As much as I love watching this USAID "bull in the china shop" situation unfold, the deep state built all of this once and could do it again.

So… what would ACTUALLY safeguard against future NGO money laundering? What laws could be passed to impede a rebuild of laundering operations?

Another poster proposed blockchain, but with the fungibility of $ that just means that NGO laundering would be mildly more challenging.

Would a required branding of "Funded in part by Tax $" be viable? Say 10%+ categorizes you as such and your expenditures / donations then carry the same designation? al la cigarette warning requirements.

I get that branding wouldn't stop anything, but laundering is an incredibly slippery challenge and a credibility hit would at least be something (and presumably politically viable).

I think that's inevitable but you can make it more difficult. Eventually and inevitably corruption will seek out access to wealth and authority.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

As much as I love watching this USAID "bull in the china shop" situation unfold, the deep state built all of this once and could do it again.

So… what would ACTUALLY safeguard against future NGO money laundering? What laws could be passed to impede a rebuild of laundering operations?

Another poster proposed blockchain, but with the fungibility of $ that just means that NGO laundering would be mildly more challenging.

Would a required branding of "Funded in part by Tax $" be viable? Say 10%+ categorizes you as such and your expenditures / donations then carry the same designation? al la cigarette warning requirements.

I get that branding wouldn't stop anything, but laundering is an incredibly slippery challenge and a credibility hit would at least be something (and presumably politically viable).

---

Prosecute every single person tied to any dirty funds. If some of the big fish get true hard time in federal pound you in the ass prison, I'd hope that is somewhat of a deterrent.

Won't hold my breath though.

Keep electing Republicans. Actual conservative Republicans.

I am concerned that the State Department will not be a better steward in the long run. Not remotely. Too many Soros wienies buried within it. Very limited oversight, if that.

I think it will take a constitutional amendment requiring every congressional act to reference the constitutional authority allowing the act. Then, every existing law needs to be reviewed and its constitutional authority referenced.

You can't change the incentives within a government system. That is innate and it is why creating ANY government agency or allowing growth within the government AT ALL will ultimately get us to where we are now. It's like asking how we can keep a snake from being a snake... you can defang it, but it will still do snake things.

That is why we have to eliminate entire agencies of the government and eliminate baseline budgeting. If we don't, we will have to ask the same question in the near future.

Madman said:

---

Eternal vigilance is required to keep anything worth having.

Nothing less.

---

Exactly. We can't even do it at the local level. My city council just voted to make us the corndog capital of Texas. Who cares about real problems?

Helicopters, we need helicopters, bunch of helicopters.

the most cool guy said:

---

It's going to take an act by Congress to have any hope of making it semi-permanent.

---

To make these changes difficult to undo, Congress would have to pass legislation to (for example) eliminate USAID or the Department of Education.

Taxpreparer is correct that a constituional amendment is ultimately the closest thing you are going to get to permanent. But that is a pretty difficult and unlikely.

the most cool guy said:

---

It's going to take an act by Congress constitutional amendments to have any hope of making it semi-permanent.

---

FIFY

The reality is that you can't stop re-swamping. You can only stem the tide. Even the founders knew this.

Quote:

---

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

---

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Helicopters, we need helicopters, bunch of helicopters.

---

...and drones. Lots of drones.

aggiehawg said:

---

I am concerned that the State Department will not be a better steward in the long run. Not remotely. Too many Soros wienies buried within it. Very limited oversight, if that.

---

Any thoughts on how to legislate improved inspectability, and/or mechanisms to obstruct a resurgence?

It seems that now is the optimal time to push for a bill while the sentiment against USAID laundering is at its peak. Does your legal mind have thoughts on what a successful bill would look like?

BusterAg said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

It's going to take an act by Congress constitutional amendments to have any hope of making it semi-permanent.

---

FIFY

The reality is that you can't stop re-swamping. You can only stem the tide. Even the founders knew this.

Quote:

---

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

---

---

We have constitutional amendments, including the 10th, that aren't followed. So your first statement really isn't accurate; your second one most definitely is.

The answer, as stated above, is to criminally prosecute those that broke the law. There should be ample federal crimes here -- mail and wire fraud to name 2. Its pretty easy to come up with a violation of a federal statute and 18 USC (criminal statutes) are there are for the picking.

gabehcoud said:

---

A responsible budget?

---

This is your answer. Responsible means line item budget by congress. Today we have made the bills so generic and opaque that the executive branch is able to "interpret" the implementation and spend as they see fit. This is what allows the kind of reckless spending we are seeing in our federal government today.

When it is wide open you get lobbyist and special interest help in setting the narrative and while the overall goal appears to be for a good reason the actual spend is rife with corruption.

Well we could just eliminate all tax exemptions...

Term limits for all elected officials would be a good start. Also some sort of 'time in government' restrictions for any bureaucrat that is appointed to their position

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

As much as I love watching this USAID "bull in the china shop" situation unfold, the deep state built all of this once and could do it again.

So… what would ACTUALLY safeguard against future NGO money laundering? What laws could be passed to impede a rebuild of laundering operations?

Another poster proposed blockchain, but with the fungibility of $ that just means that NGO laundering would be mildly more challenging.

Would a required branding of "Funded in part by Tax $" be viable? Say 10%+ categorizes you as such and your expenditures / donations then carry the same designation? al la cigarette warning requirements.

I get that branding wouldn't stop anything, but laundering is an incredibly slippery challenge and a credibility hit would at least be something (and presumably politically viable).

---

You really can't do it without a monarch/dictator.

It's wild how my knee jerk mentality can shift so quickly with how fast things are moving right now if you're plugged into politics.

I'm beginning to think this pendulum swing is going to fundamentally change things. We were stuck in a "this is how it's always been" type of rut since WW2 and this is likely to be the closing of that 4 generation/one life longevity era.

Post war generations looked at the history of America and our culture vastly different in their time period than we view "the American dream" now etc.

I'm ranting but starting to feel this is the beginning of a new era. Will continue to be cyclical and have **** happen but shedding our skin finally. Idk.