Thursday, February 28, 2013

The problem with government isn't just in Washington.

There's a place called "Mom's Kitchen" over near 5th Avenue, which closed in 2006 because the owner was ill. She later died of cancer. Because Mom's Kitchen had been a staple in the community for so many years, the city voted 4-3 to purchase it for $165,000.

The County Redevelopment Agency, who recommended the city not buy the property because of the city's budget issues, informed them it would cost roughly $280,000 to repair the building and bring it up to code.  The proposed sale generated a lot of press as many city residents felt the money could best be used elsewhere, and rightly so.  However, then-Mayor Pegeen Hanrahan, insisted the city should buy the property because it could be packaged with an area of proposed redevelopment. However, others within city agencies disputed that, saying that there had been little or no discussion of any requests for proposals to develop that area.



Four years later Mom's Kitchen sits in a familiar tiny lot, abandoned and rundown. It's such an unsafe structure that firefighters have been ordered not to go in if a fire breaks out. The city says the building has to be inspected in order to decide what to do with it but there are basically two options: make the structural repairs or tear it down.

Back in 2009 County Commissioner Rodney Long pushed long and hard to get the city to buy the property. Why? He says it was to protect the heritage but it just so happens that Long was the real estate agent for the woman who owned the building. She inherited it from her late husband who was the son of the original proprietor of the restaurant. People questioned Rodney Long's motives but he refused to discuss it. 

Gee...ya think?

One thing is for sure. At this moment, there are three city commissioners patting themselves on the back for a job well done. 

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

President Obama's non-profit "Organizing for Action" raises some serious questions.

Thanks to the New York Times story, "Obama Backers Seek Big Donors to Press Agenda", I've been doing some reading up on President Obama's new "Organizing for Action" which is designated by the IRS tax code as a social welfare organization. This means it is not subject to donation limits or other laws which govern PACs.  The Organization's mission is:
"to support the President in achieving enactment of the national agenda Americans voted for on Election Day 2012. OFA will advocate for these policies throughout the country and will mobilize citizens of all parties and diverse points to speak out for speedy passage and effective implementation of this program, including gun control, sensible environmental policies to address climate change and immigration reform."

According to the Times:
"The goal is to harness those resources in support of Mr. Obama’s second-term policy priorities, including efforts to curb gun violence and climate change and overhaul immigration procedures. Those efforts began Friday, when thousands of Obama supporters were deployed through more than 80 Congressional districts around the country to rally outside lawmakers’ offices, hold vigils and bombard Congress with e-mails and phone calls urging members to support stricter background checks for gun buyers."

The Organization claims it will:
"support the legislative agenda we voted on, train the next generation of grassroots organizers and leaders, and organize around local issues in our communities."

Okay so it sounds good so far, right? The President is using this non-profit organization as a means of getting his agenda out there and encouraging Americans to get involved in promoting said agenda, for the good of the American people. Volunteers in communities across America will send emails, make phone calls and bang on the doors of their elected officials to push for the enactment of the items on this agenda. We want people to be empowered and get more involved. We want them to care about what's going on around them. Also, we want our elected officials to pay attention to what the people have to say. 

That said, while immigration, the environment and gun control are issues that affect all of us (and they are issues important to OFA), the organization is essentially promoting a political agenda.  The site clearly states that it promoting the agenda the American people voted for in November 2012. OFA is in fact, an extension of the President, it embodies his values and ideals and its sole purpose is to promote his policies and get them into law. While in it's FAQ, OFA is firm that it is non-partisan and encourages people from all parties to take part in it, how could this organization appear, to the average person, as anything but a political organization?


I read up on the IRS rules governing social welfare organizations and it is broad when it comes to defining social welfare organizations. It states:
"[A]n organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the community."
"Organizations exempt under IRC 501(c)(4) may engage in germane lobbying activities without the restrictions imposed on IRC 501(c)(3) organizations."

The Tax Almanac probably explains the rules on social welfare organizations best:
"2) Promotion of social welfare—(i) In general. An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. An organization embraced within this section is one which is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements."
 "(ii) Political or social activities. The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. Nor is an organization operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare if its primary activity is operating a social club for the benefit, pleasure, or recreation of its members, or is carrying on a business with the general public in a manner similar to organizations which are operated for profit. "

So I wondered about the lobbying activities of 501(c)(4) organizations and I came across a PBS Frontline published a story in October 2012 and it wasn't pretty.
"While these nonprofits have always been allowed to lobby for change, in 1959, regulators opened the door to political activity by interpreting “exclusively” to mean that groups had to be “primarily” engaged in social welfare and helping the community.

But regulators never defined exactly how they would measure this balance. Part of the reason, said Marcus Owens, a former head of the IRS division overseeing nonprofits, is because the IRS didn’t want to limit what it could evaluate in deciding what was political activity.

However, the lack of clarity has created a unique type of organization when it comes to politics — chief among those differences being what the public must be told about these nonprofits’ donors."


