Attacks continue on Trump supporters

RESOLVE used to be primarily focused on violent extremism, particularly Islamic. Now through its subgroup, Racially and Ethnically Motivated Extremism (REMVE), it is focusing on so called "white supremacists." As the Biden administration defines them-anyone who supported Trump (not in the REMVE mission statement, but the media has explained that to us for 4 years).

Just as freely elected Adolf Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag in early 1933 as an excuse to become a dictator, the Democrats are using the attack on the Capitol building. They see it as their opportunity to label all of us who either supported Trump (black, white, Asian, Hispanic), or who believe our election rules need to be examined in light of the pandemic induced mailed ballot fiasco, as dangerous. They know better, but it sells well, (so did Hitler's excuse) and it is being used to shut us down on social media. Democrats now in control of 3 branches are joining forces with the oligarchs in Big Tech. They are the ones, not the Trump supporters, who are in dangerous territory, as history shows. Free markets, no new wars, prison reforms, and lower taxes do not define a leader of a free society as a fascist or racist. But stomping on free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly does. An impeachment with no evidence and no trial certainly does. Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism (REMVE) (resolvenet.org)

There are white supremacists, I'm sure, just as there are black power advocates, BLM members, Antifa disruptors and anarchists. But I'd like to see something about how they are funded compared to the billions that BLM has raked in since the Floyd death in Minneapolis and the burning and looting of Democrat controlled cities the past 8 months. They are a miniscule group, and they haven't caused the spike in murders and property crime that the anarchists on the Left have caused. We know the FBI has infiltrated them, that's their job, but where were they on January 6? Creating the problem?

Using ethnicity or religion as an excuse to tamp down legitimate protests is an old, old, trick of tribal leaders, Czars, monarchists, totalitarians, and apparently American presidents.

RESOLVE is not a U.S. government agency, it's an international dot net organization supported by our taxes that is used as a revolving door for various academics and politicians from a variety of nations. It is attached to the much older USIP established in 1984. "RESOLVE is housed at the U.S. Institute of Peace, building upon the Institute’s decades-long legacy of deep engagement in conflict-affected societies." Although I've never made a study of the various peace/conflict resolution non-profits, I suspect we've never had as many wars since these entities sprang up after WWI and WWII. It does "research."

If you have the time, you can click on all the logos (I hate that instead of an easy to read list) of international organizations connected to this 501-C-3, the advisory board, and research council. I'd need some other FBF to work through all them. It's just one "tiny" group now shifting focus to U.S. citizens they don't like and fear.

Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism (REMVE) (resolvenet.org)

The obligatory inclusive statement:

“RESOLVE is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion in its operations and products. We welcome and actively seek contributions from all backgrounds, ethnicities, races, gender identifications, and areas of expertise to build a fair, balanced, inclusive, and representative knowledge base on violent extremism and beyond. RESOLVE strives to elevate the work of diverse and underrepresented voices through inclusiveness in its membership, contracting and hiring practices, research conceptualization, literature reviews and publications, and capacity building activities.”

I’ll just bet they don’t want my contribution, background, ethnicity, or age—which is not part of this IED statement.

Government the big winner of CARES

Government, not businesses and workers, is the big winner in the stimulus package. Out of $2 Trillion I’m thinking about ¼ goes right back to government agencies—federal, state, local. I saw two very minor examples in the last 5 minutes just looking through my mail.

1) The Dean of the Library School at U of I (my school, and it has a different name now) Eunice Santos did a study published as a chapter in a technology proceedings in 2013 on the 2009 pandemic which originated in Mexico (and from her photo and name she is Hispanic), and it has been resurrected as some sort of modeling technique for this covid pandemic. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/8711/1/Modeling-emergent-border-crossing-behaviors-during-pandemics/10.1117/12.2018201.short?SSO=1 What this has to do with libraries, I have no idea, but I do know there will now be more funding.

