On the website of the U.S. Treasury Department, there is a little known page that describes how you too can help reduce the National Debt by making voluntary gift contributions!

You can pay as much in additional taxes as you want! Just write a check or in a really ironic twist, use your credit card to make your donation to the National Debt.

Here’s what the U.S. Treasury has to say:

The Bureau of the Public Debt may accept gifts donated to the United States Government to reduce debt held by the public. Acting for the Secretary of the Treasury, Public Debt may accept a gift of:

• Money, made only on the condition that it be used to reduce debt held by the public.
• An outstanding government obligation, made only on the condition that the obligation be retired and the redemption proceeds used to reduce debt held by the public.
• Other intangible personal property made only on the condition that the property is sold and the proceeds from the sale used to reduce the public debt.

Gifts to reduce debt held by the public may be inter vivos gifts or testamentary bequests.

Ain’t that just too cool!

Over the years there have been some courageous souls willing to make direct donations to help pay off the National Debt, but the donations have never grossed more than $3.1 Million in a single year. The 2011 U.S. Budget Deficit now exceeds $1.3 Trillion and even $3 Million in cash just isn’t going as far as it used to! I can only guess that Hollywood stars, George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and others are just not beating down the door to give a little more.

We need to remind liberals that it is ok to want to give more and then send them right here to MeridianTeaParty.com to get the low-down on how to make their dreams of higher taxes a reality before sunset today!!!

We even have Chuck Woolery on board to help sell this plan:

Click here to view the embedded video.

So when your liberal friends and relatives start talking about their desire for taxes to be raised, remind them that passing another law is unnecessary!

Send them to this page and explain to them how the National Debt could be paid off tomorrow if enough kind-hearted folks like themselves would make bigger, better donations more often to the U.S. Treasury!

Taxes are really just gifts anyway, aren’t they?

Remember:

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

• You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
• You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it’s a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public.Mail your check to:Attn Dept G
  Bureau of the Public Debt
  P. O. Box 2188
  Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

The 74-26 roll call Tuesday by which the Senate passed emergency legislation to avoid a first-ever government default.

• Cochran (R), Yes
• Wicker (R), Yes

The 269-161 roll call Monday by which the House passed the compromise bill to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a government default. A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the measure. Voting yes were 95 Democrats and 174 Republicans. Voting no were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans.

• Thompson (D), No
• Harper (R), Yes
• Nunnelee (R), Yes
• Palazzo (R), Yes

Sources:

• Senate Vote
• House Vote

H/T: Breitbart.tv

Rating Action

On Aug. 5, 2011, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’. The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor’s affirmed its ‘A-1+’ short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor’s removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed on July 14, 2011, with negative implications.

The transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.–our assessment of the likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public- and private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for debt service–remains ‘AAA’.

Research Update:

United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To ‘AA+’ On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

Overview

• We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’ and affirmed the ‘A-1+’ short-term rating.
• We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.
• The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.
• More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
• Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.
• The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

Rationale

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Emphasis added.

 

Read the complete document…

If you have liked either of the previous MTP Facebook Groups, please unlike them and then visit the link below to like the new MeridianTeaParty.com Facebook Page. We are no longer updating the old pages other than encouraging friends to move to the new page.

http://www.facebook.com/MeridianTeaParty

Once you have liked the new page, please share it with your friends on Facebook. We are hoping to get as many people as possible to like our Facebook page and are setting our first target at 1,000 friends. We need your help to promote this new page!!!!

2012 is right around the corner and we believe that MeridianTeaParty.com in conjunction with Tea Party Groups all over the United States will have a huge impact on next year’s elections. The Tea Party was a big player in the recent debt negotiations in Washington and while the RINO’s and Liberals may have won that fight, they were put on notice that the Tea Party movement is far from dead and is in fact prepared to get in their faces and fight for what is right. Help us make an even bigger difference. We’ll be working on State elections for November, 2011 and National Election coming in November, 2012. This is one of the easiest ways to get involved and help us spread the word!

