The Military Obstacle Course: Sexual Assaults and Systemic Problems

At the beginning of last month (May 7, 2013) Nevada Senator Harry Reid expressed his disappointment with reported rise in the number of sexual assaults in the U.S. military [WaPo] By May 8th he was urging fellow Senators to use the military appropriations legislation as a vehicle for reforming the Armed Services’s systemic problems with sexual assaults. [Roll Call] By the first part of June, Senator Reid was more blunt:

“The present program within the military is not working,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday. “Women are being exploited and I’m sorry to report that even men are being exploited sexually, and that’s wrong.” [WaPo]

The Majority Leader’s frankness on the subject, combined with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) commenting that the situation is a “national disgrace,” [WaPo] should yield some long sought Congressional action.  However, the “Brass” aren’t having it. Eleven of the twelve leaders of the U.S. military who testified at the latest Senate hearing were men; all wanted One More Chance to change the system within the “Chain of Command.”

The top of the U.S. Army chain of command, General Dempsey told the panel: “I’ll speak for myself: I took my eye off the ball a bit in the commands I had,” Dempsey said. “When you tie it all together, I wouldn’t say that we’ve been inactive, but we’ve been less active than we probably need to be.” [WaPo]

You think?  Obviously someone’s eyes were not on the target, and it would appear a large number of individuals within the military were “less active” than they “probably need to be.”  Probably?  Instead of “probably,” let’s insert “unambiguously should have been.”

The first hurdle for the commanders to face is the command structure itself.  The military is different from other institutions in this country — and the concept of the chain of command in crucial to its fundamental operations.  However, when the chain becomes tangled in motivations involving advancement combined with the adjudication of criminal behavior there may be no way to resolve the issues inside the chained structures.

There’s that  moldy old adage — a chain is no stronger than its weakest link.  What happens when it is a superior who is perpetrating the assault?

“One former soldier told Parrish’s group (Protect Our Defenders) in a statement that she was sexually harassed and ultimately raped by a superior while deployed in Iraq.  The woman said she reported the assault to several officers in her chain of command, but was told that she’d be charged with adultery if she pursued the complaint. One officer even told her that he had mentioned the incident to her attacker, who said she had come onto him — and that she should be charged with harassing him.” [PBS]

The motivation for this mistreatment may run the gamut from sheer mean-spiritedness to concerns about promotion — in the military “if you aren’t moving up you’re moving out” — what unit commander wants to be the one to call his or her superior with the bad news that a rape has been reported in his or her command?

There are weak links in the upper portions of the chain as well.  Some recent examples are (1) Lt. General Susan J. Helms USAF whose promotion has been blocked by Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) because General Helms granted clemency to a convicted sex offender without explanation.  [WaPo] (2)  Lt. Gen. Craig A. Franklin, commander of the Third Air Force in Europe, after he tossed out the sexual-assault conviction of a fighter pilot.  [WaPo]   General Franklin just couldn’t believe that a pilot who was a “doting father and husband,” would commit a rape.  [WaPo]  It’s important to note that neither of these commanders are judges, or lawyers, and neither attended the trials of the convicted felons in question.   Both were advised by legal experts not to grant clemency or to toss out the cases.   The current Krusinski  case isn’t helping:

“The latest embarrassment struck Sunday, when Arlington County police arrested the chief of the Air Force’s sexual-assault prevention branch and charged him with sexual battery. Police said Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski was drunk when he approached a woman in a Crystal City parking lot and grabbed her breasts and buttocks. Maj. Mary Danner-Jones, an Air Force spokeswoman at the Pentagon, said Krusinski was “removed from his position immediately” when the Air Force learned of his arrest.”  [WaPo]

The testimony of the JCS concerning the handling of the sexual assault problems such as those mentioned above didn’t impress Iraq veteran and House member Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI):

“We must provide accountability, which includes ensuring an independent, transparent, fair process for all reports of sexual assault, outside of the chain of command,” Gabbard said.  Gabbard, who remains a member of the Hawaii National Guard, said it “sickens” her that violent crimes occur in the ranks. “This is absolutely unacceptable,” she said.  [...] “It is our collective responsibility to bring an end to this epidemic, prosecute these offenders, and provide a safe environment for survivors of sexual assault, upholding the honor and integrity and that make our military strong,” she said. [Army Times]

Representative Gabbard may very well have highlighted the source of the military dilemma — the problematic confluence of individual command and accountability with the need to take collective action to insure the safety of our troops.   If this conflict of interest cannot be resolved within the military command structure, then the military might take a look at the system used by police departments — which also take command structures very seriously — for some guidance.

