Full Post Title:Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, From ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018) [Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-8X8” and this post ends after about 11,000 words]

**Explained more below in this post, and in a typical post. No apologies for failing to sugar-coat the news. Or for long sentences in the next few indented paragraphs, summarizing my understanding and explaining that comment. With additional “show-and-tell” relating to the rest of this post (and blog).

In my experience, (far) too many people, as for generations most of us have been conditioned, whether or not holding any number of white-collar professional jobs, whether or not possessing sufficient understanding of running a business to handle themselves, whether employee or self-employed, not only lack the functional vocabulary — financial literacy — to even acquire an understanding of the intersection of public and private finances, or on government and taxation itself — but also are so emotionally and financially invested in what works — at least tolerably — for themselves — they do not really want to (will not to the point of continually “cannot”) understand something different, that is, a different assessment.  Indicators and symptoms that something odd, that an ongoing, major economic “black hole of non-accountability” exists are thus sidelined, dismissed, and/or ignored, as are people who may broach the topic and point to it.  These fainter, less “in your face” indicators in some ways could be called “the canaries in the coal mines.” i.e., ignore at your own risk.

I have of course stood in the “too many people” category above until shocked out of it (in the context of family court), but unlike some, that shock didn’t eradicate all my curiosity, or my healthy respect for the value of ongoing observation and assessment of current surroundings as survival traits (which I also know are best utilized BEFORE in “fight-or-flight” mode).

The literacy and information (including functional vocabulary and its use) on certain economic matters and the operations of government as it is versus as it is portrayed to the public is where “first come + mutually organized = first served” and the rest of the population will be allocated to useful, functional positions within society* as organized by those more aware of just what public resources actually exist [1], and how to access them for private profit [2].  *That these positions may not look exactly like what they did centuries ago doesn’t mean they’re still not symbolically “Hewers of water and drawers of wood.”

[1] Key to understanding this is whether the public has been told the truth regarding the bottom line of (particularly) the federal government, and based on that, the legitimacy of all systems of taxation portrayed as beneficial and necessary for example, to balance that budget.  Bottom lines whether of both government and private sectors are expressed not just in terms of annual or bi-annual budgets — but of financial statements. AUDITED ones. Looking at a single entity or just a few entities within a field (OR at public only or private only) is inadequate because public and private constantly interact with each other. Both sectors frequently change names, consolidate, spin off or (for government departments) set up new offices within existing departments, etc.

[2] There’s far less competition in fields mutually controlled by those who pioneered them.

(Example: See blog search phrase:  Harvard/Bain/Bridgspan (as a business model) and click on the “Why Bother to Unravel” post [2.1] (its concluding paras) on that search result (2nd search result after this post).’ I concocted that phrase during a drill-down involving all three. I had discovered “Bridgespan” as a subcontractor on another foundation’s tax returns.  My fabricated phrase refers generally to commandeering the profits in NONprofit consulting, and as a NONprofit, which takes collaboration with others also so inclined.  Notice “Bain” is associated with well-known public figure from Massachusetts (who also ran for President not too long ago).[3, with two associated images]  Notice that an elite, private university (in that aspect, HBS — Harvard Business School) is integral part of the phrase, as it is of that model. Better yet, spell “Bridgespan” correctly in the search and read (scroll down towards the bottom for that section) what I published last year (March 30, 2017): Omidyar Entities: The Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan Consulting Model (Transform and Help Run — or own — Distressed Assets, LIKE U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS), Rebranded, on Steroids, and Gone Global).

[2.1] Full title and image from top of “Why Bother to Unravel” post (publ. June 16, 2018):

“Why Bother to Unravel…“Link provided nearby or see blog “Archives” for 6/16/2018. Bottom section of this post also summarizes key concerns in a few paragraphs, regarding social service delivery in the private sector, and the tax-exempt sector in general (from an accountability standpoint — not from a “service-delivery” standpoint).

[3] Bain Execs Spent Nearly $5M on Romney’s White House Run, Records Show (Anne Faris-Rosen in Center for Public Integrity, 2/7/2012 (let’s call this “about six years ago.)  Mitt Romney and John Kerry both referenced, in the article, but the image (excerpt shown here) mentions  Bain Capital LLC and Bain & Co., the latter being a consulting company. Note the timeframes and that Bain & Co. formed in 1984, a decade which is ON my radar below as to LBOs and major Tax Reform, and within the following decade (1986-1996) and with (Tax Reform Act of 1986) organizing personnel and nonprofits in common, welfare reform, which brings up right up to “the elephant in the room” when discussing why family courts are so conflict-ridden and economically, socially and psychologically devastating for so many. Romney, it says below, had continuing passive income after the fourteen years he spent at Bain & Co.  Note Bain & Co. LLC also did those leveraged buyouts which (for some of the bought-out companies’ employees) resulted in job loss through the heavy (i.e., “leveraged” with debt) burden the resulting setup provided.

Image #2 of 2, excerpted from Bain Execs Spend Nearly $5M on Romney White House Runs (2/7/2012 in Center for Public Integrity)”Click image to enlarge

Image #1 of 2, excerpted from Bain Execs Spend Nearly $5M on Romney White House Runs (2/7/2012 in Center for Public Integrity)”Click image to enlarge

Along the way (and on most posts on this blog), you’ll see that I continue to name and profile (economically) many organizations directly associated with and set up to affect custody proceedings, child support decision-making, and of course, defining what is and (especially) is not “domestic violence” or “child abuse” and is better described instead as, “high-conflict.”  Most of these address how to problem-solve any assessed condition  — typically through more trainings (some qualified under CEU or for lawyers CLE credits), certifications, and guidelines for those in the (existing and as we speak, more being created) professions involved. MOST of which will be supported, up front, or once in operation long-term, by public funds.  

This time (not most times) the image is the link to article. Click to access. It’s a short read — Please Do! (from Atlanta Business Chronicle originally).

McKinsey & Company copies Bain (2014)

This section/illustration may be moved (or may not) later! I added to it where McKinsey, already a global consulting company (for decades) connects also to the US-based National Governors’ Association., and the significance of the NGA among other similar associations in setting policies which obviously will affect US citizens due to size, scope and major corporations involved. //LGH.

While I’m on “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan (The Bridgespan Group)” — it’s no secret that Bridgespan was a spinoff of Bain and involves consulting for nonprofits with positive spin on the social impact (benefits of course are featured) of doing so.  

On basic Google search again, among plenty of results on the first page, one is Nonprofit Quarterly reporting that the big consulting firm (multi-national) McKinsey & Co. (which I featured as a “Corporate Fellow” to “National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,” a pay-to-play status), reported in March 2015 that it has copied the model and spun off its own nonprofit.

Click nearby image to read more (see esp. para.3), however this next quote from it specifically acknowledges the “Bain’s Bridgespan” model being circulated — obviously among powerful corporations whose profits, otherwise, would be taxed — considerably if they weren’t moving revenues from nonprofit to nonprofit for better “social impact” and to help economic mobility of retail-level entry workers (!).

