Businesses affiliated with the husband of Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill have received almost $40 million in federal subsidies for low-income housing developments during her first five years in office, though it appears only fraction of that has made it to the family's bank accounts, according to an Associated Press analysis.
McCaskill's Republican challenger, Rep. Todd Akin, says the federal payments should be a cause for concern among voters. He's attempting to portray the Democratic senator's family as a prime beneficiary of government largesse.As I wrote last week:
Every war has its profiteers and America's longest war, the War on Poverty is no exception. If you want to find the waste in America's welfare programs, you need look no further than McCaskill's bank account.One policy consideration for the November election is what to do about America's poverty-industrial complex. Our centrally planned welfare state sometimes appears to warehouse the poor in tax-payer subsidized apartment buildings that are run at a loss so that the profits are realized by the elite few like McCaskill's husband, Joseph Shepard. If you'd like to see a more egalitarian welfare policy, then you should not vote for 1-percenter Claire McCaskill, but rather Todd Akin.
A simple search of the Missouri Secretary of State website for companies with a registered agent named "Shepard" garners 80 companies that "Joseph Shepard" is the registered agent for:
However, there are many companies that Shepard used to be involved with, but may no longer be... like Capstone Development Group which I wrote about yesterday. In the case of Capstone, Shepard is still listed as the company's Organizer at the Missouri Secretary of State's website; however, Capstone is not listed on Claire McCaskill's financial disclosure form. Why isn't Capstone Development listed on Claire McCaskill's financial disclosure?
The maze that McCaskill's husband, Joseph Shepard, and others have created with literally hundreds of companies with shifting ownership responsibility both obscures accountability and thwarts transparency. Public policy should not be used to privatize public funds via private companies. That is the very essence of cronyism. And, in this case, it's at the expense of both tax payers and the poor.
Update: Thanks to the Gateway Pundit for the link!