tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post6757226267629726307..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Mixed News from SpaceDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3557920373471911402013-05-27T19:27:58.483-07:002013-05-27T19:27:58.483-07:00The solution to Larry's problem is simple
Sma...The solution to Larry's problem is simple<br /><br />Small donations - could be secret<br />They are unlikely to distort or buy an agenda<br /><br />Large donations imply significant wealth on the part of the donor - and they can "buy influence" as such they need to be public<br /><br />Rich donors are not "at risk" in the same way that a poor or ordinary person is<br /><br />Not sure what the transition is - how about 10% of the median wage?Duncan Cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-22844166770980354422013-05-27T11:15:32.276-07:002013-05-27T11:15:32.276-07:00...And let me restate the issue in another way, al......And let me restate the issue in another way, although this still doesn't suggest a solution.<br /><br />If (for example), I donate money to the NAACP but don't want that information to be public, the reason is not because there's something shady about my support, but because I don't want the KKK showing up on my doorstep with a noose in hand.<br /><br />The "mission statement" of the NAACP tells anyone paying attention what their agenda is. The fact that I (among others) donates to their cause isn't important to understanding what a vote favoring the NAACP means.<br /><br />Whereas, when the Koch brothers finance candidates who refuse to accept science, those candidates actions in office are a direct consequence of the agenda of their secret paymasters. Understanding just what such candidates stand for requires knowing who is paying them.<br /><br />The Koch brothers or Karl Rove (and yes, I'd include George Soros here if I saw any indication of his keeping his support a SECRET) don't hide their support for causes because they fear violence from angry mobs. They hide their support because they want their paid agents to appear to be functioning independently. Because anti-science stances might lose credibility if it is obvious they're bought and paid for by someone with billions of dollars at stake rather than honest attempts at good public policy.<br /><br />So again, can we protect the one without aiding and abetting the other?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5254730327376791142013-05-27T10:51:29.587-07:002013-05-27T10:51:29.587-07:00Ok, as usual, I see things aren't as simple as...Ok, as usual, I see things aren't as simple as they seem at first blush.<br /><br />So there are legitimate reasons for protecting donors' identities to allow them to support controversial causes without inviting reprisal. Just as there are legitimate reasons NOT to want unaccountable, secret money influencing elections.<br /><br />I don't claim to have an answer here, but let's see if I can accurately state the problem. The laws protecting secret donations are meant to allow average citizens to support a cause without inviting reprisals from powerful interests opposed to that cause. Yet the same laws almost-necessarily allow powerful interests to clandestinely bribe politicians in exchange for political support of their agenda without the citizenry being aware of the relationship.<br /><br />Is there a solution to that Gordian Knot of a puzzle?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33620861379726926622013-05-27T08:06:33.447-07:002013-05-27T08:06:33.447-07:00Occurs to me that considering the dubious quality ... Occurs to me that considering the dubious quality candidates promoted by the "teaps", any effort to restrict the tea party movement might be a long term benefit to the GOP. Obama's only liberal compared to the opposition.Tim H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8063286961759409652013-05-26T19:30:45.649-07:002013-05-26T19:30:45.649-07:00I am not sure, but to answer the question "wh...I am not sure, but to answer the question "what difference does it make if an organization is tax-exempt or not?" has to do with money left over at the end of fiscal year. If all moneys are disbursed, there are no profits regardless. I see carry-over as a sort of money-laundering scheme. Political campaigns are notorious for moving contributions around even after elections for which the donations were nominally made.<br /><br />But others more knowledgeable might correct this.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20920734174557475232013-05-25T19:14:49.499-07:002013-05-25T19:14:49.499-07:00How about requiring organizations that want donor ...How about requiring organizations that want donor anonymity to comply with the same fund-raising rules as political campaigns?Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90781990443315100412013-05-25T18:26:05.881-07:002013-05-25T18:26:05.881-07:00Hmmm, coincidentally, I'm just now reading tha...Hmmm, coincidentally, I'm just now reading that donor anonymity for social welfare charities was introduced when Alabama tried to force the NAACP (back when it was a 501c(3)) to reveal its donors in the 1950s. The Supreme Court ruled that it opened the door to targeted reprisals against donors. ACLU has made similar arguments since then.<br /><br />But I'll stick with my claim that it's better to have transparency. After all, you can still go dark if you drop the charity status. Or set up a parallel non-charity-status group for donors scared of reprisals.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78159753862841183552013-05-25T18:08:41.745-07:002013-05-25T18:08:41.745-07:00The UNDP has released the latest Human Development...The UNDP has released the latest Human Development Report, a massive document about the state of the world.