Speaker Boehner claims this deal is a step in the right direction and I got an email from Representative Gregg Harper letting me know that he was proud of the work Congress did and that he didn’t feel like he compromised violated his conservative principles.

In fact, here’s the direct quote from his email:

The “Budget Control Act of 2011” would cut and cap spending by $917 billion over 10 years, exceeding the $900 billion debt limit increase. This legislation also creates mechanisms for additional budget savings of $1.5 trillion over the same time period and requires both houses of Congress to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment this year.

When debt increase discussions began, the White House initially demanded a clean debt limit hike with no spending reductions or budget reforms. The administration then shifted to a “balanced approach,” demanding equal parts spending cuts and tax hikes. Ultimately the agreement will cut government spending more than it increases the debt limit, implement spending caps to restrain future spending and advance the cause of a Balanced Budget Amendment, all without increasing taxes.

This Republican framework adopted by Democratic legislators does not violate my conservative principles and aligns with my commitment that Congress must act immediately to drive down spending and shrink the size of the federal government.

[Emphasis added by me.]

So, why don’t I feel better?

Where’s that warm fuzzy feeling that usually helps me believe that our best days are still ahead of us?

Instead, all I seem to be left with are questions.

• Why does the Vice President think that the people who try to stand up and argue against the conventional wisdom of tax, borrow and spend are terrorists? Does he really believe that common folk who stand up to protect liberty and freedom are the moral equivalent of suicide  bombers? I thought we were past all that.

• Why does Speaker Boehner believe that “a step in the right direction” is enough? This is not a game and yet every person on the big stage seems to think it is. Our economic ship is sinking and we need more than just a step toward getting a bucket, we need to start bailing as fast as we can. Boehner and the House of Representatives had the best leverage they will hold in the next 18 months and they accepted far less than they had to. I do not believe the predicted default was real nor do I believe the Government needed to close in order to get a better deal. The default deadline was arbitrary and yet when push came to shove, instead of forcing the President or the Democrats put some real offers on the table, the Republicans freaked out and started competing with themselves to see who could come up with the most Liberal-Lite plan they could.

• Does it surprise you that by this morning reports were coming out that the deal wasn’t as good as we were told it was? Remember when Pelosi said that we’d have to pass the Healthcare Reform Act to find out what was in it? What happened to the 3 day posting online pledge? For that matter, what happened to the Cut, Cap and Balance pledge? Is it any wonder why no one trusts politicians? Consider Rand Paul’s open letter that predicts this deal will still add an additional $7 Trillion to the debt because the cuts are to the baseline expenditures which are projected to grow by $10 Trillion over the next 10 years. Basically he argues that once again Congress and the President have come together to ‘slow the growth’ of spending and not actually cut spending itself. Exactly how can slowing the growth of spending be considered a cut?

• Why is it that no one seems to mention the fact that President Obama held out for one thing in this deal and ultimately got exactly what he wanted? President Obama wanted a long term deal. Well, not really that long, but longer than a short term deal. A short term deal would mean that the debt ceiling issue would be back on the table right smack in the middle of….wait for it…..wait for it…his Re-Election Campaign!!!! Why do you think that would be and why do you think Republicans would go along with that? Could it be that they think we are idiots with faulty short-term memories and that we’ll just forget about the National Debt by November of 2012? Did they think that if they just averted default we would all fall to our knees and thank the Washington Elite for saving us from such a terrible fate? Apparently, Obama believed that enough to risk everything to get what he wanted. What have any of them done to make us think that they are more interested in saving the Country than in saving their jobs?

• Why is Harry Reid still in the Senate at all? How can a Senator end up filibustering his own bill? I guess we should start calling him, Harry “DOA” Reid since that is the only type of bill the House can send to the Senate.

