Tag Archives: Taxpayer

News

Does government spend money as well as Christian taxpayers?

Leave a comment

Here’s an interesting story from CNS News showing how the money of Christian taxpayers is spend by the Smithsonian Institution, which receives 65% of its annual $761 million budget from taxpayers. (H/T ECM, Neil Simpson’s latest round-up)

Excerpt:

The federally funded National Portrait Gallery, one of the museums of the Smithsonian Institution, is currently showing an exhibition that features images of an ant-covered Jesus, male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, and a painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show’s catalog as “homoerotic.”

The exhibit, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” opened on Oct. 30 and will run throughout the Christmas Season, closing on Feb. 13.

[…]”These themes, historic and artistic, come together in ‘Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,’ the first major exhibition to examine the influence of gay and lesbian artists in creating modern American portraiture,” says the plaque. “‘Hide/Seek’ chronicles how, as outsiders, gay and lesbian artists occupied a position that turned to their advantage, making essential contributions to both the art of portraiture and to the creation of modern American culture.”

The Smithsonian Institution has an annual budget of $761 million, 65 percent of which comes from the federal government, according to Linda St. Thomas, the Smithsonian’s chief spokesperson. The National Portrait Gallery itself received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2010, according to St. Thomas. It also received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal 2009, according to the museum’s annual report. The gallery’s overall funding in that year was $8 million.

[…]Co-curator David Ward told CNSNews.com the “Hide/Seek” exhibit is in keeping with the National Portrait Gallery’s mission.

[…]“Hide/Seek evolved from the Portrait Gallery’s ongoing commitment to represent the diversity of our people in recognizing the contribution that gay and lesbian Americans made to American art and culture during the last century,” Ward said.

The museum claims that the taxpayer money is only used to pay for the building, etc., not the exhibits themselves, but:

Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute and a former senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee, told CNSNews.com, “If the Smithsonian didn’t have the taxpayer-funded building, they would have no space to present the exhibit, right? In my own view, if someone takes taxpayer money, then I think the taxpayers have every right to question the institutions where the money’s going.”

“Think about the Washington Post,” he said. “They don’t have to publish every op-ed that they get, right? They own the platform. In this case [the Smithsonian Institution], the taxpayers own the platform and so the taxpayers should decide what is presented on that platform.”

Click through to the articles for all the details of what the secular left considers to be “art”. Warning: it’s pretty sick stuff.

This is why I always recommend to socially conservative Christians – if you want to help the poor, help the poor with your own money. Do not let the government have your money thinking that they will use it to help the poor. They will never use it to honor Christ the way you could use it to honor Christ. In many cases, they could make it harder or even impossible for you to live out your authentic Christian life in the public square. (Think of the movie “Expelled” for instance)

News

John Boehner vs Nancy Pelosi – who wastes taxpayer money?

Leave a comment
House Republican Leader John Boehner

Consider this story from The Hill about John Boehner’s decision to fly commercial airlines between Washington, D.C. and Ohio.

Excerpt:

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), the presumptive Speaker-elect of the House, will not use a private jet as Speaker for trips back and forth to his home district, he said Wednesday.

“Over the last 20 years, I have flown back and forth to my district on commercial aircraft, and I’m going to continue to do that,” Boehner told reporters at a press conference.

The statement signals the first time since 2001 that a House Speaker has traveled commerically between Washington and their home district.

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Speaker of the House, third in line to the presidency, was assigned a designated Air Force jet to shuttle them back and forth to their home districts on weekends.

Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) used the jet, as does Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). In 2007, Pelosi requested, and received, a larger jet than Hastert had used — this one capable of flying between Washington and California without stopping to refuel.

A spokesman for Boehner said the Minority Leader had already spoken to security officials about his desire to travel commercially on the weekends, and that he would still use military transport for certain types of trips, like those to Afghanistan or Iraq.

That’s why he’s running for the Speaker of the House uncontested. This is a serious man of principle.

On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi wasted millions ferrying herself and her family around the world on military aircraft, all at taxpayer expense.

Excerpt:

We recently obtained new documents from the United States Air Force detailing Speaker Pelosi’s use of United States Air Force aircraft between March 2009 and June 2010. And they pretty much tell the same, outrageous story as previous documents we’ve uncovered and released.

Here are the highlights from the newest batch of documents, which we obtained pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed on January 25, 2009:

  • Pelosi used the Air Force aircraft for a total of 85 trips, covering 206,264 miles, from March 2, 2009 through June 7, 2010. Pelosi, her guests and Air Force personnel logged a total of 428.6 hours on these flights.
  • Members of Pelosi’s family were guests on at least two flights. On June 20, 2009, Speaker Pelosi’s daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons joined a flight from Andrews Air Force Base to San Francisco International Air Port. That flight included $143 in on-flight expenses for food and other items. On July 2, 2010, Pelosi took her grandson on a flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, which is northeast of San Francisco.

According to previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. Seriously, review these documents for yourself and you can see that Nancy Pelosi repeatedly turned indispensible Air Force aircraft into congressional party planes.

For example, purchases for one Pelosi-led congressional delegation traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008, included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.

The article also notes that Pelosi would reserve military aircraft all the time, and cancel her reservations at the last minute.

News

NSF spends 2 million to create Darwin indoctrination lesson plans

5 Comments

The NSF is, of course, the National Science Foundation. And the 2 million, of course, came from the pockets of taxpayers.

Here’s the post at Evolution News.

Excerpt:

The goal of the Evolution Readiness Project is to get “young children” to “believe in” evolution. According to the National Science Foundation’s website, they’ve spent $1,990,459 of taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation (NSF) dollars to bankroll this project. Welcome back to school.

The agenda of the project is further clarified in the NSF Grant Award Abstract which states that it aims “to support a learning progression leading to an appreciation of the theory of evolution and evidence that supports it.” That’s fine, but why only the evidence that supports evolution?

Only the evidence in favor of Darwinism? What about the evidence against Darwinism?

The project justifies its dogmatic approach by promoting the myth that there is no scientific dissent from the consensus view on natural selection:

Yet, essentially there is universal agreement among scientists that evolution by natural selection is the fundamental model that explains the extraordinary complexity and interdependence of the living world. Moreover, evolution by natural selection is a quintessential scientific theory, explaining an extraordinary collection of data, including much that Darwin himself was unaware of, with a small collection of powerful ideas.

Of course, it is not true that “essentially there is universal agreement among scientists” about evolution by natural selection. Over 850 Ph.D. scientists have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism of modern evolutionary theory’s “claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,” and urge that “[c]areful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The rest of the article lists a stack of non-Christian, non-theistic scientists who doubt the efficacy of Darwinian mechanisms to explain macro-evolution.

Darwinism is “hide the decline” applied to the history of life.