2) And here’s another: “April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month.  Child abuse takes place in every part of the population and takes many forms.  Children suffer from neglect, endure physical and sexual abuse, are exploited by pornographers and sex traffickers, and become collateral victims of drug abuse and other types of maltreatment every single day in America.  Fortunately, Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs) across the nation are providing critical services to these young victims and helping to safeguard their legal rights, especially during this national COVID-19 pandemic.”

Obviously, this tragedy of child abuse and sex trafficking takes place every day and night, but there will be more money to study the other studies because of Covid19. And Mexicans fleeing Mexico during the 2009 pandemic will somehow be considered relevant to a model of the Covid19 pandemic—although no one will ever read it—it will be funded as part of this package.

Please, Mr. President, stop the insanity and put people back to work and get them off the government dole before the government sops up all the aid.

https://www.ncsl.org/ncsl-in-dc/publications-and-resources/coronavirus-stimulus-bill-states.aspx

Reasons to build the wall

The main objections I hear from Democrats about the wall they were in favor of in 2006, but not in 2017-18 (because Trump is president) are, 1) it won't work, 2) the cost, and 3) it's racist. Let's briefly touch on racism. Border security is not and never was, racist. If it were racist all security methods would also be racist. Even the locks on your doors and automobiles. We wouldn't have security at our northern borders or our airports if protecting borders were racism. During the Obama years, Border Patrol was apprehending illegals from high risk countries coming in from Canada (164 in 2011), and they weren't Canadians, most were recent Muslim immigrants to Canada.

If we judged government programs/policies by cost or whether they work, Head Start, which costs about $10.6 Billion in programing and $5.7 Billion in childcare (2017), would have been dropped years ago. No party will even touch that idea.

It was like pulling teeth to get an impact study (begun in 1998, data collection began in 2002, reported in 2010), but after billions and billions spent on Head Start since 1965, the final impact study showed some social and intellectual advancement in the pre-school years which was lost by the end of first grade. The final study, done by the government and analyzed out the wazoo, showed a huge workforce was paid, children had moderate to good day care, better health care, but the goals of the program were not met. The Head Start children on average did no better than the control group which did NOT receive all those benefits of a government pre-school. Even after a decade of study, the conclusion was--we need more study, more analysis, more explanations, and more money.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/executive_summary_final.pdf

If high costs and no discernable results are good enough for Head Start for 50+ years, it should be good enough for at least a decade of border security.

Transfer of wealth

Just heard a Social Security defender on Fox News say that for every $1 in benefits, Social Security payments generate $2 in the economy. What about the two workers paying in for every retiree drawing Social Security? Some working for minimum wage at Wal-Mart or McDonald’s.  How would they be spending that money taken from them? This is generational transfer from the young to the old, not drawing on an investment or "trust fund.”

Both the working poor and the upper income rich have their wealth transferred to the middle class, the group that is the beneficiary directly and indirectly of most government policies and taxes, many for the misnamed War on Poverty, (but Social Security is probably the oldest and best example). According to the catalog of federal domestic assistance, there are 2,199 Federal assistance programs and most benefit the middle class either directly, or by employment. HHS has 19 offices and 461 programs; each with its own bureaucracy. Please don't blame Obama for this, or any political party.

Does the federal government really need "To maintain and expand existing markets for dairy which are vital to the welfare of milk producers in the United States." We still have "separate but equal" when it comes to Indians and anyone who is 1/4 Indian, with federal grants galore, including Tribal Colleges and Universities. For 50 years the federal government has been funding "conciliation and mediation services" to local groups to reduce "tensions, conflicts, and civil disorders arising from actions, policies, and practices that are perceived to be based on race, ethnicity, or national origin." Imagine the community organizers who live well on that one! And yet 93% of murdered blacks are killed by other blacks, mostly young with no racial or ethnicity motives.

A tiny percentage of federal grant money goes to the poor; most goes to the middle class in the form of jobs, contracts, conferences, travel, research grants, academic salaries, indirect costs to the institution for utilities, staff, overhead (can be as high as 60% of the grant) and that doesn't even include the buildings that are required and the trades and unions who benefit. One Appalachian grant I read through (about $76,000,000 a year) supposedly was training 20,000 students a year; it’s been going on since 1965—why aren’t they all successful and free of poverty at that rate?  Because the money goes to the teachers, social workers, facilities, grant writers, conferences, etc.