If you explore this example further, that’s exactly what they’re talking about.

Someone has to work for all the corporations who have so many profits they have to pour excess into tax-exempt foundations.

If you read further (on this post) for example, on the background of people like Grover Norquist (active in pushing for Tax Reform Act of 1986, and after that, “Contract with America,” which so dramatically (but in the “background operating systems”) impacted judicial decision-making in America’s (meaning here, the USA’s) family courts, it becomes clear that businesses organize in response to tax laws so as to reduce their corporate taxes.

There seems to be a connection between Tax Reform Act of 1986 and “Welfare Reform” (major restructuring) of 1996.

McKinsey & Co. Starts its own version of Bain’s Bridgespan Rick Cohen, March 27, 2015 in Nonprofit Quarterly.

…Some portion of McKinsey’s thinking on nonprofits is contained in the McKinsey on Society website, where there are essays and research summaries addressing topics such as how poor school systems can become good school systems and, not surprisingly, extolling the potential of social impact bonds. In other words, as a global management consulting firm, McKinsey has had a nonprofit practice carried out by some of its 19,000 staff in over 100 offices in 61 countries.

This looks a little like Bain & Company’s creation of the Bridgespan Group in 1999. Bridgespan started out strongly with a $1 million grant from Bain plus several loaned staff. Like McKinsey, Bain & Company is a wealthy parent for its nonprofit consulting spinoff, with sales of around $2.1 billion.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy suggests that the McKinsey Social Initiative will start life with a $70 million capital infusion from McKinsey & Company plus access to 25 of its consultants to work on MSI projects and advice from 10 McKinsey partners …

Well, I just looked up the Form 990s and found it’s already (since 2014 origins) changed its name AND its website, and the one linked to on the 2015 report (which is neither) isn’t what the 2016 tax return shows (latest year shown on a separate database — NONE are shown on the website) (EIN# is 471073442).

Just a sampler: Shows change of name w/in 2 yrs of startup, two concurrent websites with different names, and a very small board addressing “solutions to pressing global problems.”

Note: Flipping the handling of a basic tax return — while changing website AND entity names, which do not correlate, and often while withholding either half the financial documents (i.e., if there are both tax returns and financial statements) or the most recently filed ones, and the like, appears to be common practice in the sector, no less so from the larger tax-exempt foundations than from smaller ones..  For what is now called not “McKinsey Social Initiative” but “Generation:  You, Employed” — if I even started to explain what I’ve seen in just 15 minutes looking for key information about the organization/s being represented through only two websites and three yrs of tax returns, I believe readers would go no further on this post for the craziness — missing information, inconsistent information, and especially if unfamiliar with basic Forms 990, what I’m noticing on those black-&-white (until I annotated them) tax returns. So it’s been sidelined (for now). However (hint) there seems to be more than on 501©3 involved; because one is described in fine print as “private operating foundation” (which produces 990PFs) and the one I just looked at is public (which has as link above shows, a plain Form 990.).  However know that the former “McKinseySocialInitiative.org” doesn’t redirect to “Generationinitiative.org” but to “McKinsey.org” which, eventually (not at the top) mentions a “Generation.org” (not “GenerationINITIATIVE.org”), hoping perhaps, that readers won’t get down to the very, very bottom of “McKinsey.org” website and notice, as I (from habit) did.

McKinsey.org is an incubator for new solutions to social issues. It works by applying McKinsey’s capabilities and by partnering with leaders from the private-, public- and social-sectors.

McKinsey.org is a 501(c)(3) private operating foundation.

Squint hard, the bottom of “McKinsey.org”

Registered in NY, variously,1956, 1966, 1995, 2011?, 2013, & 2017 (not in order shown)

McKinsey.COM (the for-profit global consulting firm) timeline gives it credit for founding “Generation” with emphasis on global reach.

McKinsey.com, 1990s

McKinsey.com 1980s, note >half partners from OUTside the U.S.

“McKinsey.org” is a private operating foundation WHERE? (see five-image gallery above; click on any image to enlarge, navigate using the arrows directly to the others) In which country? IF in the USA, in which state (or territory, or is it D.C.)?

(annotated excerpt from 10/1/2012 Big 7 Pension Guidelines (a 2pp release)

(I see from the image url that I posted this around July 3, 2017)

Notice the last image, bottom states that since “two years after the early 1980s” (thanks for a specific year), the majority of partners are from outside the U.S.  What does that mean when it’s a major contributor as consultant, among other corporations with U.S. toeholds, to USA-focused “instrumentalities of government” such as the National Governors’ Association (searchable on this blog; I’ve posted on it) and its accompanying nonprofit the NGC “Center for Best Practices” and that (as I recall, but should be fact-checked) a coalition of similar organizations (to NGA) call themselves “the Big Seven” as to pursuing their interests before U.S. Congress?

• 

  NGA Corp. Fellows (vs. “Partners”) program accessed 4-20-2018 says it started 30 yrs earlier in 1988

  NGA Corporate Fellows described under link to “Corporate Partners” (accessed 4/20/2018) (what $20,000 a year can buy in terms of access). Shows that this program started in 1988….

• DEFINITELY not advertised at first, second, or even third level but there is a list of “partners.” Since I first blogged it, the list has been separated, I supposed on a sliding scale: Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze.  The Silver list is long, but McKinsey & Co. is still on it. Samples in next image gallery

---

I’m ON “McKinsey.org” and there are no links to financials at least accessible clearly from top margin or bottom margin of the website, so casual readers might not bother to look up either tax return, or even recognize that at least two different nonprofits  (judging by the one I found so far, EIN#471073442, Generation: You Employed, Inc., which at least in 2016 was not a “private operating foundation” or called “McKinsey.org”) which both must file separate returns (being nonprofit and not religious or otherwise exempt from doing so as would be: a church, a mosque, a synagogue, or (for more, see IRS.gov and figure it out!) and if large enough or so required, audited financial statements, too.   I look forward to posting on the dilemma presented, when I can… Meanwhile website “McKinsey.COM” is careful to take credit for “Generation” which it allegedly founded in 2014 (and probably did, but not under that name, and obviously “Generation” is not the same as a US nonprofit named “Generation: You, Employed, Inc.” and it’s clear that both “Generation” and McKinsey & Company are, and have been for many decades, globally oriented. )

End of “McKinsey & Company copies Bain 2014” section.

(Representing one part of this post title “WE are Here, Collectively” subject matter).

