Search articles from thousands of Examiners
Write for us
Columbia Politics DC SCOTUS Examiner
DC SCOTUS Examiner

Stimulus Package = Welfare + Quotas + Corruption

June 20, 1:04 PMDC SCOTUS ExaminerHans Bader
1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe


Get alerts when there is a new article from the DC SCOTUS Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.
Email Address


  Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use

Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package is now being used to force states to adopt racial quotas in government contracts, even if their state constitution or civil-rights laws forbid such quotas. Slate’s Mickey Kaus reports that “CalTrans, the huge state agency that spends billions in federal highway construction funds, ’sets a quota of having 6.75 percent of contracts go to women or members of a targeted group–African American, Asian-Pacific American, and Native American.’”

The stimulus package also repealed welfare reform, as Kaus and the Heritage Foundation have noted. Obama ran campaign ads claiming to support welfare reform, even though he had actually fought against welfare reform as an Illinois legislator. (I wonder if Kaus, a moderate Democrat, regrets voting for Obama now.)

Obama claimed the stimulus package was needed to prevent the economy from suffering from “irreversible decline,” but the Congressional Budget Office admitted that the stimulus package actually would shrink the economy “in the long run.” The stimulus package has since destroyed thousands of jobs in America’s export sector, and subsidized countless examples of government waste and corruption.

Recently, Obama fired an inspector general, Gerald Walpin, who uncovered millions of dollars of waste and fraud in the AmeriCorps program, including by a prominent Obama supporter, endangering the Obama supporter’s ability to administer federal stimulus spending in Sacramento.

At least four states (California, Michigan, Nebraska, and Louisiana) have state constitutions that ban racial set asides in government contracts, but most of those bans contain exceptions for racial set-asides that are requirements for receiving federal funds. No such exception exists to the California Equal Rights Amendment, which was construed in Connerly v. State Personnel Board (2001) to bar gender-based set-asides even when they are permitted under federal law.

Comments

Name:


Comments:
characters left

NOTE: Do Not Alter These Fields:

Holiday Guide
Examiners spread the seasonal cheer with the Examiner.com Holiday Guide.

Recent Articles

Saturday, December 5, 2009
The members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, an agency being challenged in the Supreme Court on December 7, aren't appointed by the …
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Press coverage of the Supreme Court is sometimes marred by ideological bias. Liberal court reporters sometimes distort what Supreme Court justices …