I should know--I've made a very nice middle class living on special government contracts funneled through Ohio State or the state of Ohio. I have been employed on USAID funds, FIPSE money, JTPA,  Department of Aging of Ohio; I have published research funded by the state and federal government, which was then purchased by the institutions for which I worked, which were funded in part by the government; I have done some very nice travelling on your dime—Washington, DC, San Antonio, Kansas City, Seattle, Detroit and Chicago.  I also have a teacher's pension which pays far better than Social Security which non-government workers get. Don’t get me wrong--I worked hard, and you got your tax dollar’s worth, however, few poor people were lifted out of poverty.  Primarily the middle class benefited, including me.  Go to this website and type "library" or even something more exotic, like fashion or travel,  into the search window. https://www.cfda.gov/

Unintended consequences of helping

Together our two parties have created a cushion for the unemployed, disabled, the poor, single mothers and low income--the earned income tax credit (EITC), child tax credits, Supplemental Security Income for the elderly poor, Medicaid, S-CHIP, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), unemployment insurance, food stamps (SNAP), subsidized school meals, summer lunch programs, low-income housing assistance, energy assistance, block grants to create education programs that have almost no long term results (like Head Start), Social Services Block Grants (Ohio got $63 million+)  and more. GW Bush expanded the food stamp coverage in 2002 and 2008, and Obama added the people to the nearly 50 million today, so if there is a food stamp president, they should both have the “honor.”

For many receiving state and federal benefits, they can't afford to work, or take a raise/better job because they would lose benefits. I heard a man on a Christian talk show last week say that after he and his wife lived together (blended family) for 3 years, they decided to marry because they thought it was a poor example for the kids, but she lost a lot of benefits by getting married.  I doubt that this was the intention of these programs, many begun in the 1960s, but it is the unintended consequences of making people more helpless and less independent. 

The only difference between the parties is the Republicans say this isn't good but vote to add to the deficit anyway, and the Democrats love it because it buys them votes. And it takes 74% of our federal budget when you toss in Social Security and Medicare for the older not poor (who paid into those programs their entire working lives).

"

Government funded, non-profit After School Programs

If you’d like to develop an after school program in your community, there’s apparently a lot of money. Here’s the link for government grants. You can be the director and hire your out-of-work or underemployed friends and relatives to help you. A back ground in teaching or social work might be nice, but I don't see that anywhere as a requirement. If you don't like children, you might try a different non-profit area, like finding mold, or lead, or hazardous waste.

No one has ever been able to determine what exactly these after school programs do in the long run, but in the short run they keep children supervised and off the streets, and provide adult mentors. Maybe they reduce crime; maybe they just put good kids in the path of bad kids they normally wouldn't be spending time with.

In the 1950s, my after school program was called "working at Zickuhrs," the local pharmacy, and I also had one called "working at the public library." After school club activities were known in the old days as hanging out with my girls friends for parties, overnights and picnics. When I was in elementary school I think it was called Girl Scouts, 4-H, and church choir. I'm sure the adults were role models, although we probably didn't think of them that way, and I'm sure they weren't paid. Our parents, not the government, provided the snacks, and I actually earned college money with all that adult advice and supervision from the Mayor and his wife Alice.

This definitely isn’t new to Obamadmin; the government has been using non-profits to spread the wealth for years. Bush was a heavy user of religious organizations for this. In exchange for taking government money, they were not to get preachy, which is what the church is there for. This will probably get much more restrictive under Obama--that's one promise he'll probably keep.

Just glancing through the list; in FY 2006-2008 there was about $7 billion available in just one after school snack program called CACFP; if you can throw in a little supervisory training for job skills you can dip in a pool of about $36 million through CNCS; if you’d like to educate the children on environmental issues there are numerous grants through EPA, including $25,000 from an $8 million pocket (2006-2008 years). I’ve even seen grants for getting people into mortgages in this after school funding list, although I’m not sure how that benefits the children--putting their single mom into mortgage debt instead of subsidized rental housing.