In addition, Pro Publica published a story in August 2013 titled "How Nonprofits Spend Millions on Elections and Call it Public Welfare" in which they expose the gaping holes in the 501(c)(4) law and how its broad interpretation leads to inappropriate activity. ProPublica's investigation found that a number of 501(c)(4) organizations have misused their status. One of the problems:
"To receive the tax exemption, groups were supposed to be "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare." The IRS later opened the door to some forms of political activity by interpreting the statute to mean groups had to be "primarily" engaged in enhancing social welfare. But neither the tax code nor regulators set out how this would be measured."

The thing that keeps creeping up here is accountability. There isn't any.
Is this or is this not a lobbying group?  Its website says there will no participation in elections nor endorsement of any candidate but if you're making phone calls and sending emails and banging down doors in Washington (and at the state and local level) to get the President's agenda into law, you are essentially lobbying. You are using whatever legal means necessary to get legislators to vote for your cause. The OFA says it will pay salaries. Whose salaries? What will they be doing? What type of relationship will those being paid, or the volunteers have with anyone in the government?

And what about the donors? There are no restrictions on how much an individual can donate, nor are there restrictions on who can donate. However, the Organization has a self-imposed rule of not accepting donations from:
 "registered lobbyists or foreign agents, political action committees, or foreign nationals, including foreign governments or foreign political parties. It will welcome support from all other supporters of its work. As a nonprofit organization organized for this social welfare purpose, it may accept donations of any size from those eligible to give."

The Organization is hosting a "Founders Summit" in DC where donors who give $50,000 mingle with the President's former campaign manager. Donors who give $500,000 will have the opportunity to become part of the President's National Advisory Board and will attend four meetings per year meetings with the President.

The Times reports:
"Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships."

Again, why am I telling you this?


It is very important that the American people know who bends the ears of our elected officials. The people have the right to know who is influencing the elected officials. It is clear in this case that individuals who donate the most money to this organization will have the ear of the President and others in the White House, and they thus they will have some kind of influence. What we want is transparency, as the President has been preaching since his first election. Whether we are going to get it or not in this matter is yet to be determined in an administration that is not very good at the transparency thing, just ask Washington Lawyer Katherine Meyer who has filed FOIA requests for over 30 years and has never seen more barriers thrown at her than she has with the current administration.

How can the Organization justify taking unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations and then giving special consideration to the wealthiest donors? This is the antithesis of what President Obama is all about. He is about fighting for the little guy, the underdog, the poor, the unemployed, the middle class, the sick, the disabled, the elderly and the children. How do you think it appears to the guy making $10 an hour trying to support a family of five after his wife has been laid off from her job, when the President gives his attention to wealthy donors, asking them for their input on social issues (remember it is a social welfare organization) rather than asking the hardworking men and women out there in the trenches every day living and breathing the hardships.

Of course in his defense, who do you want the President seeking advice from? Your average blue collar worker or a wealthy Harvard graduate who owns a Fortune 500 company? In his defense I'd say that he's seeking advice from people he feels can best help him promote his agenda, the agenda that, in the end, is supposed to promote a better life, a better nation, for all of us. The bottom line is money talks.

I think it's a great idea to encourage Americans to get involved and promote the social welfare of this nation. We need more people actively engaged and involved in the government and in their communities. An educated and informed citizenry makes a better and more prosperous nation for all of us. However...beware the price we might have to pay for that.

If it wants to remain legitimate and earn the respect of the American people, Organizing for Action needs to not only come clean with the information on its donations but it needs to enact a strict policy that donors, regardless of how much they donate, will not be granted positions on any national advisory board. They will not be granted special meetings with the President. If they want to donate to the cause because they care, let them do so and send them a thank-you note but Organizing for Action should make it very clear, in no uncertain terms, that there will be no, absolutely no granting of any special privileges, period.

That my friends...is transparency, or at least a step in the right direction.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Because having the right to vote just isn't enough for some people...

So, this happened...

Last night President Obama stated,
"When any American -- no matter where they live or what their party -- are denied that right because they can't wait for five or six or seven hours just to cast their ballot, we are betraying our ideals.

So, tonight, I'm announcing a nonpartisan commission to improve the voting experience in America. And it definitely needs improvement. I'm asking two long-time experts in the field -- who, by the way, recently served as the top attorneys for my campaign and for Governor Romney's campaign -- to lead it. We can fix this. And we will. The American people demand it, and so does our democracy."

Oh GOD, another nonpartisan commission?

Okay first, this is a map of absentee and early voting in the United States:  http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx  and as you can see there are a few states which have no early voting and only allow absentee with an excuse and we states where they have early voting but you can't vote absentee without an excuse. Those state legislatures need to take up the matter to help shorten those waiting times on election day. However, that is NOT for the federal government to handle because there is NO denial of anyone's right to vote. Now, what we have is that some people can't get to the polls between 7 am and 7 pm however the individual is NOT being denied the right to vote. If your employer won't let you off work to vote, tell them to fuck off and then go vote. If your vote is important to you, you do what Americans have done since the birth of this nation, you FIND A WAY! Afterwards, you can always sue your employer for something. Of course there's no law against being an asshole but hey, you can try.