• Why did Rep. Harper use the word “would” instead of “will” in his description of the cut and cap spending benefits of the “Budget Control Act of 2011″? It seems to me that his choice of words is important and “would” is a lot more passive than the word “will”. We have been told that if they hadn’t passed the Stimulus Package things “would” be a lot worse. Is this the same kind of use of the word? Does the word “would” give everyone wiggle room so that if the situation on the ground changes in the next three years they can simply decide not to go through with the cuts that “would” have gone into effect. Additionally, what are “mechanisms” and how will they create savings? Are “mechanisms” budget tricks like we’ve seen before or are they real opportunities to try and cut more? Mechanisms is one of those words like infrastructure. These words are often used to describe something that sounds concrete, but may not actually be so. I really want to learn more about these mechanisms and how they work. The only mechanism that I’ve seen so far is the one that allows an additional automatic debt limit increase initiated by the President which can only be stopped by a 2/3 vote of Congress. How is abdicating any role of Congress to the President a good thing?

• Why are spending cuts spread over 10 years and the debt limit increases are immediate? According to Rep. Harper’s email, the difference between the “cuts” and the debt increase is an paltry $17 Billion. And, that does not take into account present and future values of money. If we assume a 2.77% interest rate, then the present value of the cuts over 10 years works out to about $697,759,519,713.19 ($698 Billion) which by my calculation is a lot less than the present value of the $900 Billion debt ceiling increase. Ultimately, it means that when you consider the time value of money, Congress traded $900 Billion of debt in today’s dollars for just $698 Billion of cuts in today’s dollars. And these number do not  include the automatic second increase in the debt ceiling. How can that be good? (I’m sure that someone else can do a much better job than me of estimating the actual present value of the cuts, but since we don’t know what the cuts will be nor do we actually know when they will take effect, this is sufficient for this discussion. And just for the record the 2.77% interest rate used is the current 10 year T-Bill Rate quoted by the U.S. Treasury today.)

• Why does this deal feel more like just another Continuing Resolution instead of real cuts? More to the point, it reminds me of an alcoholic who when confronted promised to “cut back” on his drinking. Both he and his family know he’s not going to stop, but the promise makes them all feel better and they can go back to their lives believing they have accomplished something important. The only accomplishment I can see coming from this debate is that we had the debate at all. My gut told me from the beginning that the results were going to be terrible; however, in fairness to some of the new members of Congress, we wouldn’t be having even the debate if they had not gone to Washington and stood up for the folks back home. When was the last time you even remember there being ANY debate about raising the debt ceiling? Most of the time it has been buried in procedural votes that no one even paid attention to. Now that at least the dirty secret of our debt crisis is on the kitchen table it will become a campaign issue that will lead to even more turnover in Washington. The question is: Can the economy or the Country wait that long?

If you listen to Dave Ramsey, you know that to get out of financial ruin, the first step is to cut up the credit cards and the second step is to start eating beans and rice and rice and beans until you can get back on your feet. Stepping back from the edge of financial ruin requires discipline and commitment both of which seem to be sorely missing in this debate. You cannot borrow your way into wealth and you definitely cannot borrow your way out of debt.

In the end, I’m left with a knot in my stomach, fear in my mind and one simple, burning question to which if I could get an honest answer, I’d probably be so shocked that I’d forget about all the other questions:

How can Washington with a straight face try to convince us that a bill that is supposed to hold the line on spending is a step in the right direction when it will increase the debt instead?

Click here to view the embedded video.

“I rise here on the Senate floor today to speak on the tremendous issue that’s captivated, and rightfully so, the attention of our country.

“Let me start by saying that I do not enjoy nor relish the partisan role of attack dog. I never found any fun in that. I don’t think it’s constructive. I don’t intend to become that here in the Senate.

“I also have only been here for seven months, which means I haven’t been here long enough to think any of the stuff that’s going on is normal. And I certainly don’t think any of the stuff that goes on around here too often is normal. So I think the fact that I’ve been here seven months has served me well in that regard.

“Let me begin if I can. One of the things that I’ve noticed this week is that Washington is full of people from all over the world and all over the country that have traveled here this week to come and watch their government at work and see the monuments of the city and found themselves in the middle of this debate.

“So I think it’s important to remind people what we’re debating because although it is a difficult and important issue, it is not a complicated one to understand. It’s pretty straight forward.

“And here’s the way I would describe it the United States of America more or less — these are rough numbers but they’re accurate – spends about $300 billion a month. It has $180 billion a month that comes to the federal government through taxes and other sources of revenue and that means that in order to meet its bills at the end of every month it needs to borrow $120 billion.