---

In an ideal world, which no blog-only platform attempting to present information like this can be, the next section would be near the top. The balance between informations spread too thinly between many posts, and spread too thick on single posts I see from many website is met in typically two different ways — oversimplify and withhold most critical information, and/or show what is displayed in bill-board, or on-line news style (i.e., present the reader with a grid of photos and catchy titles, typically “news” on the organization, and let them click somewhere on the grid, which through narrative story-telling should keep readers properly distracted from going after the financials, corporate identification, any available tax returns, and ownership, not to mention when tax returns are available, note which related organizations indicate further size of the current organization’s empire, reach, or scope of activities (referring especially to any “Schedule R” (Forms 990 after 2008) showing related entities by type.  Before 2008, they are reported, but less obviously on tax returns. THOSE should be identified first.

As I’ve made clear above, McKinsey & Company AND the website “McKinsey.org” (claiming private operating foundation status) AND the website “Generation.org” make that near-impossible.  I did check the IRS exempt organizations select check list for anything “McKinsey” and found only two results, as well as CharitiesNYS.com and on the latter came up empty — which doesn’t meant it’s not somewhere else in the US, a needle in a 50-plus(50-state) haystack — or possibly not in that haystack.

~|~|~|~|~|~

Increasingly the most common denominator of population demographic (and a specialty niche, too!) is, predictably under this system “Low-Income.” (Images from San Francisco-based nonprofit) $358M Gross Assets “Low Income Investment (formerly “Housing”) Fund.” Fifteen years ago (2001) it had only $78M assets but now it has $358M, with barely a “blip” in either assets or revenues during the 2008 [real estate, mortgage-default, foreclosure-producing with global consequences] bust.

“You Are Here” On This Blog

You are now looking at a fifth “sticky” post supplementing three informal Table of Contents update ones already published in March and a much more formal and comprehensive one published in January 2017, called “2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes from 2016” — all of which are pinned as posts to the top of the blog before one can browse actual current posts…   as {described in the olive-colored background sections and accompanying images of previous posts (on any color background) below}.

With this post and the 2017 TOC one imaged nearby that makes five (and a sixth is in process mid-April, 2018) “sticky” posts which will remain  at the top of “Current Posts (Most Recent on Top)” page.

These are here not only for Table of Contents updates, but also to emphasize key themes, using currently evolving (rapidly!) community development and other “replicable” projects affecting the national bottom line and the status of anything approaching justice and representative government, in the USA and elsewhere.

Understanding the public/private collaborations both separately and as acting collectively: how they operate, what the uniform control tactics and agenda are and have been; how, often, financial statements or (as it applies) IRS tax returns viewable by the public are obscured, not posted accurately, completely or sometimes at all when legally required; the size and complexity of private nonprofit networks influencing public institutions (that is, government!) has never been more critical. This will continue being critical unless some counterbalances surface — and the public starts resisting conditioned indoctrination to pick only ONE side of any pre-framed cause, and then argue it using ONLY limited vocabulary (rhetoric) instead of teaching ourselves the same language of “control of assets and dispersal of accountability for them” being used upon us.

2018 is not time to continue consuming, following and believing false statements (implicit or explicit) or a prepared menu of who to believe, based on historic population demographic, geographic (Urban/suburban/rural) religious, racial, gender or political divides.   

(7 posts from Dec, 8 from Nov and 8 from Oct 2017 annotated image)

This, as I anticipate publishing it mid-April, 2018, might be the top or next-to-top post on my “Current Posts: Most Recent On Top” Page.  (To clarify, “top” here refers to position on the blog main page, as stacked atop ongoing posts, most of them arranged by date published, not to popularity).  If so, know that I published it after about a month on the “back burner.” The next few images represent writing between then, in fact between January 1, 2018, and now.  This page is my promised “extra” to three “Informal TOC” posts, one per month for Q4 2017 but each one published in March 2018, as shown in the nearby (annotated) image.  Access them easily on “Current Posts: Most Recent on Top” (=First link under the Go-To Widget), below this post. All posts have a “Read-more” abbreviation link to segregate a post lead-in text, for better browsing if a person chooses to browse by scrolling, swiping, or paging-down that static “Current Posts” page.

(Post March 19, 2018: The long title refers to Robin Hood Foundation.)

Shows posts March 30, 2018 (just announces a New Page — see nearby image for details) and April 7, 2018 (one I’d thought was published two yrs ago. Discovering the oversight on attempting to reference it on Twitter I quickly posted it.

Three posts from late Feb. – early March, 2018

Opening text from 3/28/2018 new page.Click Image & Read!

After these posts, and as images copied today (April 11, 2018) from my blog sidebar under “Last Few [10] LGH Posts” where they still show (but won’t for much longer if I keep posting), you can see more recent posts.  Some moved into publication recently had been  held “pending” over the winter holidays. They deal with ongoing organizations which typify themes I’m exploring.

Click to enlarge. Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2017 post explaining TOC navigation. If you don’t want to mess with uploaded pdfs or anything complex, find this part of the [“2017 continues themes from 2016…“] post and browse at least the last three posts of 2016 and all of 2017‘s posts. Other years (and links to them) are also discussed [on that “2017 continues themes from 2016…” post].

FamilyCourtMatters’ Jan. 2018 four published posts. Image’d be titles-only but I added colorful comments on the subject matter of each post.

Therefore, to get access or browse the most recent posts other than by the right sidebar, Archives, or some external link (for example, obtained in a basic internet search on some topic it covers), utilize your viewing device’s “scroll-down” “swipe” or “page-down” function. Ideally a laptop, iPad or other tablet viewing device, not a small-screen device such as a cell phone, provide enough “peripheral vision” per screen for such a detailed blog as this one. This blog of course can be read on cell phones, but unless you have a photographic or otherwise superb memory of what you just read (to replace what peripheral vision on a larger screen might pick up), I doubt the information can be comprehended as well.

“By cell phone” is not the best way to read this blog because:

• My goal in writing is not just consciousness raising on these topics for general entertainment, but reader comprehension leading to the point of self-motivated action to address the issues. Nor am I writing for some form of self-therapy or healing (time for that is LONG past), but as a witness to social transformations which have such momentous impact, and are already so “flush” with positive propaganda FOR them, or if AGAINST, only as led from the perspective(s) of a political (Conservative-Progressive) and/or male-female gender, and/or ethnic (color, race) and/or religious divide.
• The issues demanded major attention on my part, and reading about the ongoing “findings” also demands a readers’ attention.  I know what it’s like NOT to have steady access to larger viewing devices (i.e., in our area, even libraries limit users to an hour or at most two) larger than a cell phone (as well as to have no cell phone OR internet access), but in general, for this blog to make sense will take a wide swath of your time and, to “get it,” a horizontally and vertically larger field of vision.

Nor (although it can be done) is taking a page and printing to hard copy for later viewing:

• Pages are constructed with MANY links which are there to be clicked on; they lead to other information illustrating or supporting various points raised.  Obviously you don’t click through on a piece of paper.
• For people who may wish to print a post or a page for personal reading from hard copy, here’s a warning: “print it to preview” as a pdf, find on which page the actual post ends, and where the end matter continues, then limit the number of pages. My long right sidebar with all its links, and some extended sidebar text “widgets” will add extra pages.

