Posts Tagged ‘Who PRWORA welfare reform really helps ~ in practice’
Health Systems Still Flushing Cash into — WHERE is it going again? (About 20 Years AFTER Tobacco Master Settlement Agreements, Other Tobacco Tax Revenues like Prop 10 in California Propping Up Public/Private “First 5” Circuitry) [May-June, 2019, Publ. Sept. 18].
Another post held in draft now being released… From its contents below:
This post punctuates the overall message with the vastness of systems change 1999-2019 IN ADDITION TO major changes mid-1990s due to Welfare Reform + VAWA (also especially advancing public relations consultants and media owners), both …set up two decades ago.
Sure, it takes some concentration to follow, but no apologies offered! Concentration is a helpful quality in life, as well as judgment on what to focus on and for how long!
Another choice quote from this post:
This fills in some of the billion-dollar-background context which sheds light on what the intense focus on “Zero to Three” “First 5” and “Early Childhood Education” special interest group coalition leaders know well that probably has escaped substantial notice of the paying public.
The coalitions happen at university and state leadership area backed by philanthropies (tax-exempt foundations) that often just do not even post their own financials, let alone post them in both legible and functional formats.
I wouldn’t dare make that last sentence if I hadn’t found it, repeatedly. Really, the situation is shocking.
One foundation associated with a center listed below, at some point during recent drill-downs, I found claiming to have donated over a four-year period a total of one million dollars to an organization which actual organization (by its name) was at the time IRS-revoked status in Florida, while the foundation tax return recorded a Massachusetts address, as I recall, directly associated with this center, i.e., with Harvard. (Foundation: Alliance for Early Success, which is listed as an investor in the center). Not posted here; that’s just my comment. If you want to see this, start looking for and looking up tax returns, then looking up among their larger grantees! I do not recall offhand whether I actually published any post containing that drill down, but probably have provided some links to it within the last three months)
Why posting this now, a bit out of sequence from recent themes? Take a look at it below! Would YOU go to all that trouble and detail and not publish? It also contains summary (first) and many valuable points of reference, I feel, below that.
It helps provide an overview of a system which the originators of the system so far have not and do not seem inclined to offer the public, from the perspective of expecting systems for fiscal accountability to exist within the United States, even in the tax-exempt sector, which we all know is interacting significantly with the public sector, which we fund every time we work and receive a paycheck, and in countless other ways when receiving or seeking services or accessing ANY of the vast infrastructure privately owned by the federal and state governments (as to USA) which frame our lives continually.
I see on reviewing this one just before publishing that in addition to the topic referenced, I’d also just recently run across “Harvard Center on the Developing Child” which intersects with subject matter of the family courts because of the psychology/education/early-childhood subject matter and professions organized, generally, into private societies by geography or special interests, so often accessing U.S. Health and Human Services grants and contracts.
THIS POST’s TITLE: Health Systems Still Flushing Cash into — WHERE is it going again? (About 20 Years AFTER Tobacco Master Settlement Agreements + Other Tobacco Tax Revenues like Prop 10 in California Propping Up Public/Private “First 5” Circuitry) [May-June, 2019, Published Sept. 18]. (Shortlink ending “-aaH,” and (unbelievably) under 5,000 words)
SUBJECT MATTER CONTEXT: The most closely related post was published August 7, 2019 (which no longer shows on the “Last Ten Posts” widgets shown below as images or on the blog sidebar): A Health System Flush With Cash — because ‘Smoking Causes Cancer’ (1998 Tobacco Class Action Litigation MSA Payments, and Tobacco-Related Taxes Impact ‘in perpetuity’ on Systems Affecting Family Courts) ((Begun Early June; Publ. Aug. 7, 2019) post short-link ends “-a6m.” Currently 5,200 words, having just been shortened (split), but this one is still a bit complex. Following the funds has been made complex. Last update, Sunday, August 11, 2019.
I’ve been trying to get out a “By Now We Should Know” post for almost two months now, while trying to deftly knit together some complex information as a backdrop to that basically simple post.
LGH|FCM post (pre-publict’n) Admin, ‘Health Systems Still Flushing w Cash’ Last Revs 3 months ~|~ 3 wks ago (June vs Aug 2019) (see June22 published post) ~~SShot 2019-09-18
LGH|FCM Sidebar ‘Last Ten Posts’ viewed in 2 images ~~>Screen Shot 2019-09-18 (Image #1 of 2)
[Sept. 19, 2019 Pre-Publication UPDATE: “By Now We Should Know” was published June 22, 2019.]