“Now, for much of the history of this country, there have been increases in the debt limit and the ability to borrow money. But what has happened over the last few years is that it’s no longer a routine vote because the people who give us our credit rating are saying too much of the money that you spend every month is borrowed and we want you to show us how over the next ten years you are going to borrow less as a percentage of what you spend.

“And so that’s why, for years, where the debt limit was routine vote, it no longer can be. It’s not something that was made up in some conservative think tank. But the reality that we cannot continue to borrow 40% to 41% of every penny that the government spends has brought us to this point.

“So you would think that seeing that, our government and our leaders here in both parties would react to that immediately and work on it.

“And I’ve heard lot of talk today about delaying tactics and delaying votes. I would argue to you that this issue has been delayed at least for the last two and a half years.

“In the two years before I even came here, this chamber neither proposed nor passed a budget. It is a startling figure that for the last two years this government has operated without a budget. So think about that. Two years have gone by without a budget. The first two years that the President was the president, no budgets.

“Some people would say, well, that’s because of partisanship in Washington. Well, that’s not true. In the two years before I got here, both the House and Senate were controlled by members of the Democratic Party, which are the President’s party. In fact, in this chamber for at least one of those two years, 60 votes, 60 out of the 100 members here caucused with the Democrats. And as you recall, on Christmas Eve of the year 2009, they were able to pass a health care bill that was very controversial because they had the 60 votes in the President’s party.

“Over two years, no budget. In fact you know how long it has been since this chamber proposed a budget? Forget passed a budget, proposed a budget? 822 days. That’s a long time. A lot of things have happened in the last 822 days, but proposing a budget is not one of them out of this chamber.

“So then I got here – and we got here in January, seven months have passed, still no budget. Again, not budget passed, proposed, offered. Here’s our budget. Still no budget. 822 Days and every single day that I’ve been here.

“Now, in the last seven days on this debt debate, we have finally seen a proposal from the esteemed senator from Nevada, the majority leader. You would think, has he brought it to the floor to vote? Not until last night. So, again, offered a proposal over the weekend and still for six days we sat around and what did we do around here? Nothing. It was never brought to a vote.

“You would think these issues would have been worked on in January, February, March — nothing. This chamber has done nothing. You talk about delay tactics? They’ve been delaying for two and a half years.

“Now the President doesn’t have the luxury of some of these things. He has to propose a budget by law, and he did. Let me tell you how ridiculous the budget was. Not a single member of this Senate voted for it, including the Democrats. It is a budget that didn’t lead with the debt limit; in fact, it increased the debt. That’s how absurd the budget was.

“Where is the President plan? We haven’t seen it. We haven’t seen it. Here’s the President’s plan: a blank sheet of paper. He doesn’t have a plan. He hasn’t offered a plan. Again, if this were a Republican president, I would say the same thing.

“I do not understand how an issue of this magnitude, of generational importance, the President of the United States has not offered a plan. If someone has seen the president’s plan, please send it to me because no one else has seen it. It does not exist.

“So this has been the plan all along, by the way. The plan all along was not to take a position, to let the days count down until we got to this point with 72 hours to go and then force a vote on something that they wanted. I believe that that has been the plan the entire time. And you can see it carrying itself out.

“You want to know why people all across America get grossed out about politics? It’s by watching this kind of stuff happen.

“And instead let me tell you what we’ve seen for the last few days. First of all, for today and for much of this time I have heard all these attacks and name-calling. If we had $1 billion for every time I heard the words “tea party extremist,” we could solve this debt problem.

“So all this name-calling, so I said let me read some quotes about this debt limit and I found some pretty extremist quotes.

“Here’s one.

“It says, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt.” A quote from a tea party extremist, right? No. This is a quote from March 16 of 2006 from Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“I found another extremist quote. This one says, “Because this massive of accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against a debt limit increase.” Well, that must be from a tea party extremist member of the House, right? No. This is March 16, 2006, from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.