~|~|~|~|~|~

‘We Are Here’ Collectively, As of 2018

(“Are We There Yet? How’d We GET here?”  Short answer: Perhaps by believing that prepared signs should substitute for personal curiosity, observation, and demand to understand.  That is, by taking too many prepared, sponsored signposts at face value instead of evaluating the overall landscape).

~|~|~|~|~|~

Increasingly the most common denominator of population demographic (and a specialty niche, too!) is, predictably under this system “Low-Income.” (Images from SF’s $358M Gross Assets “Low Income Investment (formerly “Housing”) Fund.” Fifteen years ago (2001) it had only $78M assets but now it has $358M, with barely a “blip” in either assets or revenues during the 2008 bust.

The Stormy History of Leveraged Buyouts Image2 of 2

The Stormy History of Leveraged Buyouts Image1 of 2, August 28, 2013 in “ecointersect.com.” Included here for its chart and brief summary.

LIIF (based in San Francisco, incidentally) originally formed in 1984 (at the end of which decade, US taxpayers engaged in a Savings and Loan Bailout, also known as an era of “LBOs” (leveraged buyouts (<==straightforward description from 2002 at Tuck School of Business @ Dartmouth, but as posted elsewhere)) great for the investors, saddling the corporations with debt the workers then had to pay off, or (in the quest for ever more profits) just get laid off… See also, two images from an August 2013 article “The Stormy History of Leveraged Buyouts” (author credits on Image1, one author connected to the Federal Reserve.)

Investopedia on LBOs; link has access to second image “Institutional Buyouts”

Investopedia on “Institutional Buyouts”

Investopedia also describes LBOs (in general, not specifically in the 1980s), the second image referring to “institutional buyouts.” Remembering that institutional funds (such as pension funds, or endowments for public OR private universities or government entiteis (CalPERS, etc.) by definition are major investment platforms.

This Dec. 24, 2015 (University of Bucharest Economic Studies, Romania) “The History of Junk Bonds and Leveraged Buyouts“ (by Gheorghe Hurduzeu & Maria-Floriana Popescu) online at “ScienceDirect,” in plain language explains the situation and connection to junk bonds. Please click on “Download as pdf” link at top if not led directly to the main article in black&white only (it’s just a few as pages long, and reminds of key points re: 1980s and 2008)

Meanwhile in 1986 the IRS rewrote tax laws (as I understand it) among other things, to allow corporate bankruptcies.

1986 Tax Reform Act Links:

Searchable summaries by Joint Committee on Taxation (Bluebook pdfs from JCT.gov back to 1969 also provide titles of laws reforming taxes):

• 1991 from NBER (Nat’l Bureau on Economic Research), author James Poterba was at MIT, “Why Didn’t the Tax Reform Act of 1986 Raise Corporate Taxes?” (paper “w3940”)
• 2005 “https://taxfoundation.org/s-corporations-and-1986-tax-reform-act/ by Scott Hodges (President of Tax Foundation, who points out that, with astounding (?) observation that business owners will adjust their organizational behaviors in response to changing tax codes, to avoid taxation).  In other words, that changing tax policy to affect business behaviors actually affects business behaviors. The money will be looking for the loopholes.

The lesson from the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA 1986)—the last major tax reform enacted in the U.S.—is that differential rates will cause business owners to arbitrage the rates to minimize their tax burdens. TRA lowered the top individual rate from 50 percent to 28 percent and the top corporate rate from 46 percent to 34 percent (this rate was hiked to 35 percent in 1993).

Not surprisingly, many owners of traditional “C Corporations” found ways to have their income taxed at the lower individual rates. These behavior changes are thoroughly documented in an excellent article in the Winter 1995/1996 SOI Bulletin by Patrick J. Wilkie, James C. Young, and Sarah E. Nutter (PDF).

They found that “smaller corporations that did not convert to S-corporation status [which are taxed under the individual code] reduced the amount of their income subject to corporate taxation by paying larger percentages of interest expense, rent expense, and officer compensation payments.” In effect, these business owners created “homemade” S-corporation status via the payment of deductible dividends, interest and rents to themselves.

Remarkably, the number of S-corporations grew 500 percent between 1980 and 2002, from 545,389 to roughly 3.2 million, and now far exceed the number of conventional C-Corporations. This year, the IRS estimates that 57 percent of all corporate tax returns will be S-Corporation returns. (For more on wealthy Americans and their business activity, see here).

• 2011 from “Tax Analysts,” this article by Michael Graetz @ Columbia Law School.  “Tax Reform 1986 – a Silver Anniversary, not a Jubilee.”  I copied two images from the summary here to call attention to a few points.  Article long, but gives historic context.
• 2013 in Britannica.com short article by Frank Winfrey: Tax Reform Act of 1986 (U.S.)  Its first and last paragraphs reference sponsors, its significance, and more frequent revisions since then (underlines or any other emphases in the quote mine):

Tax Reform Act of 1986, the most-extensive review and overhaul of the Internal Revenue Code by the U.S. Congress since the inception of the income tax in 1913 (the Sixteenth Amendment). Its purpose was to simplify the tax code, broaden the tax base, and eliminate many tax shelters and preferences. It was intended to be essentially revenue-neutral, though it did shift some of the tax burden from individuals to businesses.** Signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan on October 22, 1986, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) was sponsored in Congress by two leading Democrats, Representative Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, and was strongly supported by the chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, Democratic Representative Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois. Support for broad revision of the tax code had been mobilized at the behest of the Reagan administration in 1985 with the founding of the ad hoc organization Americans for Tax Reform by Grover Norquist.

To which many businesses responded in part by forming or reorganizing themselves as “S-Corporations” (LLCs, etc.) vs. C-Corporations (***) to pay at the lower rate, and other tactics (see prior quote). (***Names end “Inc.” and other similar ones, by state? law chosen from a limited set of suffixes.  (For example, maybe not the best one, but..) Reading Form 990s of tax-exempt organizations (which would be C-Corps, mostly), a Schedule R Pt. I (returns 2008 or after) will show “Disregarded” entities – and their names will typically end in “LLC” (if provided, as they should be).  They are so closely identified with the owner that the owner files under his/its EIN# and not separately.)

After the passage of the act, tax code revision became a much more frequent event, resulting in the return of many tax breaks and an increase in the number of tax brackets. Of particular note were the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 under President George H.W. Bush, the Revenue Reconciliation Acts of 1993 and 1997 under President Bill Clinton, and the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act and Reconciliation Act of 2001 under President George W. Bush.

Frank L. Winfrey

Click image to enlarge (Grover Norquist from Britannica.com) #1 of 2, my annotations.

