Categories
Quick Analysis

Forced Support for Partisan causes

The disreputable practice of forcing voters and taxpayers to pay for political and ideological causes they disagree with is finally under attack.

The most blatant part of this abuse ended in June, when the Department of  Justice (DOJ) ended  the Obama-era policy that diverted about $3 billion in third-party settlements to left-wing causes. A DOJ statement  noted that:

“When the federal government settles a case against a corporate wrongdoer, any settlement funds should go first to the victims and then to the American people— not to bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of whoever is in power,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  “Unfortunately, in recent years the Department of Justice has sometimes required or encouraged defendants to make these payments to third parties as a condition of settlement.  With this directive, we are ending this practice and ensuring that settlement funds are only used to compensate victims, redress harm, and punish and deter unlawful conduct.”

Under the last Administration, the Department repeatedly required settling parties to pay settlement funds to third party community organizations that were not directly involved in the litigation or harmed by the defendant’s conduct.  Pursuant to the Attorney General’s memorandum, this practice will immediately stop.”

A Competitive Enterprise Institute study by Hans Bader  noted that “By enabling government officials to reward and financially strengthen their political allies, diversions of settlement funds created a political imbalance that undermined democracy. State attorneys general have also diverted government settlement funds to political allies. ‘With control over big money flows,’ [the CATO Institute’s Walter] Olson noted in 2015, ‘smart AGs can populate a political landscape with grateful allies.’ The Obama administration similarly ‘came under justified criticism for using the mortgage settlement to funnel tens of millions of dollars’ to predominantly ‘left-leaning community-organizing groups.’

“As [CEI]  noted in 2011, the Obama administration sued many banks for discrimination (including banks accused of “racially disparate impact” for using commonplace, colorblind lending policies), and then diverted settlement funds to left-wing groups allied with it: Fearing bad publicity from being accused of ‘racism’, banks have paid out millions in settlements after being sued by the Justice Department, even though they would probably prevail before most judges if they aggressively fought such charges (although doing so would probably cost them millions in legal fees).  A Michigan judge called one proposed settlement ‘extortion.’ These settlements provide cash for ‘politically favored ‘community groups allied with the Obama Administration, and the [Wall StreetJournal’s Mary Kissel predicts that ‘many’ of the loans mandated by these settlements ‘will eventually go bad.’”

The forced contributions weren’t restricted to the federal government.  A salient example comes from Maine, as reported by Mainewire  in 2012. “Efficiency Maine, the quasi-governmental agency that pushes to increase the use of ‘alternative energy,’ has used taxpayer funds to buy advertising on Maine Insights, the ultra-liberal website…that regularly advocates for extreme liberal positions and causes …[the website]  also regularly features interviews and profiles of prominent Democrat leaders…[it] does not publish profiles of Republicans, but criticizes them regularly.

In just a few years, Kamagra became successful winning hearts of numerous users. viagra 25 mg slovak-republic.org Regular indulgence in physical activities, sports or doing exercises of generico viagra on line pelvic muscles in specific may also improve the condition of their penis. viagra without prescription uk A lot of companies are now producing the medicine. brand cialis price You can purchase your favorite flavor jelly so you can cheerfully appreciate your night with your accomplice. Current examples abound. An Independent Journal Review report earlier this month disclosed that “Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh [has] announced the city will be providing free buses to students who wish to attend the March For Our Lives [a gun control event] rally in Washington, D.C., that is scheduled to take place March 24. In addition to the buses, the city will provide T-shirts and lunches for the students.”

One prominent current arena in which taxpayer dollars are misused for partisan political purposes is in public-financed state universities.  A significant number of these institutions have a track record of both advocating for left-wing candidates and causes while harassing and censoring moderate and conservative students and faculty. This becomes particularly acute during presidential election years.

Peter Wood, in a 2012 Chronicle of Higher Education article, reported: “A senior [Ohio State] English professor invited his colleagues to open their classrooms…to organizers in the Obama campaign. They would first encourage students to register to vote and then, if the instructors were willing, encourage students to volunteer for the Obama campaign…My hunch that there is more to this is based on what happened in 2008, when the Obama campaign rather openly pitched the idea that colleges and universities should award academic credit to students who volunteered for the campaign. I blew the whistle on an instance of that at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, which abruptly canceled a campaign-for-credit offer by some academics at the college. But it turned out that the same thing was going on at other universities.”

Advocating for a particular leftist cause or candidate is only half the problem. The other part concerns the censorship of centrists and conservative students, who are frequently confined to small “free speech zones” while left-wing ideas are openly advocated within classrooms.