“And last but not least, here’s a quote from September 27 of 2007. It says, “I find it distasteful and disturbing to increase the debt limit yet again. Clearly we need to change course and this debt limit bill is just another reminder of that.” And that is from the distinguished Senator from Nevada, the majority leader. On that date in 2007.

“And yet now these same quotes in this context, what we’re talking about raising the debt limit more than has ever been raised in one vote, is extremism? This name-calling is absurd and it sets this process back.

“The other thing I hear — oh, it is not reasonable. This is a waste of time. This bill can’t pass the Senate when they talk about the House bill. So now it disqualifies the bill the fact that it can’t pass in the Senate.

“Well, guess what? The Senate bill can’t pass in the Senate — the Senate bill can’t pass in the Senate.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “Will the Senator yield for a question?”

Sen. Rubio: “Yes, I’ll yield.”

Sen. John Kerry: “I thank the Senator for doing that. That’s become somewhat unusual in the Senate today. So I truly appreciate it.

“I would ask the Senator, as ironic as it may be that on occasion people in the past have indeed voted against a debt limit — both Republicans and Democrats alike — is it not true that in those situations those votes did not hold the nation hostage, did not come at a moment of enormous economic fragility as we are in today, and did not run the risk of default because it was going to pass overwhelmingly every time?

“Is that not true?”

Sen. Rubio: “To the Senator from Massachusetts, I would say two things.

“The first is that those votes — put it to you this way. If the Senator from Illinois at the time, Senator Obama, had had his way, we’d be in the same position we are in now. Because he had voted against the debt – and I recognize the President has now said that the debt limit is — he made a mistake and he wouldn’t have said that were he here today.

“My point, I would say to the Senator from Massachusetts, is that rhetoric two years ago was not considered extremist language and now that rhetoric, which by the way I have not found. I think it is a myth. There may be a handful of people in the building both in the House and Senate perhaps that believe that the nation doesn’t have to raise the debt limit. But by and large everyone recognizes that something must be done about the debt limit.

“What we have also said – I speak for myself. Let me not speak for any other member of this chamber or the next.

“What I have also said is that it would be a terrible mistake to lose this opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt. And that the debt limit gives us an opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt, because the crisis that America faces is not one that I have defined.

“But one that has been defined by the rating houses and rating agencies who have said if you do not get your spending in order, we don’t care whether you raise your debt limit or not, we will downgrade you.

“And what that means for every American is an increase in their interest payments.”

Sen. John Kerry: “Will the Senator further yield for a question?”

Sen. Rubio: “Yes.”

Sen. Kerry: “Mr. President I appreciate what the Senator is saying. I would just say first of all that everybody understands the danger of the rating agencies right now.

“The problem is, we got to reach across the aisle and negotiate. We’ve got to come to agreement. Right now there’s not a lot of negotiating going on.

“I would ask the Senator, if he doesn’t agree that there is an enormous difference between — the Senator a moment ago said if he had gotten his way. But the whole point is, everybody knew he wasn’t about to get his way. That was a truly symbolic vote.

“Today, however, is it not true we are on the brink of a default and the absence of negotiation or the absence of a settlement presents us with a far more serious consequence to the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling today?”

Sen. Rubio: “To the Senator from Massachusetts I would say it’s impossible to negotiate with someone who doesn’t offer a plan. How do you negotiate with someone who will not offer a plan and will not put it on the table?

“But the finger pointing of who has a plan and who doesn’t have a plan is relevant, but it’s not the central issue here.

“I would also say that in March of this year, March 30 to be exact of this year, I wrote an op-ed piece that ran in The Wall Street Journal and it outlined the things I was looking for to be a part of this debate. And I was told on March of this year that we didn’t have enough time to do all those things. Although later on we found out perhaps we did, this grand bargain and I am prepared, as I stand here today, if there is a meeting going on right after this, I’d love to be a part of it.

“I am prepared to discuss the things that I believe we need to do not just to raise the debt limit. Raising the debt limit is the easiest thing. That’s one vote away. The hard thing is to show the world we are serious about putting our spending in order so we can show people we’ll able to pay our bills down the road.