Reminder on relevance of Grover Norquist (link from Britannica Quote#1 above) and his Harvard (BA ’78 + MBA ’81) zealously conservative/Libertarian mindset, 1990s dealings with Newt Gingrich and Republican “Contract with America” of the early 1990s, generating from then-Democrat White House + Republican-Controlled Congress) then-President Clinton’s the “response” (with help from his special 1996 re-election advisor Dick Morris) was 1996 Social Security Act overhaul, commonly known (1996 version) as PRWORA (2003 PRWORA summary from the CRS) (From GovTrack on the House version (H.R. 334, 104th Congress), “History” link, I see it was introduced and passed within only two months(!)).

Click image to enlarge (Grover Norquist from Britannica.com) #2 of 2, my annotations. Noticeable influence (w/ Gingrich) on 1990s politics and subsequent passage of Welfare Reform (targeting single mothers, setting up major restructuring of federal/state economic relationships, and more.

Interesting to consider how the TRA of 1986 and PRWORA of 1996 might be more closely related than I previously thought.

Back to the topic of LBOs, Junk Bonds, and how to create even more “low-income” people,

I changed my mind on including images the article from University of Bucharest.. Dec. 24, 2015 (University of Bucharest Economic Studies, Romania) “The History of Junk Bonds and Leveraged Buyouts“ (by Gheorghe Hurduzeu & Maria-Floriana Popescu); images are underlined many places.  Shown as a “slideshow”, still a short read.

Remembering that following all this in the mid-1990s, the public was sold marriage/fatherhood promotion as a solution to poverty as part of “Welfare Reform” (largest overhaul of the Social Security Act since 1934, it was said) and allegedly to encourage men to be more incentivized to pay their child support, and consequently reduce public debt from welfare assistance. What about bailing out: savings & loans (1980s), then “big banks” (2008); what about people formerly employees of the bankrupted through LBO companies?

Still speaking of the profits (and how they’re made) from focusing on fixing Low-Income Communities. I ran across LIIF as an initial grantee (of just a few) for LIVING CITIES: The National Community Development Initiative.  Set up folders on both of them; recommend public become aware of how they interact and read financial statements, tax returns (as possible), the colorful positively-framed websites, and start differentiating between public and private roles in such “public/private” enterprises.

LIIF is a “CDFI” (Community Development Financial Institution” taking funds directly from the federal government in a variety of forms. Third image from its website shows (green stripes near the words “$130 million”) show what other areas it’s gotten into. The list in a variety of green shades (except last entry) from left to right reads;

• Affordable Housing 
• Child Care
• Education
• Green Financing…
• Healthy Food
• Transit-Oriented Development

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Policywise, the “low-income” sector which has become major “big-business” I found as it comes to redevelopment, community transformation, and other ways to have those historically in control of wealth and having held it in (often) tax-exempt situations (foundations) to form more tax-exempt foundations and channel government resources from HUD, HHS, USDOE, perhaps USDOL and/or the USDOJ into projects they invest in and maintain control over — while the responsibility of the “low-income” population to live there (those who weren’t ousted) is to be thankful their income wasn’t yet lower, and if not part of the management structure of the same, accept their position in life — inhabiting the property of the rich (essentially, “masters”) and working for them contentedly.

That is to say, from thinking in terms of looking for, opening, reading, and starting to comprehend enough financial statement, corporate and government identifying-“books” (both public and private, and comparatively (connecting the dots) where they claim to interact) until some understanding starts to sink in, revealing the “Pro/Con” “Left/Right” “He/She” “Believer vs. ‘Infidel’ (atheist or agnostic)”and accompanying language, narratives, and commentary  when compared to the opened books and to what degree they have been closed, obscured, hidden, and talk of them basically censored as a distraction.

…that is, until some basic math (and with it common sense, logic, observation) makes itself at home in one’s head, cognitively that is…. At about which time one is likely to realize one is now “infidel” to most of the above categories — as they represent automatically disjunct positions for their identities (with extra positive vibes for things “collaborative” (in the private realm) or “bipartisan” (in the government, public) — often more justice, functional logic, and human lives are sacrificed with the “bipartisan” topic of the day.  

**(Governments have authority to tax — it’s one of the basic definitions OF government versus not-government; I’ve posted it herein (search this blog for “US Census Bureau” (<==link to that search. It also brings up an overview of several detailed posts showing how I look at such both public and private statements. Particularly recommended (from that search or use Archives by date) my July 17, 2017 post “State Banking? Two who understand CAFRs came to opposite stances regarding it.” (Title approximate)).  The U.S. Census Bureau also counts local government entities, not just people, did you know?  

Gov’t Character (from Definitions part of 2012 US Census of Gov’ts) CLICK IMAGE if needed to read full-sized.

Click IMAGE to see full-sized (Tables to 2012 US Census of Govts issued Sep 2013)

Click Image to see outer margins of Gov’t Local and School Governments Density from URL https-:www2.census.gov/govs/cog/2012isd.pdf ( ScrShot taken 2017-05-02)

USCensus 2012 Density (#) of Local Govts and School Districts by County* Within the latest (at the time I reported on it) count, a definition of what qualifies as “government” for purposes of this count were shown.

Image detail (lower-right = SE USA) enlarged so LEGEND and Counts are visible. Notice which areas have more (darker blue, teal) vs. less (lighter sections) governments. Click Image to enlarge.

Governments tax — they are not “taxed” and so whichever government entity it be, produces no tax returns under its own name). As employers they will pay taxes for their own, but as themselves, their profits are NOT taxable.  This is not to say such profits just don’t exist, or wouldn’t be, if compiled and considered honestly, would be enough to fund itself ongoing, without the need to continue creating “low-income” populations to manage in housing projects + schools + detention facilities for juveniles + prisons, then transform it nationally somehow into healthy, holistic, safe, and (naturally “Transit-oriented”) communities, through “welfare reform,” etc.

I am a United States citizen (so born, and my parents, but not all grandparents) and as an adult have always lived and worked here. As such I believe and act on the belief that my voice and my life as an individual person (not a corporation) and what I have lived and seen others live in these courts still counts, whether speaking as a domestic violence survivor, family court fiasco “veteran,” parent, and having witnessed personally and in communication with many others, a repeated pattern of not just one, but recurring felony-level, life-threatening and damaging actions taken by immediate family or life partners (i.e., a spouse, the other [biological] parent of children in common) being systematically re-classified and down-graded into “relationship matters” under the label of “family” and, I learned in hindsight, because of social policy directed towards my “kind,” i.e., the primary indicator as to whether basic legal rights apply — or do not apply —  being gender.   The systematic handling of protests of abuse and assertion of legal rights in these scenarios is being used as excuses to refer to as much “treatment” as possible, and those involved in the treatments continuing to what I call, when considered, collectively, the “Social Science R&D” data.

This systematic transformational change naturally drives paid work and career curves away from some valid and wonderful (not “archaic” but currently relevant) professions and towards others trending towards receiving federal and state funding — obtained in large part from working people (income taxes, and to a lesser degree, corporate taxes) — in association with major philanthropic (translation:  “tax-exempt AND private”) corporate wealth, if not empires.