Second, Desiline Victor, the 102 year old matriarch from Miami who stood in line for three hours at her polling place claims she was told she could return later in the day to cast her vote. We are told there were "frustrating road blocks presented before her."  Really? With all due respect, Florida, for all its election insanity, allows three types of voting: standing in line at the polls on election day, absentee voting, and early voting. Now, some people REFUSE to do absentee or early voting because they do not believe it's not as patriotic as standing in line for hours. Whatever. That's their choice, but a vote is a vote no matter how you cast it and really that's all we give a shit about, whether or not we can cast our vote, not how it's done. So if you choose to stand three hours in line, despite the fact that could have voted any other time including by mail, then don't bitch and gripe when you have to wait.

So, why was the lovely (and God Bless her!) centenarian Ms. Victor even at the SOTU this evening? Well...if you're going to sell the idea that people are systematically being denied the right to vote, who better to use as an example of that than an elderly African-American female?  Hey I don't like it any more than you do, but what other reason could there be?

 And if that wasn't bad enough, we had to wake up this morning to find out that Bill Nelson and Barbara Boxer are moving forward on this ridiculous push to enact legislation mandating no more than a one-hour wait at the polls. The "LINE Act" calls for "national standards for polling sites. The goal is to ensure that no voter waits longer than an hour to cast a ballot."

According to Nelson, “In the interest of fairness and to avoid undermining the credibility of our elections, we should be making voting more convenient, not more difficult,” Nelson said Tuesday. “People should not have to stand in line for hours to exercise a basic right, not in a democracy like ours.”

GOOD GOD MAN! ARE YOU SERIOUS?


Listen, I'm all for encouraging states with no early voting to implement it, I think it's a great idea, but really...the idea of a law that require keeping the wait under an hour? Damnit, are we, as a nation, really that spoiled? Do these people bitching about having to wait in line to vote realize that in many countries around the world people stand in line much longer than a few hours to vote. You don't hear them complaining. Why? Because they're just thankful to be able to vote in the first damn place!

Saturday, February 02, 2013

All immigrations ideas on the table? Here's mine..it's both simple and feasible.

The so-called "Gang of Eight" has come up with a plan to solve our illegal immigration problem and yet...it doesn't really matter until we secure the border. 

Think of it this way...

  • If you cut yourself pretty seriously working outside, would you just throw a bandage on it and let it be and go back to your work? Or would you take care of it properly by cleaning the wound, followed by bandaging to avoid infection?
  • If you had a hole in your roof, would you repair the damage it left inside the home first? Or would you fix the hole on the outside first, then then deal with cleaning up the inside mess? 
  • If your child were acting up in school, would you simply punish the child and hope he or she doesn't do it again? Or would you sit down and talk to your kid about the problem in an attempt to try to figure out what's causing the bad behavior?

You get my point. In all three of these examples, the right answer is getting to the root of the problem first, then going back and taking care of the rest.

I already came up with a plan to secure the border years ago, although I'm sure most politicians wouldn't like it because it's "too simple". I'll be dismissed for not understanding the complexities of the problem. Well, as I recall Reagan promised to address the border issue in 1986 when we granted amnesty, and 27 years later we've still got no plan.  For what it's worth, here's mine:

1) The border between US and Mexico is 1,969 miles long. Build a fence that works, from one end to the other.

2) Station a US soldier every half mile, that's 3,938 soldiers. What? We're short on soldiers, you say? Pull them out of Afghanistan and let them come home and serve their duty here. These soldiers will utilize foot and motorized patrols within their assigned areas.

3) Establish posts every 5-10 miles along the border where soldiers eat, sleep and maintain communications with other posts and headquarters.  This would allow soldiers the ability to get to and from posts in a hurry. Total number of posts - 393.

4) Establish headquarters units every 100 miles which = roughly 19 HQ units. Each HQ unit supervises the posts within its jurisdiction. Also, housing, food, and medical care should be available here not just for soldiers but for the illegals that are captured. We don't have to leave them to die out there. Before we send them back we can treat them humanely. It's the right thing to do.

5) Rotate the soldiers duty every year. Give every soldier an opportunity to serve in the one-year post. Hell, include EVERY military service if necessary. I served in the Coast Guard and we were definitely no strangers to dealing with illegal immigrants.

6) What do we do with border patrol? Have the work jointly with the soldiers stationed at the border.

7) Don't use unmanned drones to replace human beings, use them to assist. Live human beings patrolling the border are still the most effective means of preventing illegal border crossings.

How will we pay for this? Seriously? We've got bases all over the world, troops all over the place. Bring some of them home, especially those who have been away from their families for so long. We're paying these soldiers anyway, all we're doing is relocating them. Also, we spend a lot of money on a lot of nonsense in this country, time to take some of it and finish the fence, build the necessary structures and manpower required for this project.

In the meantime, while we're doing all of the above, we can put into place measures to deal with the illegal immigrants already here. However, nothing starts before we have an effective plan to seal the border. Any plan that does not include this and place it as the #1 priority is not a sensible plan.