“And that is a combination of things that I have outlined very clearly, not just on March of this year in The Wall Street Journal, but in repeated speeches on this floor.

“And those are the things, we need to do two things.

“Number one is we need to grow our economy because while the debt is the biggest issue in Washington, jobs are the biggest issue facing America. And if we could get more people back to work, we would have more people paying taxes, and if we had more people paying taxes, we’d have more revenue for government.

“And so that is the first thing we need to do, is figure out how to create jobs in America and I think there is bipartisan agreement on things we can do to do that.

“The President himself mentioned regulatory reform as a necessity in the State of the Union. Let’s do it.

“We’ve all talked about tax reform. Flattening and simplifying our tax code. And if there are things in that tax code that do not belong there because they are the product of good lobbying instead of good policy, then let’s go after those things. We’ve talked about that. Let’s talk about that.

“I think we all agree that there has to be some changes in discretionary spending, but we also agree that doesn’t solve the problem. That’s a small piece of our overall budget. That we have to save Medicare because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is. That we have to save Medicaid because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is.

“And I can tell you that history will back up what I’m about to say and that is that there is no government run by conservatives, Republicans, put whoever you want there, if you give government the opportunity to spend more money than it has, it will do it. It will do it every time.

“That’s why I believe there are at least 20 members of the Senate in the other party who have supported some version of the balanced budget amendment and yet it’s something we cannot even get a vote on much less discuss in the Senate.

“So I believe there can be compromise on those outlines but here’s the last thing I would say.

“I believe my time is about to expire so let me close with this.

“Compromise is fantastic.

“I would love nothing more than to leave this building tomorrow night having said the republic still works. I was able to stand shoulder to shoulder with people from states far from mine with views different from mine but who love their country so much that we were able to come together and save it when it faced this catastrophe.

“I would love nothing more than compromise. But I would say to you that compromise that’s not a solution is a waste of time.

“If my house was on fire, I can’t compromise about which part of the house I’m going to save. You save the whole house or it will all burn down.

“We either save this country or we do not.

“And to save it, we must seek solutions.”

h/t: Ace Of Spades HQ

Click here to view the embedded video.

We’ve all heard of AARP: that friendly, non-profit organization that just wants to help our seniors?  Wrong.  While AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, is technically considered a private not-for-profit organization, they were founded in 1958 with a primary mission to sell seniors health insurance.  That’s right, sell.  As in to make money.

Obviously, I have no problem with people or businesses selling things; the more products and services on the market, the more selection and the more competition.  The free-market system has allowed us to become one of the greatest nations in the history of mankind.  But when an organization’s primary mission is to sell a product (in this case health care insurance) and spends tons of money on lobbying and political contributions, it should not be eligible for tax-exempt status.

Many Republicans in the 112^th Congress recognize this.  In fact, in April, Reps. Wally Herger and Dave Reichert released a report entitled “Behind the Veil: The AARP America Doesn’t Know” to address the reality that AARP has violated their 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.  As to why it took this long for people to wake up to this fact, who knows?  But as least some have seen the light.

The report points out that AARP makes its money primarily from insurance industry royalties, which accounted for nearly 46% of their revenue in 2009, whereas membership dues accounted for a measly 17%.  It is highly unlikely that AARP would be such a political behemoth (and bully) if not for these royalties.

What many AARP members don’t know is that their money is often being spent on lobbying and political contributions, primarily on Democratic causes.  AARP claims that they do “not endorse candidates for public office or make contributions to either political campaigns or candidates.”  Of course, because that would be illegal.  But its employees do make such contributions.  According to Open Secrets, from 2007-2008, AARP employees contributed to twenty federal candidates, 16 of whom were Democrats.  Only $550 went to Republican presidential nominee John McCain, while Barack Obama received $30,901.  AARP employees also contributed $496,169 to state candidates in 2008.

Read the rest…

As Russel concludes there are a lot of “dirty secrets” not the least of which is the fact that while operating as a for-profit business, AARP benefits from non-profit status.

It begs the question, does AARP stand for American Association of Retired Persons or American Association for Ravenous Profit?