This blog originally started still in the aftermath of betrayal following a child-stealing event followed by virtually immediate and complete contact cut-off, absent any documentation (or even serious allegation of) improper parental behavior on my part, let alone any proof of the accusations presented, and this being many years after my separation from a battering relationship with their father. I didn’t start it because of that event — I started this blog after discovering critical, relevant information which (unlike current explanations being circulated) giving a plausible and in my opinion more logical explanation WHY the family courts behaved as they did (and have continued to for newer generations of parents in similar situations to my own). Spokespeople for the scattering (at that time) of nonprofits acknowledging there is a problem were not talking about this. It didn’t take long (by raising direct questions to the most vocal and, it seemed, active ones) to learn their ongoing resistance to talking about what their leadership and many of the followers knew, but felt basically irrelevant for the battered mothers struggling in family courts. It also wasn’t long before the same groups and associated personnel were recommending themselves as “technical assistance” professionals and expert witnesses (primarily focused on the practice of psychology) for the courts once word was getting out (negative publicity, including their own) about their dysfunction, an obvious motive for withholding information which would expose the proposed solution of “more, and better, trainings” for all involved in the courts.

This blog has, however, developed over now (as of March, 2018) NINE years of consistent research, networking, and it’s fair to call this diligent investigation of not just the systems involved, but also of the so-called advocacy groups (featuring a variety of miniature, imitation, medium-sized and at times giant nonprofits, all of whose names are often tossed around as if equal in size and representation of the people being “advocated for”), and I have a basic method of “drill-down” to obtain basic financials on any group — and identify groups which hide theirs, produce none, or feature connection to university centers which have so much funding they’re named after their sponsors, but which are logistically impossible to track the funds of.

And as these are helping drive policy and working so closely with the tax-exempt and government centers (where not literally parts of state government themselves – i.e., the public universities), we the public should want, and be able to obtain not just partial, but COMPLETE accounting for where our wage-withholdings and “fees-for-services” at so many levels of life in this country are actually going. Without this, we cannot reasonably expect — and certainly are not getting — due legal process, legitimate representative government or anything approaching justice, no matter how much that word is tossed around, or applied to:  Nonprofits (“Battered Women’s Justice Project” (2013ff spinoff; its earliest tax return posted on the website only for FY2015, however**), or even the federal Department of Justice, (<=”About” page) or its “Office of Justice Programs,” (<==organizational chart) under which offices such as the “Office on Violence Against Women” or “Office of Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Protection” are set up, with corresponding grants. //LGH 4-11-2018

**(In FY2013 and 2014 it filed “Form 990-N electronic postcard” declarations of revenues under $50K, per an IRS searchable database on these:

This entity hasn’t been called “Minnesota Program Development” for YEARS, but “Foundation Center” (which runs database 990finder service) hasn’t corrected it yet…

“Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, Inc.”  (here, “DAIP for short) cannot be searched by NAME at “990finder,” as “990finder” persists in using the wrong name for this entity, despite (or because of??) its prominence to both the US Dept. of Justice under Office of Violence Against Women.

However, knowing its EIN# 411382134 (as shown in the image under the wrong name), or knowing the wrong name (“Minnesota Program Development”) (though full former name added the word “Institute” resulting in the “MPDI” acronym, so innocently entering the FULL former name would still produce a “no results” response) and searching on ¾ of the old name or the actual EIN# instead, DAIP’s Form 990 (IRS tax) returns for FY2013 (<==here) and FY2014 both on page 2, Pt. III, Line 4a (of a,b,c,d available to fill out on the form) show the MAIN program Service Activity and Expenses are still labeled “Battered Women’s Justice Project” and entail over $300K of grants as part of the expenses ($311K in 2013, and $354K in 2014). However, going then on each of those returns to their “Schedule I” (of grants) shows just a few recipients, each time the largest being a Philadelphia-based — not Minnesota-based — entity called the National Clearinghouse for Defense of Battered Women (“NCDBW”)

This section was removed from earlier draft of the “Eight Posts in November 2017” post before publishing it:

Eight Posts Published in November, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 8, 2018) (With case-sensitive, auto-generated short-link ending “-8KE”).

The “Eight Posts in October, 2017″ listed them in reverse chronological order, however the rest of 2017’s Table of Contents (last Quarter 2016 – Sept., 2017) had been organized in the order they were published, from earliest to latest, i.e., chronologically, which I believe is better. This matches the more formal Table of Contents, and in general seems more logical.

---

WHY:  Books show contents in order, blogs typically in reverse order.  But this blog is less responding to current events (although sometimes it does) than chronicling ongoing, evolving structural design of the family courts (and other public institutions affecting them, or of which design elements** their problems seem a typical symptom) less likely to make headline news — although, once understood, the impact of those will be easy to discern within breaking or nationally significant public headlines, and which sometimes I call attention to.  I see it as more instructional, and teaching.  It’s as the motto says, an analysis.  Typically chronological order would work better.  The blog also records over time my expanding awareness of such things over time, so in general “as written” order I think is better.

Key to any analysis (and incorporated in to the root meaning of that word) is breaking things down into pieces (related words:  paralysis, dialysis).  Obviously those pieces will have names and may fall into certain categories.  Meanwhile, the situations are ongoing and evolving over time as well.

**(some call these design elements “flaws” and allege they are correctable; I don’t because to some, the “flaws” and “dysfunction” are their brilliance of design, and in fact, functionality — it depends on one’s perspective!)

I’m doing monthly for that last quarter of 2017, thus making four (Dec, Nov, Oct, “2017 Tables…”), not just one or only two, “sticky posts” held at the top of the “Current Posts” page.  Once I decided to include some surrounding text with each title (although the titles along are also so long), it makes sense not to overload just one post with three months’ worth. Eight posts with their abstracts seems a more digestible size for the content represented.

---

More Why This Updated TOC Format Now (Monthly, not Quarterly):

The Story of the Real Canary in the Coal Mines 12/30/2016 in Smithsonian.com, under “SMARTNews”) by Kat Eschner. (click image to enlarge or link to access the article). PHOTO: “Mining foreman R. Thornburg shows a small cage with a canary used for testing carbon monoxide gas in 1928. (George McCaa, U.S. Bureau of Mines)“

The Story of the Real Canary in the Coal Mines 12/30/2016 in Smithsonian.com, under “SMARTNews”) by Kat Eschner. (click image to enlarge or link to access the article).

The terminology and themes in the blog take some getting used to.

In some ways, I am reporting between the cracks of accountability, where public/private partnerships historically have maintained their round-table and collaboration privacy from the public (overall) except when and where the various promotions (“PR,” public relations) have been posted on-line or made available to explain and promote the benefits of such collaborations. (I report in some ways like “A Canary in the Coal Mine” still tweeting, but not just saying in effect, and in desperate birdcalls and behaviors,  “Help, help, let me out… you bastards!”… ).