There is movement on this front, as well.  Andrew Blake reported in the March 6 Washington Times that “Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that eliminates “free speech zones” at public universities and allows schools to be sued for restricting campus protests, a practice predominately employed against conservative students.  The Florida Excellence in Higher Education Act of 2018 passed in the House and Senate by votes of 84-28 and 33-5, respectively, sending it to Governor Rick Scott’s desk where it awaits his approval… Last-minute efforts waged by Democrats in both the House and Senate on Monday failed to strip Mr. Rommel’s language from the bill.”

Not content with inappropriately using taxpayer dollars for partisan politics at home, Fox News reports that “Republican lawmakers in Washington started asking questions about whether U.S. tax dollars also were being used to fund Soros projects in the small, conservative-led country of Macedonia. Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., led a group of House lawmakers in writing to Ambassador Jess Baily — an Obama appointee — demanding answers. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also expressed concerns about USAID money going to Soros’ Open Society Foundations as part of a broader concern that the U.S. Embassy has been taking sides in party politics.”

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Trump Administration vs. Sanctuary Cities

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its report on Trump Administration’s attempt to gain cooperation from “sanctuary cities.” 

The International Business Times notes that “Democratic mayors in two dozen municipalities launched an effort aimed at helping undocumented immigrants seek temporary status and obtain some legal rights. In 2013, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office in Louisiana announced it would decline federal immigration detention requests except when an individual is held on felony charges for violent crimes. The policy change was prompted by a New Orleans council member’s resolution to end the holds, citing their strain on local law enforcement resources, according to a council spokesman. Supporters of such policies say there are higher municipal priorities, and that deterring the presence of undocumented immigrants is more disruptive in administering municipal services and interferes with local law enforcement, according to the CRS study. Conversely, a study of undocumented immigrants and resources in New York City published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform found that the city was spending $5.1 billion annually on helping illegal immigrants.  ‘We are sacrificing the financial security of American citizens’ with sanctuary policies, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, an anti-illegal immigration group.”

The Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC   describes why localities engage in “sanctuary” policies:

“One justification of creating sanctuary cities is often under the guise of protecting ‘immigrant rights.’  But illegal aliens are not immigrants — immigrants come to the U.S. legally, and maintain their legal presence. When a person is illegally smuggled into the U.S. or violates their visa restrictions — he/she is not an immigrant or visitor, but an unauthorized alien subject to deportation under existing federal law.

Does Extenze work is cheap viagra 100mg amerikabulteni.com the one question that constantly bothers them. This basic advice on BMI numbers is the ratios, which mean the following: Underweight = Sexual dysfunction among men is typically known to be erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and other sexual disorders. cialis tablets 100mg viagra without side effects find out my link Can Propecia be used together with Rogaine? A. The discount generic viagra council notes further noted that, because of the strong links with child development outcomes, both parenting stress and their sense of satisfaction with their parenting skills are of key concern to child and family researchers.

“Another common argument public officials use to justify sanctuary policies is safety–framing them as an effective ‘community policing’ policy tool.  The argument goes as follows: Illegal aliens who are victims of crimes or are witnesses to crimes won’t report them to police for fear of arrest and deportation.  However, these political panderers ignore the fact that if the illegal aliens were removed from the U.S., they would not be here to become victims, and the predators would be out of the country too.

“Why do public officials pass sanctuary laws or establish unwritten “don’t ask–don’t tell” policies?  There are a variety of reasons.  Some politicians attempt to appease illegal immigration support groups such as the National Council of La Raza (NCLR),  Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund (MALDF), and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), or other immigration activist groups that lobby local governments to implement formal or informal sanctuary policies. Other reasons include political contributions and ethnic voter support at election time; complacency, ignorance, or “don’t care” attitudes; and purposeful resistance to existing U.S. immigration law based upon an open-border political philosophy that may serve their economic, political, or ethnocentric interests.   A great number of politically appointed big city police chief’s often support an administration’s sanctuary policy because they share a similar political ideology or just want to keep their job.  It’s much easier too for city officials to collect their paychecks and avoid the political protests and threats of expensive lawsuits that routinely follow attempts by cities to stop illegal aliens from taking root in their communities.”

The Obama Administration harassed local sheriffs who sought to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration.

FAIRUS  notes that State and local law enforcement agencies do not have to turn a blind eye to immigration violations that harm their communities simply because the regulation of immigration is a federal issue. To the contrary, Congress designed immigration law with assistance from state and local law enforcement in mind. Understanding that the cost of illegal immigration disproportionately impacts state and local governments, local leaders have even more incentive to cooperate with federal officials.

Sanctuary and other non-cooperation policies are harmful as they exacerbate national security threats, encourage illegal immigration, waste law enforcement and other taxpayer funded resources, and most importantly, put the public at risk by allowing known criminal aliens to be released back onto the streets. State and local lawmakers should consider enacting legislation to prohibit sanctuary policies in their communities and require cooperation with federal authorities.