemployment insurance, for three to six months. According to administration officials, in some cases, a lender could completely write off the debt.
Banks and other mortgage providers would have to lower the payments to no more than 31 percent of a borrower's income, which would typically be the amount of unemployment insurance, for three to six months. According to administration officials, in some cases, a lender could completely write off the debt.
The aid expansion comes as the administration is under growing pressure from Congress to tackle the foreclosure crisis, which is hurting the economy and exposing millions of Americans to the risk of losing their homes.
The new initiatives could well provoke protests among those who have managed to pay their debts and are not in trouble.
"Our housing initiatives must balance the need to help responsible homeowners struggling to stay in their homes, with the recognition that we cannot and should not help everyone," the Treasury said in a statement according to a New York Times report on Friday.
The government aid would not include investors and speculators, as well as wealthy Americans living in million dollar homes or people defaulting on vacation homes, the statement said.
Around 11 million households, or a fifth of those with mortgages, fall in this category, known as "underwater" position.
"The government is seeking to persuade people to stay in their homes by aligning the mortgage debt with the asset value, which is the only viable path to real housing stability," said a source who was briefed on the government's plans.
Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic Representative from Ohio, who threw his weight behind Obama on this week's landmark healthcare legislation, told the administration that he had not seen any "bold, new" initiatives for underwater borrowers.
"What are we doing to help those people who owe more on their homes than the home is worth?" Kucinich asked.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/27/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is a bunch of bull! Watch who gets it. Those of us that work for a living but are "underwater" won't qualify. They only people that qualify will be the ones that were given the predator loans, the ones that never really qualified to buy in the first place, hense the minority unemployed. While the middle class get stiffed. He is really trying to start a war...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/27/2010 0:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Couple this with giving amnesty to 20 million illegals and not only will there be war, there'll be a massive blowout in November.
#4
usually when banks offer "forbearance" on loans, the interest foregone is merely tacked on to the principle for repayment later when the borrower's circumstances improve. That's one reason student loans can be such a debacle. Might actually make the situation worse.
#5
The government aid would not include investors and speculators, as well as wealthy Americans living in million dollar homes or people defaulting on vacation homes, the statement said.
But of course! Hard working achievers are the funding base of social justice.
#6
If borrowers get mortgage debt actually forgiven rather than rolled forward, doesn't it count as income? With taxes due? Which reduces available income so they'll still be insolvent. Rinse and repeat?
#7
I can't wait. I'm underwater, primary home, not speculation, not weathly - at least, way under $250k per year.
On the other hand, I am not disadvantaged, except for not being Democratic.
On the third hand, I wouldn't be in a place this nice without the easy lending of 2006. The money was easy, but the price inflated (metro DC).
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/27/2010 9:01 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Daughter bought a house. Splits costs with housemate. Buys health insurance. Is solvent on $8 per hour. Not much income, but good credit, 20% down, low interest rates, modest house, neighborhood redevelopment tax abatement, catastrophic insurance. For a flaming liberal she's pretty smart and responsible. And this would make her eligible to get your money so she can go party.
#9
Nicely done Glenmore, downpayment, tax rebate, etc. Anythng for the kids right? As the responsible party ends, I hope she brings you many 'redevelopment neighborhood' grandchildren.
#10
Beso,
It was her call, she's an adult. And done just before the Obama-bucks came out. I did not even like the idea. My contribution was help with closing costs. I did not even see the place until she'd been in it a while - but the 'redevelopment' does seem to have worked, at least so far.
(If you meant the 'grandchildren' comment to come across the way it did to me, I think it was uncalled-for.)
#12
In this case it appears 'callinng them like you see them = excuse for being an asshole.'
I agree with some of the less popular statements you've made here at the Burg, but taking a shot at the mans child and eventual grandchildren is nothing less than being an ass. You were out of line there. An apology would be the right thing to do.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
03/27/2010 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#13
'Lol mate!
Southron... or Afriikaner... still can't remember.
Speaks 7 languages and a privy to 2 war fighting commands.