Meanwhile, I’ve also been working on blog front-page and trying to stay current with developing (family court legislative reform and government restructuring) events. (See small image, below-right)
I could just show here an image of the top of “By Now We Should Know” but feel it’s more helpful to provide it in-post, with active links. So this post (otherwise complete at under 5,000 words) starts below with an updated section, added Sept. 18, 2019, after which I have published it basically “as-is” meaning, as it was, as written (last previous edit) August 28, 2019).
LGH|FCM Sidebar ‘Last Ten Posts’ viewed in 2 images ~~>Screen Shot 2019-09-18 (Image #2 of 2)
I’m also posting FYI here from the blog sidebar (as of today) annotated images to show the last ten posts reflecting some of the current content and (back through Aug. 15, 2019) the one most recently dealing with this Health System Flush With Cash” (see nearby, one on the left, the other on the right)…
This information is of course easy to see now (without annotation) under that sidebar widget; I’m including here only for future reference, for anyone including myself who may be reading this post possibly months or a year or more from now). That situation comes up from time to time, as you’ll see below where I reference the “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan topic” I posted on earlier, and how large an impact it had on the US economy (for starters) in the 1980s and 1990s. Basic concepts to keep in mind and timeframes to remember (i.e., those LBO leveraged buyout years, major players, and more)…//LGH Sept. 19, 2019.
TOP SECTION, “BY NOW WE SHOULD KNOW” (encased in red borders, cream-colored background, with “Two Helpful Links” configuration also shown (as on that post)), published June 22, 2019:
“By Now We Should Know!” (Impromptu Re-cap of Key Players addressing [how to handle] Domestic Violence especially as it impacts Family Courts) (Apr 28 ~> June 22, 2019). (short-link ending “-9NU,” post drafted as insert to “More Perspectives” in late April, under 4,000 words, for starters…). (now exactly 6,000 words; latest revisions for clarity and extra links, 6/23/2019).
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
If Dog-Fighting, Cock-Fighting, and Exploiting Prisoners as Gladiators (resulting in shooting deaths for some, and “hundreds of shootings,” not to mention fight-related injuries for others) is “BAD,” then why isn’t also Federal (PRWORA-based) and State (Family Courts) Policy with similarly staged, high-stakes conflicts — rigged for intended outcomes, and obviously potentially lethal for the combatants and, periodically, bystanders — on a far larger stage (national, and in some high-profile cases, international), also involving known criminally violent** fathers and their children’s mothers, AND young children of all ages? [Published Dec. 17, 2017]
The “parent post” also dealt in part with guns and groups seeking to reduce death by gun violence. I guess they just weren’t thinking in terms of, “of prisoners, by prison guards…” Its title:
This is a short (ca. 6,700 words or so) aside to that post, and a link to return to the parent post above is provided again at the bottom. There may be some repetition as I added documentation and examples to the text before publishing.
It originates in making references of these topics as analogies for the situation I am most deeply concerned about, the macro-economic, system-wide practice of the same power blocs setting up artificial, high-stakes and sometimes life-and-death conflicts especially between men and women overall, and between individual men and women who are mothers and fathers of children in common, while demanding the public fund both sides (the public as taxpayers and through other service consumption of governmental business enterprises, including accessing the courts, registering vehicles yearly, marriage licenses even, continues to pay “up front”)
Many men and women can handle themselves without hurting or destroying each other economically or physically, and not all men and women, on divorcing, use their children as pawns or take them as hostages. But WHEN some do, it seems to be “game time” for others. It’s “show time.” All can be manipulated, and the longer the conflict goes on, the higher the bills, the more civil and legal rights concessions are demanded of them (and the larger public), the higher the stakes and the greater the risks of those personally involved — yet these concessions are often described as the intended methodologies to change the outcome.
But doing so directly is contrary to our self-impressions of the country and view that we have a possibly functional system of laws and courts. The influences are from the sidelines, from outside specific jurisdiction of family courts involved, and these influences come from Congress and the White House (which expends funding allocated to it by Congress, i.e., that budget) and are applied through, as the title above says, a real “money maze” — sometimes direct to the states, sometimes direct to nonprofits within the state but involved in the courts, and sometimes otherwise.
That’s why I say the game is “rigged.” It’s not a level playing field, and its rules can be altered year to year, and situation to situation — and that’s the way some people like it. Rather than SETTLING the standards by the law, with a preference throughout of NOT prioritizing privilege for violators of penal codes when there are two parents and one is a violator and the other, not.
Rather than just having fair laws and enforcing them fairly.