<br /><br />As usual people will ignore 99% of it and flip straight to the league chart of countries by HDI - a broad measure of health, education and per capita income.<br /><br />One thing that stands out: the "catastrophic" effects of austerity are virtually invisible. Greece rates as high now as it did in 2005 and only marginally lower than its all-time peak in 2006, Ireland is the same story. Iceland which according to one popular narrative is doing great because it refused to implement austerity is almost exactly the same.<br /><br />It's almost as though programs to protect people from the worst impacts of the GFC were actually working.<br /><br />http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/103106.htmlIanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85290759538642908542013-05-25T17:38:44.773-07:002013-05-25T17:38:44.773-07:00@Tacitus
Thank you for linking to a case in which...@Tacitus<br /><br />Thank you for linking to a case in which ACORN was defrauded by temporary workers. You make my case: ACORN was not a "shady" outfit; it was the victim of more criminals than I had thought, and I appreciate you pointing that out (from your cite):<br /><br /><i> "It appears that a handful of temporary workers were trying to get paid for work they hadn't actually done. While we don't think the intent or the result of their actions was to allow any ineligible person to vote, these employees defrauded ACORN and imposed a burden on the time and resources of registrars and law enforcement."</i><br /><br />Rather than try to define "shady" to include any organization that has a temporary worker who commit crimes (which surely would include elected representatives of that organization *cough* Issa *cough* Bachmann *cough* Tax Cheat Romney cough*) wouldn't it be better to accept that ACORN actually <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/acorn-witch-hunt-voter-registration-success-spurs-unfair-attack-article-1.405967" rel="nofollow">help over a million Americans register to vote</a> and murmur at least pro forma regrets at its demise?<br /><br />My points stand:<br />* ACORN is not a "shady" group by any reasonable definition of the word, and<br />* Today's "conservatives" are hurting their cause by attacking groups that help Americans vote, instead of formulating pragmatic policies.<br /><br />If you'd rather keep trying to fight demographics by re-writing history, all I can say is <b>"Please proceed!"</b> but why not try advocating policy instead?rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78234156563832032182013-05-25T17:14:43.954-07:002013-05-25T17:14:43.954-07:00Paul451:
As a compromise, instead of fussing ove...Paul451:<br /><br /><i><br />As a compromise, instead of fussing over how overtly political an organisation is, how about we just remove charitable status from any that don't publish a clear list of donors, and spending. Surely it's the secrecy that is more damaging.]<br /></i><br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />And ok, you've demonstrated that some liberal groups do secretly hide their donors, interestingly enough in a story that was published in "The Nation". I personally think liberals should be in favor of full disclosure of donors across the specturm--that we have nothing to lose by full disclosure, and that the right-wingers have much to lose. I can't help it if not all of my fellow-travelers agree.<br /><br />Duncan Cairncross:<br /><br />On the g'Kek thing, that began as my speculation as to a explanation for the feud that was specific to both g'Kek and Jophur. And as my old favorite comics writer, Dave Sim would have it, "Once a thing is seen, it can't be un-seen."LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5113272725137484912013-05-25T15:57:32.722-07:002013-05-25T15:57:32.722-07:00Hi Larry
My reading was that the g'Kek did som...Hi Larry<br />My reading was that the g'Kek did some type of financial futures market high leverage activity involving the hydrogen breathers that did not come off and ended up owing the Jophur far more than they could possibly pay off so the Jophur "closed them down"<br /><br />But I love your speculation about tires - maybe that was why they "bought the g'Gek futures"?Duncan Cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78582245097685479622013-05-25T15:37:02.818-07:002013-05-25T15:37:02.818-07:00Speaking of "liberal" political fronts (...Speaking of "liberal" political fronts (and Soros)...<br /><br />LarryHart,<br /><i>"And why am I not picking on all those left-wing groups perpetrating the same fraud? Maybe because there aren't any?"</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.alternet.org/secret-donors-behind-center-american-progress-and-other-think-tanks" rel="nofollow">http://www.alternet.org/secret-donors-behind-center-american-progress-and-other-think-tanks</a><br /><br />CAP lobbied the government on behalf of corporate donors who then benefited from public money.<br /><br />[As a compromise, instead of fussing over how overtly political an organisation is, how about we just remove charitable status from any that don't publish a clear list of donors, and spending. Surely it's the secrecy that is more damaging.]Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31844170640084972872013-05-25T15:25:26.351-07:002013-05-25T15:25:26.351-07:00sorry Mr Soros...I had heard a report that he died...sorry Mr Soros...I had heard a report that he died the day of the Boston bombing and assumed that his passing had just been overwhelmed by the news.<br /><br />in my defense I have been traveling a lot in the last six weeks..<br /><br />Tacitus<br />Tacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17686508020301875472013-05-25T15:19:56.347-07:002013-05-25T15:19:56.347-07:00LarryHart,