The second hurdle might be the ability to conceive of an independent review as essential to the operations of a structured unit.  We’ve been down this path before.   During the 1970s police departments in this country were actively engaged in a national debate about independent review boards and agencies.  Most of the opposition to the creation of independent review panels came from police mutual aid societies, police unions, police officials, and conservative interest groups.

Community and public advocacy groups were concerned that police departments were no longer perceived as neutral, dispassionate, or impartial when dealing with some segments of various communities.   [Duke Law, pdf]  The U.S. military may be seen in an analogous position if prominent commanders like Helms and Franklin aren’t considered impartial arbiters of justice.  The military’s position may be even more tenuous if the perception is that whatever “Sarge” wants “Sarge” will get.

For all the controversy over the creation of independent review departments and agencies, the system has worked reasonably well and is in place in most major police departments.  As the International Association of Chiefs of Police observes, the system isn’t perfect, but it is a tool useful in developing better community relations and effective policing:

“Accountability is built and maintained through diligent attention to many facets of the police enterprise, ranging from entry-level selection practices, to ethics and integrity, training, supervision, misconduct policies, and performance evaluation. It is important to place citizen review in its proper context. Citizen review is but one tool among many that can be used to promote and ensure accountability. It is neither a cure-all nor likely to promote desired results unless accompanied by a full package of accountability-building strategies. Over-reliance on these mechanisms can bring disappointment to a community.”  [IACP]

The third hurdle in this obstacle course relates to the point made by the police chiefs, i.e. there are no silver bullets.   The creation of independent review panels won’t be a magic solution so long as a culture of toleration toward assaults obscures the mission of the military.  A culture of toleration won’t be ameliorated by training sessions if the sessions aren’t supported by action.  Actions, such as prosecutions, won’t be the complete response if they aren’t accepted as just by the victims, seen as impartial by the communities, and aren’t substantiated by appeals and reviews.

The fourth hurdle is all too easily forgotten.  Military recruitment in the wake of the Iraq War.  The situation was so dire the Army lowered its standards not once but twice in order to meet recruiting demands.  Defense Department reports in 2008 indicated:

 ”In order to meet recruitment targets, the Army has even had to scour the bottom of the barrel. There used to be a regulation that no more than 2 percent of all recruits could be “Category IV”—defined as applicants who score in the 10^th to 30^th percentile on the aptitude tests. In 2004, just 0.6 percent of new soldiers scored so low. In 2005, as the Army had a hard time recruiting, the cap was raised to 4 percent. And in 2007, according to the new data, the Army exceeded even that limit—4.1 percent of new recruits last year were Cat IVs.” [Slate]

This, in addition to reports from 2007 that the military was relaxing standards concerning criminal records:

“It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.  The number of waivers for felony convictions also increased, to 11 percent of the 8,129 moral waivers granted in 2006, from 8 percent.”  [NYT 2007]

There are documented cases of “waiver” members of the military who have conducted themselves dishonorably to the discredit of our Armed Forces — and country.  [Feres Doctrine, download]  As long as the U.S. Armed Forces are required to downgrade standards for intelligence and moral behavior we ought not to become too alarmed by the consequences when some who have been engaged in serious misdemeanors before recruitment indulge a predilection for anti-social  behavior thereafter.

The fifth hurdle presents itself as the form of the  training these recruits (and officers) receives.   Francine Banner’s work on the Feres Doctine adds some insight:

“Until very recently, the DoD response to rising rates of sexual assault has been to engage in “soft” approaches, such as advertising campaigns and lighthearted presentations, such as “Sex Signals” and “Can I Kiss You?” Campaigns such as “Ask Her When She’s Sober,” “What a Rapist Looks Like” and “Bystander Intervention”  perpetuate the perception that most sexual assaults occur in a “he said/she said” situation in which anyone could cross a line.  “(Primarily male) troops are not encouraged to cease sexually pursuing (primarily female) co-workers but to become better at recognizing the “signals” those co-workers are sending.”  [Feres Doctrine, download]

Unfortunately this type of “education” merely serves to perpetuate the “boys will be boys unless the girls really really really say No” mentality, and the boys aren’t necessarily warned off unwarranted and unwanted behavior — just informed how to interpret the “no” signals which should in all likelihood never have been necessary in the first place.  The Army appears to be making some progress toward a more enlightened approach in its current SHARP program, in which members of the service are encouraged to “Intervene, Act, and Motivate” others to denounce sexual misconduct.