#14
Got to help those oppressed "undocumented" workers with "no-doc" home loans. You know, the ones that ACORN helped obtain financing from those MEAN banks.
#15
Thanks for your agreement and confidence Mike. Bragging about one's children is entirely appropriate, I do it myself. Publisizing or celebrating the fact that they're subsisting and or "partying" on my dime, ....not so much. A bit too much information for my liking. A poor choice of words possibly, that "getting your money" but one should keep potentially inflamamtory family financial issues to him or herself. The current administration will soon be very deep into our pockets. Financial matters are quite sensitive at the moment. No apology necessary, none forthcoming.
#16
You appear to have missed the unhappy tone that was clearly in Glenmore's comment, Besoeker. Given Glenmore's long history of posting here it's hard to see how a fair reading would support the idea that he liked the idea. He was simply noting that the bailout would have that sort of consequence, so far as I can see.
#17
Well if I missed the meaning, which is possible, then I do apologize to Glenmore and fellow readers. Like many here, I'm a bit put off of late with all of this beltway, taxpayer funded largesse and scheme of the week programmes for fixed income people like myself.
#19
It always takes a female to make peace. Us males just twist in the wind on those ventures.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
03/27/2010 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Pooh, Mike. But lotp does read deeper into the text than most, regardless of sex.
Shipman dear, you don't like Besoeker. Fine, we'll take that as read from now on -- you need not comment on that any more. You have so much more to bring to the conversation. I picture you in a clean shirt, tucked in, having dusted the room before you sit down to the computer. ;-)
#21
Why are posts from Iran Press on fairly average topics being posted? I understand posting North Korea's bile filled rants, but there has to be hundreds of western press accounts of this.
#22
you can get the western accounts anywhere. Fred has links to Iran Press TV, Dawn, et al, so you see how it's seen overseas by the rubes
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2010 16:01 Comments ||
Top||
#23
surprisingly, or not, they're pretty much the same pitch and meme as the NYT, MSNBC, Newsweak, et al...
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2010 16:04 Comments ||
Top||
#24
But lotp does read deeper into the text than most, regardless of sex.
Yes, but I'm convinced that that's because she's smarter than most and that aint fair!
Posted by: Mike N. ||
03/27/2010 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Not so different than the formula I used...an understanding of finances and desire to own property correctly is an increasingly rare thing for any American. Moreso as/if people become skittish that property owners will be stuck with the bill (see Greensburg KS).
And, unfortunately, that type of behavior may be a consequence for the good, intelligent types...imagine banks forced to give loans to people who have no intention to pay them off, and no consequence to the lendee unless we're talking debtor's prison or work-it-off programs.
Or it could just be for those who are currently behind, figured by demographic and debt amount, in which case those of us who have been making the payments are at the bottom of the list whether we like it or not.
#26
tw, Shipman with a clean shirt and dusted computer? LOL.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
03/27/2010 19:54 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Hey OSAMABAMA- How about paying off my kids student loans wasted on careers that you let H1Bs and offshore type do asshole!
I don't enjoy paying for them!
Maybe your fellow travelers will foot the bill?
#28
ruffled feathers that may occur form the following comment are non-intentional:
seems that a lot of folks here are pretty testy lately and looking for a fight over slights that might otherwise be ignored. my dime-store psychology is that we are pretty pissed about recent events and lashing out a bit. seem to have seen more dust-ups the last week than the prior month and a half. might we all just take a deep breath and try to regain the 'civil' in our well reasoned discourse?
Posted by: abu do you love ||
03/27/2010 20:57 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Agreed, abu.
Plus the moon's almost full.
Not meant to be snarky, there's some evidence for physical, if subtle, influences on emotions and bodily states when it's bigger/closer ...
Not good. We need someone competent running the show.