Soros is alive and well. In early Apri...LarryHart,<br /><br />Soros is alive and well. In early April, Reuters put his unedited(*) obituary online for about 30 minutes. I don't know if Tacitus was making a joking reference to that, or if conservative news sites ran the story and never corrected it and he actually believed it.<br /><br />(* "George Soros, who died XXX at age XXX..." sic.)<br /><br />Likewise, I'm not sure if saying that Tides was "in part founded by Soros" was a joke at his own expense. (Soros is a donor, but has nothing else to do with the organisation.) Ie, was he playing on the bizarre conservative obsession with Soros, or demonstrating it.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21772084065287295182013-05-25T14:26:32.544-07:002013-05-25T14:26:32.544-07:00And while I'm on the subject of "Infinity...And while I'm on the subject of "Infinity's Shore", I just want to be clear (we've discussed this before) that you as the author never did specify just what offense motivated the Jophur to eradicate the g'Kek so long ago, right?<br /><br />Because I'm reading the book as if my own theory is so obvious as to be self-evident: that the g'Kek once offended the Jophur so by using Jophur rings as tires.<br /><br />:)LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46067355039728727232013-05-25T14:22:34.939-07:002013-05-25T14:22:34.939-07:00Going apolitical for a moment, I've got a Davi...Going apolitical for a moment, I've got a David Brin sci-fi question for our host.<br /><br />I'm currently on my third reading of "Infinity's Shore", and it occurs to me that I'm confused as to whether the mythology of the goddess Ifni originates with Galactic culture or with pre-contact Earthclan culture.<br /><br />Can you elaborate?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1508000110683283292013-05-25T14:20:06.507-07:002013-05-25T14:20:06.507-07:00Tacitus2:
Sorry about my earlier quick departure....Tacitus2:<br /><br />Sorry about my earlier quick departure. The hungry family was chmamping at the bit for lunch while I was typing.<br /><br />To continue...<br /><br /><i><br />It for instance helps fund Media Matters, regarded by conservatives as little more than a Ministry of Truth for the current administration.<br /></i><br /><br />I find "Ministy of Truth" incredibly ironic in that context, as it seems to me that Media Matters tries to stick to actual facts. The conservatives or "conservatives" who regard fact-checking as propoganda and who regard right-wing propoganda as "fair and balanced" would seem to me to be victims of that well-known liberal bias that reality has.<br /><br /><i><br />I am always willing to meet folks half way. I think many, perhaps most of the 501c outfits should be stripped of tax exempt status. The issue here appears to be overt targeting of some varieties of public speech. <br /></i><br /><br />As I think I said before, I'm fine with all groups contributing to political campaigns losing that special status. I'm not even speaking so much of tax-exemption as of the ability to hide the identities of their donors. Even in the misguided "Citizens United" decisions, most of the affirming Justices indicated a belief that the proper remedy to concerns about money in politics is discolsure.<br /><br />Now tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the desire to donate megabucks to political campaigns SECRETELY is something the political right goes for. Point as much as you like to wealthy liberal donors, but do they try to hide where their money is coming from?<br /><br />So my sense is that in trying to enforce their badly-written rules, the IRS ends up targeting right-leaning organizations becuase those are the ones committing the fraud.<br /><i><br />If the information leaking out is true, was the IRS "attention" to these groups politically motivated? And do you approve or disapprove?<br /></i><br /><br />As stated, I would of course disapprove. But I seriously doubt that the IRS was that interested in re-electing the president. More likely (to me) is that they resorted to stereotypes to identify groups as "political" to try to weed through the myriad applications they had for 501c(3 or was it 4) status.<br /><br /><i><br />Probably a few low level flunkies will take the fall for this one, but in my opinion-which I do not ask anyone to share-this is just more politics The Chicago Way<br /></i><br /><br />I gotta say, were I one of the IRS agents so charged, I'd be wondering out loud why all of those groups with Tea Party in their name thought they SHOULD be considered anything but political.<br /><br />And why am I not picking on all those left-wing groups perpetrating the same fraud? Maybe because there aren't any?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90775479532579404272013-05-25T13:42:47.509-07:002013-05-25T13:42:47.509-07:00I, for one, want the IRS to investigate any organi...I, for one, want the IRS to investigate <i>any</i> organization claiming tax-exempt status, to ensure they're supposed to have that status, and to bust them if they're not. That's an important part of why we <i>have</i> an IRS.<br /><br />Right-leaning, left-leaning, leaning in some completely non-Euclidean angle that drives one mad to contemplate ("Cthulhu for President! Why vote for the <i>lesser</i> of two evils?"), it doesn't matter. If you claim to be tax-exempt, the organization responsible for regulating that should be ensuring you're not just pulling something out of a bodily orifice. And trying to shut that down because there was a sudden spate of right-leaning organizations popping up that called for such scrutiny is a terrible mistake, in my opinion.Jonathan S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73762945005640753262013-05-25T10:25:13.391-07:002013-05-25T10:25:13.391-07:00Tacitus, sorry, but I'm not on-line a lot duri...Tacitus, sorry, but I'm not on-line a lot during the holiday weekend.