POWER: HOW PROS MAKE FOOLS OF AMATEURS IV: GIVING MONEY BACK | 2006-08-13
I knew Senator Helms. I cannot say Senator Helms was a friend if mine because, as I have explained below, I do not say that anybody is a friend of mine. I was a friend of HIS.
Back in my day, here was a practise in congress called "Giving money BACK."
National Review worshipped Senator Proxmire, a hard-core leftist, for "giving money BACK."
Senator Helms also bragged about "giving money back."
Let me explain this to you.
"Giving money back" meant that a congressman or senator would not spend the funds provided for him by the Senate or the House of Representatives. He would cut his own staff, the people who served his constituency, and spend less than his budget.
The first word is "HOO."
The second word is "RAY."
What did "BACK mean?
Each year, Proxmire and Helms and all the others would announce to the retards that they were "giving money back to the taxpayers."
Their consituents, being retards, cheered wildly.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the money they were "giving back" went back into the congressional budget. That meant that others got to spend it. Senator Kennedy had a complete Office of Technology on Capitol Hill that was financed entirely from the money conservatives announced they "gave back to the taxpayers."
My boss, John Ashbrook, always said, "There is no way I'm giving money back. Every dime I get is going into fighting for our side. "
But John was an outsider and apparently his constituents were not retards.
I remember once I brought a giant march to Washington. Thousands of supporters, mountains of publicity. But Helms's staff simply was too overworked to deal with us. There were no extra staffer because he was "giving money back."
Kennedy was using the money.
Helms knew that this giving money back was insane. Would even his retard constituents have sung his praises if he had said, "I am not going to use half my Senate VOTES. I am going to GIVE THEM BACK."
If he had said that, he would have been put on disability.
But the voters thought that "giving money back" was really Shrewd.
And it WAS the epitome of being Dumb.
National Review thought it was great.