Washington, DC (AHN) - Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert A. Harding withdrew his nomination to be head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Friday, saying the distraction from his past work as a defense contractor would be detrimental to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Harding's withdrawal follows his admission in Wednesday's confirmation hearing that his company overbilled the government in 2004, according to the White House. His Harding Security Associates (HSA), which he sold last year, signed that year a contract with the Defense Department to provide 40 interrogators and debriefers for the conflict in Iraq. The contract was cancelled four months later, prompting HSA to seek severance pay for its workers.
In the hearing, Sen. Susan Collins, (R-ME), said the government settled the contract dispute with HSA for $6 million but $2.4 million of the amount was questionable. The HSA eventually returned $1.8 million to the government.
Harding, who has more than 35 years of military and intelligence experience, was the second nominee for TSA chief to withdraw. Erroll Southers, a Los Angeles airport police executive, backed out in January after information about his company misleading the government two decades ago came out.
Two decades ago? What was really wrong with the gentleman in question?
Prior to working as a defense contractor, Harding was the director of operations of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former deputy to the Army's chief of intelligence.
When I saw that Kathleen Parker's March 24 op-ed, "Stupak's original sin," defined me as a "backstabber," it reminded me of a Bible verse. Matthew 7:3 asks, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
The true motives of many blogs and organizations claiming to be pro-life have become clear in recent days: to politicize life issues as a means to defeat health care reform. One group even sent an e-mail to supporters saying they are "working feverishly to stop this legislation from going forward." You say that like it's a bad thing.
The pro-life groups rallied behind me - many without my knowledge or consent - not necessarily because they shared my goals of ensuring protections for life and passing health-care reform but because they viewed me as their best chance to kill health-care legislation.
Last November, an amendment I introduced succeeded in making sure the House health-care-reform bill contained the current law prohibiting public funding for abortions. I was disappointed that the Senate could not pass my language and only mustered 45 pro-life votes, far short of the 60 votes needed to keep the amendment intact.
Many of my Democratic pro-life colleagues and I worked tirelessly in the days leading up to the final House vote on health-care reform to strengthen the legislation's restrictions on abortion funding. We proposed numerous procedural and legislative options, but ultimately all of our efforts required the 60 votes we could not obtain in the Senate.
Once it was clear that the House leadership would eventually obtain the 216 votes necessary to pass health-care reform, I was left with a choice: Vote against the bill and watch it become law with no further protections for life or reach an agreement that prevents federal funding for abortions. Could we have a bit of clarity please Bart? Who were the others Nancy was going to get anyway?
Therefore, I and other pro-life Democrats struck an agreement with President Obama to issue an executive order that would ensure all Hyde Amendment protections would apply to the health-care reform bill. No, an executive order is not as strong as the statutory language we fought for at the start. We received, however, an "ironclad" commitment from the president that no taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions. Bart, Bart ... have you missed all his other sunken ironclads?
Throughout history, executive orders have carried the full force and effect of law and have served as an important means of implementing public policy. Perhaps the most famous executive order was the Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. More recently, in 2007, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13435, restricting embryonic stem-cell research. This executive order protected the sanctity of life and was "applauded" and "welcomed" by pro-life advocates. That these same people would now claim that President Obama's executive order maintaining the sanctity of life is not worth the paper it is written on is disingenuous at best. Touche. So howe can an EO supersede the Law of the Land?
Some, including Parker, have criticized Obama's executive order as unenforceable in the courts and therefore just a "fig leaf." Yet the language that critics point to is standard language with any executive order, including Bush's ban on embryonic stem-cell research. Again, many of these pro-life groups did not express concern over the Bush language but claim it is unacceptable under Obama.
To further protect against federal funding for abortion, during floor debate on the health-care reform bill I engaged in a colloquy with Rep. Henry Waxman to make clear congressional intent that the provisions in the bill, combined with the executive order, will ensure that outcome. Such colloquies are often referred to in court cases when an attempt is being made to determine Congress's intent. This, too, was no minor concession by those opposed to our efforts, and it is a tremendous victory for those protecting the sanctity of life.
