Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for July 8th, 2013

“Scope of the Issue/Unholy Trinity” (10/2012) and “FAQs on CAFRs” (@7-5-2013)

with one comment

FNAQs.  (Frequently Not Asked Questions)Scope of the Issue:  Unholy Trinity of Excess Welfare Funds, Religious Zealots, and Social Scientists.  For Starters. (my October 19, 2012 post: Recommended Reading, Easy to Follow).

Case study on the first state (Oklahoma) that decided to nab $10 million in extra contingency welfare funding to promote marriage (which leads all over the map, but especially also to Colorado and Florida) — which brings up, among other questions,

  • how many other “contingency funds” of $10 million are sitting around, in which departments, and if so — why are we supposedly so broke?

  • Why are there so many people (married and unmarried both) on Food Stamps in 2012, when these programs started flourishing in 1999?

  • Does having all this excess cash sitting around in unused TANF contingency accounts

    • presumably being invested in corporate stocks, mutual funds, securities, earning profits — or, at a minimum
    • eve just sitting around (for how long?) earning compound interest than the people it was otherwise destined for could ever earn
    • (only to be appropriated by the executive level State Leadership (Typically Governor and the head of the state HHS are among the leadership; also see Chief Justice of any State Supreme Court))

… have any direct connection to the radical restructuring of WELFARE in 1996? Was that perhaps the real purpose all along of that restructuring to get extra cash away from individual citizens, impoverishing them with the ultimate goal of totally controlling them and conditioning them to assume national “guilt” (debt) for fictional circumstances — while federal block grants to states sit in the the state-level bank accounts associated with state-level government leadership until they figure out even more creative ways to redistribute AWAY from poor people and TOWARDS the professional class who believes they should make a living managing poor people?

I mean, the key concept behind “TANF” (block grants to the states) was for the FEDS to give the STATES more flexibility with the billions of aid they got from the federal government on this logic (?):  The federal government will   “take it on faith” that the top state leadership (all 50, and territories) had their own citizens and residents best interests in mind, and not special interests, like quid pro quo deals?

FAQs on CAFRs, and more.  Courtesy Walter Burien, C.A. Fitts (Their Work,My Flavoring)(Basic Macro Concepts, highly Recommended Reading.  Synthesize Common Sense…)  links at the bottom of this post show that Family Courts are part of Government, which is a business.  One leads to a chart of the 112th (previous) Congress, by Religion, which (given what I now know about the courts) the following commentary:

In both House of Reps and Senate, a solid majority (88%, 75% or so, respectively.) are held by people that routinely say and hear the word “Jesus Christ” in worship, and are certain that, whether Mormon (small), Protestant (largest block), or Catholic (Smaller block but largest single denomination) — the other guys got it wrong, seriously wrong.  

Perhaps the off-the-record debate among the faithful and praying contingency (Protestant and Catholic, or within the “real” protestants and those Sects who supposedly aren’t really “Christian,” like Mormons, went something like this:  “Since we can’t agree on theology, can we agree on a common enemy?  Women,* or maybe Poverty.  Or Child abuse.  Or — wait a minute, let me think — OK, “GOT IT!– we can wrap all three up in one” — “fatherlessness.”    I also learned that of the Protestant block (for 113th, at least), the largest sector is Baptist.

(*especially women making up false allegations that someone was abusing them, and taking legal action on it, reporting  to OUTsiders…  Or women with dark skin out-breeding “US” (for “Us” — see recent photos of any full Congress and make a wild guess who that might represent).

There is a WHOLE lot more that could be said about both those topics. However, after a few days of attempting to say it (and fighting this formatting), I admitted defeat and am settling (for how) in just getting those two links up there.

Fascinating stuff, and all of it is going to lead to more material. Like, today, I just got another look at a group called the “National Governors’ Conference” which has, within it, something called the National Governors’ Conference Center for Best Practices (or something very similar). The latter is a nonprofit 501(c)3 which was NOT formed in ca. 1908, like the governors conference — but shares a website, a street address, and leases employees from the NGA itself.

Anyhow, Governor Frank Keating (of the first link, above: Excess Welfare Funds) is being portrayed as having “on the issues” endorsed the “NGA” statement on fatherhood.

Which brings up the point — if we’re such a representative form of government, why is policy being set at the national level with the “help” of nonprofits with multi-million-dollar budget and whose board members consist of all 50 governors and the leadership of 5 US Territories?

Not to mention, that although there have been 36 US Governors who were women — no woman chaired this NGA until Janet Napolitano of Arizona, and that in 2006. So small wonder it’s all enthusiastic about the fatherhood promotion!

That, and the fact that the fatherhood promotion is simply setting up systems-change programs at all governmental levels, hardly the most transparent setup.

Anyhow, those two links, especially the top one, are quite informative.

I may bring this up again, with the follow-up. it has to do with, simply, the nature of our country and dates back to at least 1934 — and the Social Security Act, plus, before then, the issues of public housing (HUD and HHS programs are absolutely related).

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 8, 2013 at 9:29 pm

%d bloggers like this: