Government’s War On Giving

Obama is GREEDY and jealous…he wants as much as you have as he can TAKE…

And Liberaism is a religion, with god-Obama….your tithe is ALL…No one, I mean No One, is to get something over the left and their high lord….

Election 2012 has emboldened their wanton diety w/ drunken power…

I would have liked to see more current data for TCO of Privavte VS Public sector organizations. The information citied is 5 years old that seems to be very dated.

Howard says 346.1 billion was given in 2011. I wonder how much of that was used for the purpose intended by the donors. There is a real racket associated with charities, some companies making millions and the actual charity getting a very small percentage.

It’s good to give, but do your research and make sure your money is being used for the purpose intended.

The hacking incident could come back to haunt the political fortunes of first-term Republican Gov. Nikki Haley.

Haley’s approval rating – at 38 percent among the almost 1,000 South Carolinians surveyed – is even lower among those who thought the state failed to protect personal data such as Social Security numbers – dropping to 35 percent, according to the poll.

Meanwhile, Haley’s job disapproval mark – 41 percent among all surveyed – jumped to 46 percent among those unhappy with how the state protected the information.

Huffmon said some of the increased negativity thrown at Haley might not be because of her job performance with the breach. “I’d say it is more likely for those who disapprove of Haley to assign blame for failing to adequately secure the data to the ‘South Carolina government’ for whom Haley is the public face,” he said.

However, political consultants say the hacking represents the biggest crisis of Haley’s two years in office and could define her re-election bid in 2014 if she decides to run.

Haley is contending with people who are upset that it took the state 16 days, after it first learned of the breach, to tell the public and about facts changing at press briefings. Initially, for example, the governor said nothing could have stopped the hackers and no businesses information was stolen.

“It’s hard to tell if we’ve heard the end of the hacking story,” Columbia-based political consultant Steve Fooshe said.

‘I’m sorry’ not enough

Thieves swiped Social Security numbers and other sensitive data belonging to 3.8 million taxpayers with 1.9 million dependents as well as nearly 700,000 businesses in mid-September. The hacking of the mostly unencrypted data is thought to be the largest-ever nationwide at a state agency.

The significant show of concern about the hacking incident in the poll means state officials need to come up with a proportional response, Huffmon said.

“They need to make a big show about beefing up security,” he said. S.C. residents “will need to know how their data will be protected in the future. A simple ‘I’m sorry’ won’t be enough.”

Haley has not apologized, but she now says the state could have done more to protect sensitive financial data. She also has blamed Internal Revenue Service regulations that did not require that states encrypt tax data resting in computer servers.

“Gov. Haley certainly counts herself among the 74.6 percent of South Carolinians who think the state was not providing state-of-the-art computer security,” her spokesman Rob Godfrey said. “South Carolina was way behind, and we’re fixing it as quickly as we can.”

The state has taken several steps, costing $20 million so far, to safeguard information and to help people whose Social Security numbers and other data were swiped.

The Revenue Department is spending $5 million to encrypt tax information. More than 900,000 taxpayers also have signed up for a free year of credit monitoring under a $12 million state contract with Experian. The state Senate and S.C. House also have appointed special investigative committees to look into the breach that could propose legislation to improve security.

“I see this as a huge failure on the part of South Carolina,” said House Minority Leader Harry Ott, a Calhoun Democrat who is vice chair of the hacking committee. “I do not believe enough has been done.”

State Rep. Dwight Loftis, a Greenville Republican who is a member of the hacking committee, said, for the third straight year, he plans to introduce a bill to make the state chief information officer, in charge of state computer systems, a cabinet-level job. State agencies individually run their own computer operations now.

“Maybe it will get some more attention this time,” Loftis said.

Other measures could include outsourcing some computer security work to get the latest expertise, Loftis said. “Yes, it’s expensive, but how much does the hacking cost all those people?”

‘This affects everyone’

The number of South Carolinians with some knowledge of the breach was higher than Huffmon expected, based on the estimated 40 percent of people who do not regularly watch the news or get their news from cable television, which does not regularly cover state issues.

About 73 percent of those polled said they were very or somewhat familiar with the breach. Another 18.5 percent said they heard about the cyber attack but did not know the details.

Only 8.3 percent of respondents had no clue that hackers might have stolen their tax data.

“When you have people who are not following general news knowing about this, you’re going to need to address this in a meaningful way,” Huffmon said. “This is not some arcane policy. This affects everyone.”

Letters to consumers and businesses notifying them of the breach should start going out this week. Those letters will include alerts for the 3.3 million taxpayers whose bank account numbers were exposed because that routing information had been used to get direct deposit of refunds. The data stolen dates back to 1998 but affected only tax returns that were filed electronically.

Winthrop surveyed 929 respondents from Nov. 25 through Dec. 2. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

Howie’s charity is contingent on tax breaks. That’s mighty white of you Howie.

cancerman T 6.59am:

Lillian McBride may need a new job in January.

Rich Rewards:One Man’s Shadow Money Network(excerpt)

Long ago, Earth Day rooted itself in the minds of many Americans as a regular annual event — not bad for what started 42 years ago as a “teach-in” about the dangers of an industrial economy running amok.
But there have always been opponents to the environmentalist agenda, and on Earth Day 2012, they found that they had their own, modern-day “teach-in” — a four-and-a-half minute video posted on YouTube. The slick production, titled “If I Wanted America To Fail,” is a laundry list of libertarian grievances against big government billed as a response to the “economic suicide pact” of environmentalism.
“If I wanted America to fail, I would create countless new regulations and seldom cancel old ones,” says the narrator, black background and foreboding music adding to an apocalyptic tone. “They would be so complicated that only bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists could understand them. That way, small businesses with big ideas wouldn’t stand a chance.”

He goes on to mock alternative energy, the public education system and other standards of the left. “If I wanted America to fail, I would prey on the goodness and decency of ordinary Americans,” he concludes. “I would only need to convince them that all of this is for the greater good. If I wanted America to fail, I…I suppose I wouldn’t change a thing.”

Heavily promoted by Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing commentators, the video went viral, racking up 2.3 million views since it debuted.

But few, if any, of those millions of viewers understand the complicated web of secretive, densely interwoven political groups from which the video emerged.

While the network is built around nonprofits with vague names and grassroots slogans that imply the participation of many ordinary Americans, it’s primarily the handiwork of one man: Howard Rich.

Rich, 72, made his fortune in Manhattan real estate, but since at least the early 1970s, his passion has been libertarian politics. He decamped from the Libertarian Party in the 1980s to establish his own network of like-minded think-tanks and publishing companies.

Rich is also prominently attached to leading national libertarian groups — he sits on the boards of directors of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. Yet he remains a mysterious figure, rarely interviewed and almost always several steps removed from any direct action.

Still, an examination of the publicity-shy mogul’s efforts makes several things clear. He is deeply committed to his ideological values — willing to spend massive amounts of money to push projects even in places where he has little apparent personal or business connection. He is single-minded in his approach, willing to lash out at conservatives as quickly and as viciously as he will go after liberals. And all indications are that he believes the ends justify the means, sometimes using money as a blunt force object to get his way.

His involvement in electoral politics usually consists of transferring money — though it’s often difficult to say exactly whose money — into nonprofit groups that don’t disclose their donors. When he funds causes — or candidates — directly, Rich frequently camouflages his donations under any of dozens of nearly anonymous shell corporations. In that way, he’s the antithesis of a Sheldon Adelson, an ultra-rich Republicans who has openly given tens of millions to GOP presidential super PACs. On those occasions when Rich is revealed as the source of contributions, though, he’s been unapologetic about his role.

According to Internal Revenue Service records analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics, from the early 2000s at least through 2010 Rich was the linchpin holding together a confusing, swirling array of political organizations — all of them nondisclosing nonprofit groups — that spent heavily to influence state and federal politics around the country. The constellation of organizations that operate out of a handful of Rich-related addresses is constantly changing, but some of them are well-known: Rich, in his role as chairman of U.S. Term Limits, a 501(c)(4) group under tax rules, has for years been the driving force of the movement to curtail how long elected officials can stay in office. He’s also the chairman of a 501(c)(4) group called Americans for Limited Government, which spent $1.02 million in 2010 targeting Democrats running for Congress and distributed millions more to other groups.

“If I Wanted America to Fail” is a textbook example of Rich’s tangled web. It was produced by a group called Free Market America, which, according to its website, is a joint project of Rich’s Americans for Limited Government and another group, Citizens for Limited Taxes and a Stronger Economy, Inc.

Florida state records show that Citizens for Limited Taxes is registered at a Tampa address that also is home to at least 30 political action committees; the group’s only listed officers are two political operatives and the head of the Florida Chamber of Commerce. State campaign finance records show that in 2010, the group collected and spent more than $12 million helping defeat a proposition that would have slowed development in Florida. Its relationship with Rich? Like so much about his empire, that’s not entirely clear.

OpenSecrets.org made multiple attempts to interview Rich and other individuals involved with his groups, including several board members. But Ray Wotring, Americans for Limited Government’s treasurer, said the group would not allow any representative to comment.

“You can keep pushing, but we’re not going to talk to you,” Wotring said, complaining that OpenSecrets.org published a “hatchet job on Howie in 2006.” For the record, OpenSecrets.org did not publish any articles about Rich in 2006, and has never written specifically about him.

Eric O’Keefe, who co-founded U.S. Term Limits with Rich and is currently the CEO of the Sam Adams Alliance, a tea party group, and board member of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, was the only individual close to Rich who would comment for this story. O’Keefe, who is no longer part of Rich’s organizations but said he follows them and counts Rich as a friend, said it is Rich’s deep commitment to libertarian ideals, not an expectation of payback, that drives his donations to political groups and candidates.

“Howie has given millions of dollars to these causes,” O’Keefe said. “All of us benefit from a functioning democracy and a functioning market economy, but he has never expected to have a tangible return on his investments.”

O’Keefe said Rich is careful to obey laws as they are written, but opposes limits on campaign contributions.

“I can’t speak for him, but I know he pays a lot of money to attorneys to follow the rules,” O’Keefe said. “I know he doesn’t favor the system for limits on contributions” because he believes it favors incumbents.

Occasionally, Rich grants an interview or offers his opinion more directly — posting columns on his own website, for instance. In 2010, he penned one about the Rod Blagojevich scandal in Chicago, in which the former governor of Illinois was accused of selling political favors for campaign contributions. Rich, dripping with cynicism, portrayed the world of politics as a grimy, corrupt place.

“First of all, if you think this sort of pay-to-play scamming doesn’t go on every single day in Washington D.C. and state capitals all across America, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you,” Rich wrote, continuing:

It may not always be so mindlessly overt (and the tape recorder may not always be on), but in the post-Jack Abramoff world we live in – a world of “free home renovations” for U.S. Senators and cash hidden away in Representatives’ freezers – let’s not delude ourselves.

The network

One way to begin tracing Rich’s network is to follow the numbers — for example, 9900. At least six of the groups affiliated with Rich are based out of an office at 9900 Main Street in Fairfax, VA.

Suite 303 of that four-story office building is home to Americans for Limited Government Inc., Americans for Limited Government Foundation, U.S. Term Limits, Inc., U.S.Term Limits Foundation, Legislative Education Action Drive and Parents In Charge Foundation. Some are 501(c)(3) charities under the tax code, and some are 501(c)(4)s.

Rich is the chairman or president of all of them, with a tight circle of trusted lieutenants in key positions. Bill Wilson, a libertarian political operative who has worked with Rich since the 1990s, is a paid employee of all of the groups. And their various boards of directors are strikingly similar — and dominated by other prominent libertarians, like Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, who in 2010 was a board member of four of Rich’s groups. Frayda Levy, who sits on the board of Club for Growth, is listed as a director of two of Rich’s groups.

Together, these six groups listed $11.6 million in revenues in 2010, the most recent year for which a report is available, and $12.8 million spent on things like political consultants, mass mailings and grants to other politically-oriented nonprofits. There tax status prevents them from having to publicly disclose their funders, so almost none of the $11.6 million these groups reported in revenue can be traced to a specific source.

One exception: A recent OpenSecrets.org investigation into a previously unreported group called the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights found that the group gave tens of millions to major conservative 501(c)(4) organizations — including $5.6 million to Americans For Limited Government, Inc., in 2010. But that trail dead-ends at a post office box in Arizona, with no indication of who is providing the Center’s funds. And there’s very little indication where the rest of Rich’s network gets its money — although Rich’s own pocket is a possibility.

O’Keefe declined to say whether Rich’s own money drives his organizations.

But O’Keefe said that he and Rich share the belief that donors have a constitutionally protected right to contribute to political causes (though not candidates) without having to reveal their names.

“Our position was always that we were always happy to have people brag about their money, but it’s not our business to brag about their donations,” O’Keefe said.

Repeating an argument often made by those who oppose disclosure, O’Keefe said that when donors’ names are made public, they become targets for solicitations from other people seeking money, and it opens them up to retribution from powerful interests.

“That’s a real and ongoing concern,” he said. “We viewed it as our role to protect [donors] from that.”

Trying to trace the cashflow between Rich’s groups is a little like watching a Rube Goldberg contraption: there are a lot of moving parts. For instance, in 2010, Americans for Limited Government Foundation gave the Parents In Charge Foundation a grant of $225,000, and the U.S. Term Limits Foundation a grant of $234,000. But it also owed $1 million to its 501(c)(4) sibling, Americans for Limited Government, Inc.

Americans for Limited Government, Inc., in turn, gave a grant of $125,000 to U.S. Term Limits Inc. — and then lent it $346,000 more.

Yet the same year, U.S. Term Limits Foundation lent $85,000 back to Americans for Limited Government, Inc.

Confused yet? This may well be the point, or, according to tax attorney and former top IRS official Marcus Owens, it may be a clever system to skirt restrictions on how the organizations can operate. Because of the similarities between the various groups — their staffs, board members, missions and organizations they fund — the churn of cash back and forth raises questions, Owens said.

“It’s the same group, at the same address, with occasionally some new faces and they all seem to act on the same set of principles — limited government and term limits — so it seems kind of implausible that there is some sort of benefit from these internal financial relationships other than to disguise and modify the character of the money,” he said.

For example, grants from a 501(c)(3) organization, such as U.S. Term Limits Foundation, couldn’t be used by a 501(c)(4), such as Americans for Limited Government, Inc., for political activity. Loans from the same group, structured as ordinary business transactions, would have no such restrictions, Owens noted.

Also, tax law requires 501(c)(4)s like Americans for Limited Government, Inc., to spend the majority of their resources on “social welfare” activities. Spending too much on politics can lead to a challenge of their tax-exempt status.

“If you have a 501(c)(4) that’s heavily engaged in political activity, it needs to somehow establish that 51 percent of what it does, isn’t political — how do you do that quickly? Make a grant,” Owens said. “You could have a sort of circular cycling of dollars that attempts to support the tax status of all the (c)(4)s in the network.”

And moving money between groups may help Rich’s organizations appear to be funded by multiple sources. Receiving all its donations from a single source can be problematic for an organization trying to maintain its favorable tax status, according to Owens, as it suggests the group’s purpose is to benefit that single donor.

The fact that Rich lends money to the groups in his network is unusual, Owens noted.
In 2010 Rich lent $772,000 to U.S. Term Limits, Inc., through Rich Lending Corporation. In previous years he lent money to Americans for Limited Government, Inc., and sometimes the group lent money back to Rich Lending Corporation, as well.

According to Owens, this may be a way to gain a tax benefit for funding a politically active nonprofit. Simply donating money to the group money might not be tax deductible as a business expense — particularly if the group engages in lobbying or political activity, which Americans for Limited Government does. But if the money is loaned by a for-profit company it can be used for any purpose by the recipient and the source of the funds would avoid limitations on business deductions.