I’m reporting the downsides only after encountering them in person (through the family courts) and over a nine-year period (I started this blog March, 2009). There are practices which undermine the conceptual grasp of what is taking place in consolidation of actual, exercised power  (and that also entails concentration of wealth) in the hands of people constantly proclaiming — and hiring others to proclaim and explain — their concerns about inequity (!!).  There IS a “bottom line” in all of this.  The public and (our) financial contributions to the infrastructure, ongoing, intergenerationally IS holding, propping up, that line on our own backs.  We are the basic bottom line, and we deserve to have the system explained: honestly, which is also to say logically; in functional terms (words, not just pictures and icons) not jargon distracting us from reporting of costs across-the-board or other reports /filings which show whether or not the entity or entities issuing the “PR” and “Thought Leadership” have the basic integrity to operate above-board, not “under the radar.”   That means, operating compliant with state and federal laws governing their types of commerce, and able to tell the truth on their filings without being coaxed, coddled, or having their tax-exempt status threatened with revocation for non-filing.

These functional terms also should be used in complete sentences, not “sound-bytes.”  Complete sentences deliver meaning through the grammar which connects the basic parts in a meaningful (truthful, accurate) way.  For example, basic grammar:  Subject of a sentence, (generally held responsible for the main action), main verb (the action taken by the subject), and if it applies (for transitive verbs), “direct object” (receives the action).

Further detailed for a few paragraphs: In social policy promotion, even when complete sentences are even used instead of evocative but essentially meaningless noun-phrases are circulated (such as “Families in Transition” or “Building Healthy Places,” or “Closing the Achievement Gap” (etc.). too often a “subject” is referenced as taking action when it fact it’s a creation, a project — not a human person, a corporate person, and not a “partner.” That usage is “off” and it also systematic deception for the purposes of distraction from the identity of the real actors, and for purposes of persuasion (that is, “sales”).

In order to tell the difference between real and fake, people must grow up and understand that not all convincing website cartoon portrayals, entertaining though they may be, are the underlying business or government reality doing commerce (or business with public funds), and that the place to tell that difference is at the secretary of state (business entities search, locate and read the articles of incorporation, name-change history etc.), state-level charitable registries, and for IRS purposes, IRS listing of who is, who was but got revoked (and was or was not reinstated) and who just is NOT a tax-exempt entity while claiming to be or acting like one.  The presence or absence of many photos, a uniform color scheme, and lots of links, tells about someone’s resources to produce the same — but it doesn’t identify WHO is the filing entity, how large, how many parts to its whole, how old, and what other lines of work it may be in.

Parallel:  If one signs a lease or enters into a contract, would it not be important to identify with whom — a legal or not a legal entity (and its representatives)? But almost anything we do now is connected at many levels to with whom our own governments (plural) are already doing business, contracting and so forth.  Those contracts for payment depend on governments’ ability to tax and charge fees (etc.), raise money, deliver tax-exempt bonds for good causes (hospitals, schools, infrastructures)…  Should not the government/s funding all that also deliver with it functional databases on which we could access to research and at least basically comprehend the work projects? And read the “progress reports” (comprehensive financial statements) as tied to budgets connecting to real terms?

We are not getting that, and it’s (in my opinion) no different than attempting to keep owned human beings, i.e., slaves, unable to read and write, except so far and for only so many slaves as may be needed to manage the masters’ affairs, in which case they are encouraged to dominate, abuse, and betray their own, i.e., switch allegiance for survival reasons.

There are differences in quality and degree with the slavery characterizing U.S. and colonial histories — but is there a difference in principle, when the owned mainstream media and the politicians ALL do not discuss, when the points come up, comprehensive annual financial reports of the parts of government they represent, or when university centers, exercising considerable clout and paid-for-expertise in writing, research, publishing, and by association, presenting this on websites ending “*.edu” or *.org” — are untraceable at the university level as to their own finances, and the public isn’t even battering down the doors, metaphorically, to get the books published and in our hands and our children’s?

[Another analogy is the infamous South African Apartheid phrase regarding the degree to which education should be provided for the subjugated populations — enough to be “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” i.e., only sufficient enough for a social, economic niche.]

In showing images from this source (“South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid/For Educators“) for its short summary (it seems to be teachers’ aid) for convenience, note that the AOD (African On-line Digital) is a project of MSU (Michigan State University) and its College of Social Science’s “Matrix: The Center for Digital Humanities and Social Sciences and “, and that “democracy” is one form of government, and “republic” another. There’s definitely another  story in MSU’s “Matrix” and its funders– but not for this post..”

---

Separately, I’ve written (extensively) on parallels between the Cecil Rhodes legacy and how economic disparities based on race were entrenched in South Africa also, under Verwoerd and the USA’s 1996ff “TANF” (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, part of USA’s 1996 “PRWORA” (major restructuring of the Social Security Act of 1934), in both structure and apparent purposes. Look for it on my “Cold,Hard.Fact$” blog under posts (“The Long and Winding Rhodes,” “From Transvaal to TANF” and other posts).

---

In the 21st century (and leading up to it), what is today’s work equivalent of “hewers of wood and drawers of water” within the United States of America, in a telecommunications-reliant economy with an ongoing system of taxation/tax-exemption privileges derived from 1913, and the 1930s? … Should next generations be ALL shown how it works, or given any tools — or even the vocabulary to locate and use the tools — to comprehend that there’s still a separate and unequal system of (compulsory) education with even more inequity between its far fewer students and that found within the exclusively public school systems, at the “K12” levels, or (for example) what assets are being held, nationally and globally, in institutional funds ” for the good of all” instead of being handled for government to sustain itself through those investments alone?  

What would the world be like if the talk of equity were in fact, as honest as it sounds and took into account the differential between mass schooling and Ivy League feeder schools, with inherited and inter-married wealth continued decade after decade to help run society and all its major infrastructures, assets, AND public institutions?  While place-based philanthropy (unaccountable, really, to outsiders) continues to push for consolidated government agencies and controlled: housing, schooling, social services, education, healthcare, transportation options (and so forth).

Just curious….

Yet More Why This Format Now (Illustrated by some very recent and still relevant “finds”):

Posts for Q4 2017, that is October, November, and December, involved some “heavy lifting” of complex issues. Let me explain, briefly.

---

Posts for Q4 2017, that is October, November, and December, involved some “heavy lifting” of complex issues — if one’s not familiar (i.e., from following this blog, or somehow professionally) with the concepts of tracking nonprofits and their incubating or sponsoring foundations + public entities (federal, state or local — though there are other kinds of public entities) and where they intersect or coordinate with each other, targeting specific places — especially major metropolitan areas known to have income, justice, health, housing, and educational inequities ( or “disparities”), i.e., places [accurately] considered blighted, conflict-ridden, poor, or somehow ghettoized over the generations. To the extent these are blighted areas, or considered “blighted” people, from what I’ve been able to see, although this is morally wrong, these “communities” (a term not legally defined in the current geo-political governmental language — which lack of exact definition seems to be exactly WHY it’s in such major favor as “user-friendly” (to borrow from computer terminology, among others) and having major “curb appeal” (to borrow from real estate terminology) and through prolonged usage has come to, functionally, mean the exact OPPOSITE of what it implies — representative of local neighborhoods, communities, or places and accountable to them).