I have said from the start that my goal was to see health-care reform pass while maintaining the long-standing principle of the sanctity of life. The president's executive order upholds this principle and current law that no federal funds be used for abortion. I and other pro-life Democrats are pleased that we were able to hold true to our principles and vote for a bill that is pro-life at every stage of life and that provides 32 million Americans with access to high-quality, affordable health care. He probably believes the high-quality, affordable bit, too.
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/27/2010 16:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11135 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wouldn't worry about it, Bart. It's not like your gonna be around DC to deal with it any more for very much longer.
#2
Your fifteen minutes of fame are over, Stupid. Nobody cares what you have to say anymore. You better start dusting off your resume because you're gonna need a new job come November.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/27/2010 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The president's executive order...
Will have an effective range of '0' before a federal justice of the 'social justice' school of Constitutional interpretation. You all know that and so do we. Once you give the fed judiciary an inch they take the proverbial mile.
#4
nice pork requeast when you thought nobody would notice, tool. Get him out
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2010 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#5
He really wanted to vote yes but he painted himself into a corner by opposing Government funded abortion. He weasled out with a worthless promise and 30 pieces of silver. Judas should be his name.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
03/27/2010 20:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
He'll be around in January; he has a stiff of a Pub running against him. I'm betting that's why, in the end, he was a 'yes'.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2010 20:46 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The executive order is worth about squat. You been had Stupak. You might consider changing the last two letters in your name from ak to id. BO doesn't really give a damn about what you think or want [or for that matter what the rest of us think or want either]. He is narcissistic and on his own path.
Yesterday The Hill reported that Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that "keeping a Democratic majority in the House is 'too important to the country,'" which is why "she had no intention of ceding control of the House in this fall's elections, despite Republican optimism that they can win control of the chamber." Appearing on PBS, Pelosi addressed potential Democratic losses due to Sunday's health care vote, "I've said if passing this bill means I have to walk out of my office that night, it would be with the greatest pride." However, she cautioned, "I haven't any intention of losing the Democratic majority."
Sure. Here is another reason Mrs. Pelosi might want to keep a democratic majority. That's because, as it turns out, based on my new analysis of the Recovery.org data, Democratic districts are getting 1.8 times more money on average than Republican districts. Using Recovery.gov data, and cleaning it up seriously to be able to use it, we find that Republican districts are getting on average $260.6 million in stimulus awards while democratic districts are getting on average $471.5 million. The average is award per district is $385.9 million.
Interestingly, my data also confirms that the stimulus funds are not allocated based on unemployment rates or even variations in unemployment rates. So basically, if the administration believes that government spending can create jobs, the allocation of the funds doesn't show it.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/27/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
At first I though suprise meeter please. But pigs at the trough are much more appropriate.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/27/2010 0:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Democratic districts are getting 1.8 times more money on average than Republican districts.
Shocking! Shocking I tell you. Why.... this is tantamount to, to, to bribery, kickbacks, payoffs, etc. Who could have guessed this would happen?
#3
Wait.....what? Gee for just a second there I thought this article was insinuating that the Dems are corrupt or something. Whew, almost had my faith shaken.
I'm not always the biggest fan of the Republican party mind you, but why anyone would ever vote for a Democrat is simply beyond my comprehension.
Posted by: Jefferson ||
03/27/2010 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Obama and the Dems are all about the party, not America. It's time to crash that party.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
If it looks like an ACORN and it acts like an ACORN ... 
Once it was clear that the House leadership would eventually obtain the 216 votes necessary to pass health-care reform, I was left with a choice: Vote against the bill and watch it become law with no further protections for life or reach an agreement that prevents federal funding for abortions. 
Yesterday The Hill reported that Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that "keeping a Democratic majority in the House is 'too important to the country,'" which is why "she had no intention of ceding control of the House in this fall's elections, despite Republican optimism that they can win control of the chamber." Appearing on PBS, Pelosi addressed potential Democratic losses due to Sunday's health care vote, "I've said if passing this bill means I have to walk out of my office that night, it would be with the greatest pride." However, she cautioned, "I haven't any intention of losing the Democratic majority."