<br /><br /><i><br />So, would you favor denying 501c status to the Tides Foundation (now called Tides Center I believe). It is an organization in part founded by the late George Soros.<br /></i><br /><br />Shows what I know. When did George Soros die?<br /><br />But in answer to your question, my impression is that most left-leaning groups are ALREADY denied tax-favored status, and if some are not, I would gladly concede that they should be denied such status as long as the other side is as well.<br /><br />My impression is that right-leaning groups are often considered apolitical while left-leaning groups are considered political. That should not be.<br /><br /><i><br />It for instance helps fund Media Matters, regarded by conservatives as little more than a Ministry of Truth for the current administration.<br /></i><br /><br />Media Matters pre-dates the Obama administration.<br /><br />My impression during the Bush years was that there was a strange Orwellian-language thing going on where journalists doing their actual job--questioning authority--were considered to be acting "politically" whereas those who dutifully parroted administration talking points were "apolitical".<br /><br />Such differences of basic "facts" between the two sides preculdes rational conversation.<br /><br />Sorry again...gotta go...maybe continue later...LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76125926868919741132013-05-25T07:28:02.680-07:002013-05-25T07:28:02.680-07:00I'd prefer to see 100% Audits of everyone/comp...I'd prefer to see 100% Audits of everyone/company in such a way that it takes Zero Effort/Expense and in a way that has a net zero cost to the tax payer. Unfortunately, aspects of this aren't going to happen.<br /><br />In Georgia, Business Auditors take in 11 times more than they cost. So if we spend 1 Tax Dollar going after financial crime, we get 11 Dollars in Recaptured Revenue. (Sorry I don't know the numbers of Audits of individuals.) This suggests that the last part of the equation should be somewhat easy to handle.<br /><br />Suppose we took a portion of Recaptured Revenue and dedicated it to cost reduction/elimination on those are Audited. We can improve on the burden aspect of audits. <br /><br />We obviously need to change silliness like 'Print a copy every page of your Website' to send to the IRS. Any other useless busy work should be removed or modified to be meaningful.<br /><br />Its an interesting dynamic in that the more we audit, the less cheaters there will be and less efficient the Recapturing of Revenue will be. However, I think we should be increasing our Financial Police Force by 10% every year until we are close to breaking even (1 Tax Dollar spent ~ 1 Recaptured Revenue). Then you monitor things over time to make sure you aren't overspending.<br /><br />I would also note that the more we audit, the lower the Tax Burden will be on honest Americans.Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03773076186367856200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48905078217077767182013-05-25T04:40:45.121-07:002013-05-25T04:40:45.121-07:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides_(organization)
...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides_(organization)<br /><br />TTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25648019805752332512013-05-25T01:22:37.218-07:002013-05-25T01:22:37.218-07:00"the Tides Foundation (now called Tides Cente...<i>"the Tides Foundation (now called Tides Center I believe). It is an organization in part founded by the late George Soros."</i><br /><br />[citation needed]Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89566155284624646462013-05-25T00:14:41.683-07:002013-05-25T00:14:41.683-07:00oof. It's late. We COULDN'T afford the pri...oof. It's late. We COULDN'T afford the pricey lawyers. <br /><br />Leave out one silly negation and the whole story falls apart. Sigh. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23265613281349895802013-05-25T00:12:59.541-07:002013-05-25T00:12:59.541-07:00Glad to be of service. 8)
I used to help run a 50...Glad to be of service. 8)<br /><br />I used to help run a 501(c)3 that had a sister organization that was a 501(c)4. We intentionally off-loaded all political activity to the other group to avoid any possible risk with the IRS. Together we still had to avoid picking sides in partisan elections and spending money in such a way that looked like we did, but both groups were extra cautious because we could afford high priced lawyers. If your pockets are deep enough you can try to tie up the IRS lawyers for awhile, but a failed audit later can result in retro-penalties that make the trick unpleasant. Whether it is worth trying that anyway to win an election is debatable.<br /><br />In this case, I wasn't surprised the tea party folks got extra scrutiny. Many of the people involved were noobs from what I could see. The auditors probably DID have reasons to target them that have nothing to do with politics. Unfortunately, it all looks like politics after the fact.<br /><br />I will admit that I don't mind the IRS taking a beating on this, but I suspect they were doing their jobs and just didn't think through the political ramifications. Someone high up is a dunce.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83555156571628475852013-05-24T16:49:40.819-07:002013-05-24T16:49:40.819-07:00Indeed, a useful post. Thanks A.Differ.
TacitusIndeed, a useful post. Thanks A.Differ.<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.com