My writing and write-ups over time expose leakage in accountability for public funds and with that leakage (into the private sector), like leaks in any manufacturing process which might produce fumes, pollution or other toxins released into air, water, and ground, this leakage pollutes the concepts of justice, representative government.

These “fumes” are not so readily seen even when the effects may be felt or sensed; only diligently examining the “transmission systems” and their characteristics (if you will) exposes what’s going on between the justification of continuous taxation on the basis of government need and service to those governed — and where it’s simply been commandeered in parts, or segments (and who knows which ones without looking?) for private profits, and as part of the private profits, continuing to USE the supportive, contributing public, under the name and label of helping and protecting them, and holding the country together as a country.

My look-ups and write-ups are also a matter of showing where, in what areas, and how (as best as I’ve been able to tell, from where I stand and with what resources I have — basically, a small computer, internet access (NOT free or high-speed) and my time, public accountability is deliberately being dodged which is to say, truth has been sacrificed for expediency (and/or profit).

Much of this is a matter of language and simply knowing to look for areas of compliance when a website, whether (in the US) ending “*.org,” *.com,” “*.edu,” or even “*.gov” just doesn’t divulge certain things we have a right to know, and should want to know.  A website naturally has a domain name, often colorful logos, and mottos — but these are still advertising. Having a product (or website domain) name doesn’t necessarily show the producer.  When the products (and/or services) so closely parallel aspects of governmental services — and when the selling point is as a movement to correct or “transform” government to better deliver its services — we (“commoners”) have to get better at quickly locating the producers and in what sectors their main interests and loyalties lie.  When it comes to websites, verbally and mentally confusing the product WITH the producer by repeating the mischaracterizations before figuring out which is which, compounds the overall confusion.

When public/private partnerships create and fund intermediary-sized nonprofits (i.e., concentrating funding on that intermediary, which then disburses it according to pre-determined target areas or subject matter), after the intermediary level, systematically replicated, but still financially independent, filing independently, series of nonprofits labeled so as to address specific causes (transforming public education, preventing family violence or child abuse, closing the achievement gap (as reflected typically by race and/or immigration status), these causes are also closely aligned with major federal executive branch departments which make grants: AND hire subcontractors to assist direct government services, what is really being promoted is a “shifting of the paradigm,” including basic founding paradigms on which the nation’s laws (federal and state constitutions) rest.  It is being shifted consistently more and more towards the executive-branch agencies, and from there as well as from the federal level, more and more into private hands, while blurring the boundaries of who is responsible and accountable to the public.

These Executive Branch Federal Departments periodically change their names, but currently include: Health and Human Services, Education, HUD (Housing and Urban Development) Labor, Justice and the Department of State. HHS and DOE at the federal level date from the 1980s; the others I don’t know by memory (but could easily be checked). At the State levels, I have noticed more recent restructuring or renaming of those departments, beyond simply adding re-organizing/policy-re-aligning type offices underneath them.

At ALL points, however, the national receipts of personal (and corporate) income tax, as well as many others — sales taxes, or receipts from consuming some business entity run by, typically, at the state or county level (DMV, Clerks of the Courts – county levels, etc.) all contribute to the State resources, along with the Federal contributions.

So the basic governmental question becomes — where’s the “chain of evidence”  — by what routes, with how many intermediaries.  Related or corollary question (to ask, first, ourselves!) when the intermediaries are too many, too unaccountable or opaque in operations, or the entire structure JUST TOO BIG,  “Why do it THIS way and not, instead, just leave the money to start with at the points of entry– where earned, where people are living — and let (us) manage it within terms for which an account CAN and IS given us why it should be so managed?) Really, this is a matter of ownership.  If it’s OUR government entities, public institutions, and services being provided, there MUST be some accountability comprehensible to people without PhDs in accounting, public administration, law, or international finance.

Maintaining records and standards for keeping them (in this age, that MUST include electronically) identifying legal business endeavors in every state such that we may known when confronted with illegal ones, and, from the government entities perspective, posting financials visibly and comprehensively as well as accounting for them — and making their existence known to all students coming through public schools, and to the staff in them as well (I wonder how many take the time to read the financial statements when lobbying for pay increases, better working conditions, or nobly raising more funds privately to make up for what is not being provided as a public resource).

Spend enough time on my blog and you’ll quickly see where the public-access, FREE, on-line records within states and at the IRS level are not being presented in accessible ways (where flexible use reports can be run by anyone), nor are these historically complete in public form — nor are they stylistically consistent even within single databases, or even accurate.  The overall situation — despite how much data is there — I would describe as distressingly abominable!  Perhaps I’ll work on another “report card” listing these issues. Previously (2013) I’d even started a blog on it (“HHSGiveways/GovernmentShutdowns”).

Image 1 of 2 from my 6/30/2016 post, but referencing and quoting work from June 4, 2011.  This appears to be Futures w/o Violence talking about its new branding and expensive “digs” in the SF Praesidio, in terms of Thought Leadership and more…

For why it matters (and a link to it the HHS GiveAways/Government Shutdowns blog), see my “June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers, Pt. 3 of 3, with better formatting.” (which is a June 30, 2016 post…). Then, I was looking for who or what is “MPDI,” comment in passing on DAIP’s pretense to have been founded by MPDI when in fact, DAIP was simply a name change of DAIP (not a different organization!) and noticed (see towards the bottom) the changeover of one of the [four] special issue resource centers** (**for that term also see my very recent “Eight posts published Oct. 2017” post, look for some images and surrounding text referencing “SIRCs and NRCs” and the “NCJFCJ”) from “Family Violence Prevention Fund” to “Futures Without Violence,” to which this exclamation applied, and still does:

Image 2 of 2 from my 6/30/2016 post, but referencing and quoting work from 2011 (re: FVFP becoming Futures w/o Violence and its own “Thought Leadership, Action & Tribute” claims.”

(Quoting my June 30, 2016 post excerpts, see nearby two images🙂

“FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND” has changed its name — again.  … Not only do they have a new website (and obviously some good HTML help), they also have a new physical residence, high-profile for the SF area.

FIRST the family (through fathers) — NOW, the WORLD.  Come visit their Global Leadership Center at the Praesidio, and know that if you’re an American taxpayer, you helped build it ~~||~~… Lord help us, we have been sponsoring people who think they can stop war (often over economics) and that the public should support this concept.  They forgot the origins of the income tax, which was to wage it, and beyond that — the intent to change human nature (without its informed consent)…”