We (so to speak) also already exploit at least federal prisoners for slave labor, through FPI (Federal Prison Industries) a.k.a. Unicor (and have since the 1930s), which is also referenced here near the bottom, but not in this post’s title, which reads:
QUESTION: What’s bad when found to have occurred in secret, in confined and closed quarters from which combatants cannot escape, and involving animals (whether dogs or roosters with spurs) or when it happens in prisons with caged men, and in ALL of the above resulting in serious injury and sometimes death, not to mention being “exploitation, defined,” ….
LA times 4/24/2000, by Staff writer Max Arax, “Guards on Trial in Corcoran Shootings blame Prisoners
…Pointing the finger at a vast group of prisoners with no faces or voices in the federal courtroom, the defense is using the government’s own witnesses to put Corcoran’s violent culture on trial. Sounding at times like prosecutors themselves, attorneys for the eight guards are also blaming official state policy handed down from Sacramento for the thousands of fights between inmates and the hundreds of shootings by guards during a six-year reign of terror at the San Joaquin Valley prison.
Beginning in 1989, defense attorneys contend, the state’s integrated yard and shooting policies required guards to mix rival inmates from different street gangs and then to fire at them with deadly force if they refused to stop fighting.
…why is the same basic routine under “family-friendly policy,” and when the forced interaction with known dangerous persons frequently happens WITHOUT armed guards or trained personnel nearby but WITH women and children, boys or girls nearby — in fact sometimes without even any authority supervising the exchange, but the exchange is still court-ordered, forced after reasons for separation or requested protection are on record as domestic violence or child abuse — somehow justified as moral, ethical, and as “American” as (well, what should we say, truthfully — as American as slavery? or as indentured servitude based, this season, meaning, this past half-century minimum, on parent gender?)?
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
How many “governments” are there? What do they do? What’s the Collective Cost? Example, funding of NFLG (Nat’l Fatherhood Leaders Group, in DC) and others [Publ. Jan. 14, 2014; Shortlink added July 31, 2023].
This post, in draft since 12/17/2013, is hereby posted about a month later (1/14/2014) in the context of If we don’t even know who government is, how can we know where the money goes?
How many “governments” are there? What do they do? What’s the Collective Cost? Example, funding of NFLG (Nat’l Fatherhood Leaders Group, in DC) and others [Publ. Jan. 14, 2014; Shortlink added July 31, 2023].” (short-link ends “-2aQ”. Next-door post at this link recommended review (even at the late date of July 31, 2023).
And, I added some more examples to the “certainly aren’t staying incorporated” factor of certain groups.
While I’m hitting pretty hard (it’s appropriate) on the “IRS tax-exempt status involuntarily revoked” pattern of KEY and STILL-CITED fatherhood groups, resulting in “lost funds” (public is clueless where they went–into pockets, for kickbacks or other bribes, or for who knows what), the original section was still follow-up on the U.S. Census of Governments link — which I’m splitting it into a second post….
(Here,) I literally searched the IRS Select-Exempt Organization Site (nationwide), filtered for “Involuntarily Revoked” and the word “fatherhood” (and no other words) and stood back in awe at just how many results met this category.
Whether or not they all got funding, or never got funding, it still shows that forming such groups, then dropping their status was a fashionable practice!
Groups are coaching other groups in how to form up such nonprofits to go after the grants. Who’s minding the shop, then once they turn that waterspout of federal fountains ON? [[@LGH update July 31, 2023; both sentences still apply. Who’s minding the waterspout now — anyone among the public consuming or subjected to their respective/collective services?]].
…If we don’t know how many governments, how can we know where the money goes? And guess what: “government” and the groups it funds (nonprofits) don’t stay HONEST voluntarily.
My point is to point out these loopholes — and say, we (plural, collective, more people — lots of people) have to talk about this!
Here’s Ron Haskins (in some ways “Mr. Welfare Reform”) himself posted under:
[The Logo is the Link, to his biography under this group’s website] Ron Haskins is a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution and senior consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore. From February to December of 2002 he was the senior advisor to the president for welfare policy at the White House.c Prior to joining Brookings and Casey in 2000, he spent 14 years on the staff of the House Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee, first as welfare counsel to the Republican staff, then as the subcommittee’s staff director. [[timeline: translates to from about 1986 – 2000, i.e., past two terms of a Democratic U.S. Presidential Administration, i.e., former US President Bill Clinton]] From 1981-1985, he was a senior researcher at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He also taught and lectured on history and education at UNC, Charlotte and developmental psychology at Duke University. Haskins was the editor of the 1996, 1998, and 2000 editions of the Green Book, a 1600-page compendium of the nation’s social programs published by the House Ways and Means Committee that analyzes federal social programs and domestic policy issues including health care, poverty, and unemployment. Haskins has also co-edited several books, including Welfare Reform and Beyond: The Future of the Safety Net (Brookings, 2002), The New World of Welfare (Brookings, 2001) and Policies for America’s Public Schools: Teachers, Equity, and Indicators (Ablex, 1988), and has contributed to numerous books and scholarly journals on children’s development and social policy issues. He is also the author of Work Over Welfare: The Inside Story of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (Brookings, 2006).
