Jump to content

The end of the the military industrial complex as we know it?


Happy Face
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) yesterday pointed out that the bill passed by both the Senate and House to de-fund ACORN is written so broadly that it literally compels the de-funding not only of that group, but also the de-funding of, and denial of all government contracts to, any corporation that "has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency."  By definition, that includes virtually every large defense contractor, which -- unlike ACORN -- has actually been found guilty of fraud.  As The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim put it:  "the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex.  Whoops."

 

I spoke with Rep. Grayson this morning regarding the consequences of all of this.  He is currently compiling a list of all defense contractors encompassed by this language in order to send to administration officials (and has asked for help from the public in compiling that list, here).  The President is required by the Constitution to "faithfully execute" the law, which should mean that no more contracts can be awarded to any companies on that list, which happens to include the ten largest defense contractors in America.  Before being elected to Congress, Grayson worked extensively on uncovering and combating defense contractor fraud in Iraq, and I asked him to put into context ACORN's impact on the American taxpayer versus these corrupt defense contractors.  His reply:  "The amount of money that ACORN has received in the past 20 years altogether is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Haillburton each day during the war in Iraq."

 

The irony of all of this is that the Congress is attempting to accomplish an unconstitutional act:  singling out and punishing ACORN, which is clearly a "bill of attainder" that the Constitution explicitly prohibits -- i.e., an act aimed at punishing a single party without a trial.  The only way to overcome that problem is by pretending that the de-funding of ACORN is really about a general policy judgment (that no corrupt organizations should receive federal funding).  But the broader they make the law in order to avoid the Constitutional problem, the more it encompasses the large corrupt corporations that own the Congress (and whom they obviously don't want to de-fund).  The narrower they make it in order to include only ACORN, the more blatantly unconstitutional it is.  Now that they have embraced this general principle that no corrupt organizations should receive federal funding, how is anyone going to justify applying that only to ACORN while continuing to fund the corporations whose fraud and corruption is vastly greater (not to mention established by actual courts of law)?

 

My discussion with Rep. Grayson is roughly 10 minutes long and can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorder below.  A transcript will be posted later today.

 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/rad...yson/index.html

 

:lol:  :lol:

 

Class

 

Just to be clear, the bill has already passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some interesting companies that the bill might affect, including Halliburton (Dick Cheney's favourite company) and their subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root, Blackwater/Xe the mercenary company, IBM and Boeing.

 

There's a growing list of companies & organisations that might be affected (including links to the evidence against them) here

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

everyone of those companies has factories and offices all over the USA and pays zillions to both parties

 

do you REALLY believe the US Army is going to stop buying ammo and guns just because of this?

 

No.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...