One of the "crown jewels" of after school programs is located in Chicago, called "After School Matters," and it was started by Mayor Daley's wife about 20 years ago. That should be long enough to see if it really does matter, but the fly in the ointment in determining this is that the children in the program are hand picked, and they can't participate unless they have a good attendance record in public school. Reading through a 2008 report, it appears to me it is in direct competition with several other programs in Chicago which don't get the fat cats' contributions. They all use government money, of course. But how they name it is a bit clever. For instance ASM says in a report by Sengupta

"Researchers studying After School Matters at Chapin Hall have asserted that its funding stream depends on Maggie Daley’s leadership. According to After School Matters’ audited reports from FY 2005-2006, of the $22 million in revenue received, 30% came from in-kind contributions from Chicago’s public partners, such as school and park space, while 51% came from government contributions."

Call me crazy but 51% from government "contributions" and 30% from the school and park funding is all tax money, isn't it? And $22 million a year for an afterschool arts program is nothing to sneeze at. The children are paid to attend this, so the demand is high. Then that leaves three other programs, also government funded, to pick up the slack: Department of Children and Youth Services includes the Kid’s Start and recreational centers after school programs; PARK kids run by The Chicago Park District; and Community Schools Initiative run by Chicago Public Schools. Since the Park district and the schools also contribute to ASM, it would seem to me the lesser advantaged kids are contributing to the more advantaged.

This is definitely math Chicago style. Now we see where Obama gets it.

How to grow a government program

Many government programs fail. You can track these at the Expect More website. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it means "expect more spending," instead of expect more for the money already spent. There are way too many government programs, and the list has grown under President Bush. According to this website, 28% of Federal programs are Not Performing. A rating of Results Not Demonstrated (RND) indicates that a program has not been able to develop acceptable performance goals or collect data to determine whether it is performing.

Let's just look at one program--and even reading through its history you wonder why it was ever considered necessary, the Food Stamp Nutrition Education (FSNE).

"FSNE began in 1988 when cooperative extension faculty in Brown County, Wisconsin and University of Wisconsin extension staff discovered that by committing state and local funding and contracting with the state food stamp agency, an equal amount of federal dollars could be secured to expand the reach of nutrition education to low-income persons in that area. Other universities soon followed. In 1992, seven states conducted FSNE using $661 thousand in federal funds. By 2004, FSNE was conducted throughout the country using nearly $460 million, with $228.6 million in Food Stamp Program administration funds and the remainder contributed by the states.

Here's why it got an RND rating:

"There are no standardized performance measures across State programs to gauge progress. The scope of nutrition education efforts varies widely, making it difficult to establish meaningful outcome measures to capture the program's progress. While States collect some data on participation, the data collected is limited and ambiguous and varies across programs.

The program's mission and goals are not clearly established in statute or regulation. The program relies on guidance to establish program policies. While nutrition education is clearly intended to contribute to advancing the program's purpose, the Food Stamp legislation and regulations are silent on the specific goals of nutrition education.

It is unclear if funds are spent effectively to increase participation and improve nutrition-related behaviors. The program grew from $660,000 in 1992 to over $147 million in 2002. This rapid growth, coupled with the program's unlimited matching source of funding, lends itself to greater oversight."

So here are the suggestions,

"Developing efficiency measures to assess program effectiveness related to its goals.

Developing a plan to increase the use of evidence-based food and nutrition education initiatives across States.

Seeking legislation to make nutrition education a component of the Food Stamp Program and developing a plan to publicize regulations."

In other words, there were no measurable results for all that money, and it could be moved to another program. That doesn't mean the money stream will stop. And even if people misunderstood the program or didn't apply correctly, would they have misunderstood it to the amount of $460 million? Maybe the solution is to write the programs in understandable English?

Other government programs are listed as ineffective. They seem to be like wayward children--the government never gives up on them.

Can you define a "living wage?"

Or, how about an "American working family?" These terms are pandering policy pablum. It's like trying to figure out the word, "uninsured." It's nailing Jello to the wall.