He has lent his name and clout to NFLG. Look for the similar yellow-box below and you’ll find out, the group incorporated a certain time, had its nonprofit status INVOLUNTARILY REVOKED by the IRS in 2010, kept functioning throughout (apparently without a hitch – PROBABLY BECAUSE NO ONE BOTHERED TO CHECK WHEN FACED WITH RESPECTABLE (WHETHER LIKED OR DISLIKED) AUTHORITY FIGURES, SUCH AS THIS ONE!!!). You will also see that the same characteristic likely applies to some of the outfits (corporations/nonprofits) IRS Select Exempt Organization Check [read intro paragraphs carefully, they are self-explanatory on the three categories of data you can search] shows it didn’t file tax returns for three years in a row, to get to this “Revoked” status! more similar organizations listed below: First date is effective revocation, second, the date it was published by the IRS on their “involuntarily revoked” list:
[[2017 update: The logo doesn’t display because “NFLGonline.com” isn’t a current link.]]
| 45-4542131 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD LEADERS GROUP | WASHINGTON | DC | 20001 | US | 00 | 15-May-2010 | 12-Nov-2012 |
ALSO listed on the board of this NFLG (see list); in fact, this habit is a character trait of the entire field, as I have pointed out before on this blog, and demonstrate again by an expansion of “Fatherhood” nonprofits who got their IRS status revoked within the last few years — which means over 5 years of non-filing. Whether the last name is Haskins, Ballard, or Stoica (California Healthy Marriage Coalition) or some of their spouses, or famous-female-friends, such as those on WIFI (Women In Fatherhood Inc).
So, when you get the next paycheck (if the shoe fits, i.e., you have a job that issues some!) or buy something at the store which has a “tax” category — remember that, where it goes — nobody knows (unless — they find out! = learn how to find out and follow through!). Happy New Year 2014, yours truly, Let’s Get Honest
(and there’s a Donate button on the right side to help support this work, and I’m NOT a nonprofit, either. I filed a corporation in 2011 in hopes to find a way to make a living which didn’t require a geography I cannot protect from stalking, assaults, and ill-timed frivolous lawsuits, child-stealing events and other trauma-inducing (and unprovoked) behaviors. ….I am on the phone daily (most days, that’s 7 a week) speaking to others going through similar situations and encouraging/teaching to follow up on the funding; usually these are people who read the blog, or read my comments on other blogs keeping this information at least on the radar in the “family court” and “domestic violence” blogs — those not dominated, of course, by industry professionals. I approach it as professionally as anyone in my situation could. From the sidebar:
[[Also — because so few people are tracking what happens to the grants. If they are not followed, if public funding isn’t understood — then they very easily could be used for kickbacks, bribes, or anything else — not necessarily just for private fun and pleasure on the conference circuit. It is a PUBLIC responsibility to participate in the checks and balances of power towards government. This is most effectively done with at least a LITTLE basic concepts and instruction on how it works, and what’s been done, the ability look at some of the obvious and call it what it is! Of course it takes time, but stopping money-laundering is worth the time!! ]]
For “Ballard” (Charles Augustus), do a google search on “Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Neighborhood Revitalization” — and ONLY my link is going to be talking grants accountability and corporate records. (The link also looked up as best I could at the time, the clearinghouse in its title, which led me to Mr. Braswell (also NFLG membership) and HIS corporate/incorporation wanderings — and also below, I show how fatherhood funding can be “facilitated” through Social Services Flexible Fund account, in fact — good luck ever trying to follow the trail, but I have left some footprints. The question ought to arise — as our country is OBVIOUSLY dumping money to dishonest corporations run, often enough, by civil servants and/or respected professionals — who can we quit funding the “pump, slush, and come back for some more” process, and at which point in the process?
“National” “Responsible” “Fatherhood” “Clearinghouse” – Let’s Get Honest
and I did blog earlier, as well as more on the corporate habits of another NFLG board member (who is probably also still? a public employee over at the New York State ODTA, and the contact for a state-funded fatherhood initiative): Kenneth Braswell – Bio Father’s Incorporated Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 