Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011

Republicans: Mortgaging Old Black People

For the life of me I can’t see why blacks aren’t running into the arms of the GOP en masse when such stalwart movement cons like Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed are cooking up such great plans for them

In July of 2003, Abramoff and Reed considered launching something called the Black Churches Insurance Program.

We know how this scheme would have gone, because Abramoff pitched something similar to a cash-strapped Texas tribe, the Tigua. Basically, since the tribe couldn’t pay Abramoff, he offered to arrange “a life-insurance policy for every Tigua 75 or older.” When those elders died, the death beneûts would have gone to Abramoff through one of his non-profits. The Tigua didn’t take Abramoff up on the offer, but it was too good of an idea to let go.

So Abramoff apparently thought black churches were a good target. This would have been the same thing, according to GQ’s Sean Flynn, except that it was African-Americans. Or as “a former associate of Reed’s” told GQ, “Yeah… it sounds like Jack approached Reed about mortgaging old black people.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

18 Responses to “Republicans: Mortgaging Old Black People”

  1. z adura says:

    The practice used to be pretty common for corporations as well. It was called “janitor’s insurance” and worked on the basis of the tax-free death benefits of life insurance. That was intended to be the “widows and orphans” exemption, but it has clearly lost that context with Abramoff, Reed and the like.

  2. Big D says:

    The sad part is how effectively these folks can use Black religious leaders to achieve their goals.

  3. scratch says:

    Sounds more like a lease option.

  4. z adura says:

    Frank, I have honestly never heard of nursing homes doing it. I would love to see a link.

  5. Frank_D says:

    Nursing homes do the same thing for all races all over the country. And the article’s author admits he is speculating as to how it “would have gone.”

    Keep trying, Oliver, you’ll get a good smear one day.

    “Tail Gunner” Joe would be so proud of you.

  6. Frank_D says:

    Call a nursing home.. They don’t usuually post the practice on their websites.

    I heard about it 30 years ago.

    The “patient” turns over all their assets (including insurance) to the nursing home, and are taken care of for the rest of their lives.

    Not identical, I know, but still creepy.

  7. doug r says:

    Some corporations do it too:
    Mike Rice was a 48-year-old assistant manager when he died of a massive heart attack at the Wal-Mart store in Tilton, N.H. His widow, Vicki, became the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against the company after she discovered Wal-Mart collected $300,000 from a life insurance policy it owned on him. Vicki Rice believes job-related stress contributed to the heart attack and says it is  totally immoral for Wal-Mart to profit from his death.

  8. Frank_D says:

    And, Zadura, the real world is bigger than the World Wide Web…

    Ever hear the saying, “The map is not the territory.”

  9. z adura says:

    Frank, don’t be a prick. The situations are not the same. With a nursing home, it would make sense for the person entering to turn over all of their assets so that they can qualify for Medicaid. Either the person entering the nursing home or someone in their family would probably know what is happening and why.

    In this case, the company or church or tribe takes insurance policies out on their workers/parishoners/tribe members essentially without their knowledge and names the corporation/charity/tribe as the beneficiary.

    I don’t follow the status of the legislation on this, but there was some movement in the Finance subcommittee to disqualify such policies from favorable tax treatment. It’s certainly a despicable use of a tax loophole.

  10. Frank_D says:

    Testy, aren’t we?

    It’s not the crime Oliver is making it out to be, nor is it racially focused.

    In fact, it didn’t even happen!

  11. z adura says:

    Frank, I wish you could some day admit that there are topics you about which you are clueless. This is one of them.

    First, there is no similarity at all between the nursing home scenario you described and this program. They both involve life insurance and that is the depth of it. Second, the fact that neither the tribe nor black churches agreed to the program does not minimize the fact that it is a despicable program to have proposed and an abuse of a tax loophole.

    This is a proxy for a lot of what is wrong with America: (1) Smart people exploit the tax code. That is what Reed and Abramoff were trying to do. (2) Poor people don’t have access to lobbyists unless they mortgage their death. That is why the pay-to-play politics is inherently bad.

  12. Frank_D says:

    From the quoted piece:

    In July of 2003, Abramoff and Reed considered launching something

    We know how this scheme would have gone

    This would have been the same thing

    So now, thinking about doing a bad thing is a crime.

    We better get to building lots more jails.

  13. z adura says:

    Frank, I see you dig yourself into this kind of rhetorical hole all the time. Neither Oliver nor the article ever mentions this being a crime. It doesn’t rise to that level. It was legal for them to offer up the “Black Churches Insurance Program” because Reed and Abramoff were exploiting a tax loophole. Does this make it right? No. Does it lend credibility to the argument that Abramoff and Reed are scum? Yes.

  14. z adura says:

    Frank, deja vu all over again…

  15. Frank_D says:

    Like you needed this to “decide” Abramoff and Reed are scum. LOL!

    Yeah, it wasn’t nice. So what?

    Is it the first time a politician did a “not nice” thing?

    It’s a “dog bites man” story

  16. Frank_D says:

    Deja vu, my ass! It wasn’t a story from first post to last

    My first remark: “And the article s author admits he is speculating as to how it  would have gone.

  17. Roni says:

    Frank_D Jul 14th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
    Testy, aren t we?

    Frank, you set the ‘testy’ bar for this blog.