Let's begin with two classic cases--both single moms with 2 children. Melanie had a significant other she met in college, but they never married, and he's wandered off the reservation looking for more significance. Her first pregnancy stopped her education, and besides, she liked staying home with cute babies. She doesn't know where the SO is, so there's no child support. She's working at Wendy's for $7.00 an hour--$14,800/year. She's not unhappy; she likes the work--has flexible hours, regular customers she knows by face and order, and can walk to work, although she has a "beater" car. She's a whiz at e-Bay and picks up a little cash by hitting the garage sales on her day off. She's worked at a dry-cleaners but the fumes bothered her, and at Tim Horton's, but the scheduling didn't suit, and has waitressed at family restaurants like Applebee's and Bag of Nails earning more, but she likes the management here. She occasionally dates the men she meets on the other side of the counter.

Then there's Tanika. She's divorced and her husband has decided to find himself in the entertainment world, but borrows more money than he sends. He drinks or smokes what is left after he's paid under the table at various clubs when his group performs. Each time she talks to him, he's just about to land the big break. Tanika's no dummy. She's always been told that education is the key to a better life. With help from her parents and various scholarships, and some state aid, she has finally completed the Kent State program in Library Science. Although she's relieved to have landed a job in the public library of a nice suburb of Columbus for $16.40 an hour in a tight job market, she does have to work some evenings and occasional week-ends, and has no flexibility to trade hours. Also, she's got some whopping school debts to repay, and she's maxed out several credit cards. Her dad keeps her car repaired and running. Her mom invites her and the kids over for dinner often, and babysits when Tanika works evenings and week-ends. The library is so busy, she knows none of the people who pass through. Social life is zilch, nada, nyet and she's too pooped to even take the kids to the pool. Her day off is a school day, so she volunteers at the Lutheran Food Pantry.

As you might have surmised, Melanie is better off than Tanika, plus she could have the satisfaction of knowing she is keeping a small army of government workers busy!

She is eligible for a piece of the Earned Income Tax Credit ($40+ billion), which is a cash supplement to wages of the "working poor," and at her income that's an additional $4,536 a year.

At various times she has received help from Temporary Assistance to Needy Families because of the dead-beat dad thing until her eligibility ran out. Between jobs, she stayed on unemployment benefits as long as she could--one time almost 3 years. Although she much prefers working, she never felt a sitter did as good a job with the kids as she could do herself.

She receives a housing voucher ($16 billion), which is much more pleasant than having to live in "the projects," and although there are others in her complex--actually many--no one seems to notice. In fact, she and Tanika's family don't live far from each other and the kids play together at the pool.

In addition to food stamps, which add about $100 a week to her grocery budget* ($35 billion through USDA), her children are eligible for the National Student Lunch Program, the Breakfast Program, the after school snack program, and the summer lunch program--plus she gets her own meals at Wendy's. In fact, they're all packing on a few extra pounds--no one is going hungry, that's for sure. The NSL and SBP (from the Ohio Department of Education via the USDA) also provide these services to runaways, homeless and migrant children, but Melanie is a pretty stable gal with good values, she's "always paid her own way," so there's not much danger of that. If she runs out towards the end of the month because the cable bill was due, she can get 3 days of food at the Lutheran Food Pantry.

Melanie would have to pay a pretty high co-pay for company health benefits, so she keeps passing on that during sign up periods, but she's eligible for SCHIP (as is Tanika who is making under $40,000 but has never applied**), and it provides some coverage like dental, prescription and special lab work she couldn't get through an employers' health program.

A few months ago Melanie's boyfriend got religion and called her, wanting to do right by her and the children and make it all legal--white dress, church, flowers, etc. But she turned him down. Even if he got a job at another Wendy's their combined income would throw off her eligibility, and financially, her kids would much much worse off. She's happy where she is--who needs to marry?

Melanie and Tanika are fictitious; the programs are not.

*In Ohio a family of three would be eligible for about $100 a week in food stamps, the gross eligibility being $21,600 of family income.

**An October 2007 study found that 68.7 percent of newly uninsured children were in families whose incomes were 200 percent of the federal poverty level or higher.