I am curious.

How can a black budget be legal? With no public oversight, wouldn't it be "open slather"?. What if the guy running his department's black budget decides he wants a new black hummer for weekend camping - who's to stop him getting it?

I understand that some elements of government must be secret, for national security purposes, but surely the taxpayer has a right to know where every cent goes?

How does the US constitution allow for this?

Wouldn't this be the FIRST place to start in order to get openness and transparency back in government? While ever there is unaccounted-for money being spent by unelected individuals, there is no open government.

Any thoughts?

(And apologies if this has been done recently - I searched and did not find any recent threads on it.)

[edit on 22/1/2009 by MR1159]

Originally posted by MR1159
I am curious.

How can a black budget be legal? With no public oversight, wouldn't it be "open slather"?. What if the guy running his department's black budget decides he wants a new black hummer for weekend camping - who's to stop him getting it?

I have no idea how they operate...but the individuals at the top probably can afford all the Hummers they want.

I understand that some elements of government must be secret, for national security purposes, but surely the taxpayer has a right to know where every cent goes?

And I understand that if we want a government, the control of which cannot be wrested from the People, absolute transparency must be in place. "National Security" is the lie they tell us to allow the concealment of nefarious deeds.

If we want "national security..." Start behaving ethically as a country in all we do, including leaving countries alone that have not asked for our help.

How does the US constitution allow for this?

As far as I can tell...it doesn't.

Wouldn't this be the FIRST place to start in order to get openness and transparency back in government? While ever there is unaccounted-for money being spent by unelected individuals, there is no open government.

I think the place to start is to address the whole erroneous concept of "national security." And also demand that all accounting of all funds be open to public scrutiny. Getting this to happen is harder than it might seem.

The way I see it; the way to stamp out rogue elements is to cut off their resources. Same applies to terrorists - cut off their supplies and they have no means for terror.

So, if the constitution doesn't cater for black budgets - then...WHY is it allowed?

What I am getting at is:

You add up government income (a).
You add up all published expenditures (b).
You subtract b from a to get c.
Correctly audited and run public monies should come up with "c=0".
Yet, by the sounds of it, the US would result in: c=eleventy squillion

If it is SO obvious and SO illegal, why isn't the government taken to court?

Originally posted by MR1159
The way I see it; the way to stamp out rogue elements is to cut off their resources. Same applies to terrorists - cut off their supplies and they have no means for terror.

So, if the constitution doesn't cater for black budgets - then...WHY is it allowed?

The catch is to identify the "rogue elements." I mean...using terrorists (of which there are far fewer than suggested by the PTB puppets for fear purposes, and most of them are PTB puppets) as an example, what makes someone a "terrorist?" What defines "rogue?"

Who gets to decide?

There is a long history of people standing up for ethical views, supporting the principles upon which this country is built rather than the hawkish self interest of officials, who have been treated as "terrorists." Many an organization has been called "unpatriotic" because they support the founding documents and are not toadies to the PTB...

So clearly, the "decider" ('scuse the pun) matters.