Even with the well intentioned answers to common questions about sexual assault and harassment in the SHARP website, the problem of reporting still remains…  the site gives all the usual advice one might receive from a local police officer, but the reporting will still be predominantly within the chain of command.  A person in command who has no more sexual assault prevention training than the advertising and “soft” touch videos may not be the best person to determine whether a case should proceed.

Navigating the Course

The first thing the JCS may wish to consider is either dropping its opposition to independent prosecution of sexual assault and related crimes, or at the least creating an independent review panel charged with the oversight and accountability of the prosecutions.  The second is to divest itself of any notion that a single approach will cure the problems — just as the modern Armed Forces are tasked with fighting asymmetrical operations they need to understand sexual assault as a multifaceted issue.   Further, we need to give serious consideration to the quality of the individuals being recruited into the U.S. military — reducing the number of “moral waivers” would be advisable.   If there is one thing the Armed Forces generally do well it’s training.  Since the Army has already determined its previous attempts at training in this realm were unsatisfactory, its endeavors to improve should be congratulated but continually monitored for efficacy.

All in all, Senator Reid is correct, the current system is not working. However, it’s going to take more than legislation, more than structural  reforms, and more than better recruitment and training to solve the problem.   It will take a truly Zero Tolerance attitude unencumbered by outdated attitudes and inadequate incentives for change.  And, we need this done by “yesterday.”

SB 221: Governor Ready To Fire Away?

SB 221 (pdf) passed as amended in the Nevada Assembly on a 23-19 vote, June 3, 2013.  The bill to expand background checks for private sales of firearms now faces a veto threat from Governor Sandoval.  [LVRJ]  On what grounds?

Perhaps we might speculate about the check list of NRA friendly mantras the Governor might incorporate into such a message?

___ 1. The bill will be an onerous burden on law abiding citizens who might otherwise be likely to purchase a firearm.   There are two problems with this argument. First, there’s the “onerous” standard, and secondly who’s a law abiding citizen?

Most background checks are quick and easy.  To say that the standard background check done by a licensed firearms dealer is “onerous” is tantamount to asserting that anything less than instant gratification is “onerous.”  Remember, we’re checking to see if a person is a felon, a fugitive, a minor, a dangerously mentally ill individual, or a person who has restrictions on purchases because of a history of spousal abuse.

The sorting out of who is eligible to purchase a firearm in Nevada takes us to the second problem with the contention: Who is a law abiding citizen?  If a law abiding citizen is one without any history of being a felon, is not now a fugitive, and is not adjudged a spousal abuser under current statutory terms, then he or she must be “law abiding.”  This definition pretty much includes anyone walking freely amongst us.  If so few are actually “restricted” by the legislation then how does the burden become “onerous?”

___ 2. The enaction of expanded background checks will not solve the epidemic of gun violence in this country.  The one size fits all test is impossible.

In fact, the one size fits all test is a semantic trap.  If the legislation is drafted broadly, so as to incorporate gun trafficking, high capacity ammunition devices of various kinds, assault style rifles, expanded background checks, and other language to reduce gun violence, then the opponents immediately declare a nefarious all out assault on 2nd Amendment FREEDOM.  If the legislation is drafted narrowly, to address single issues among the many facets of the gun violence problem, then by definition “it won’t work” because it is too circumscribed to “solve” the entire issue.

___ 3.  SB 221 is a stepping off point on the slippery slope to gun registration, which is a departure point for gun confiscation.  No.  There are no other rights specified in the U.S. Constitution’s first ten amendments which are unrestricted in any form.  The slippery slope argument is grounded in fear and cultivated by propaganda.  No rational advocate of curtailing gun violence is speaking of any route to confiscation, notwithstanding the hysterical hyperbole of the NRA.

___ 4. Prohibited buyers won’t submit to background checks.  That’s the point, as succinctly made by the author of this LTE in the Reno Gazette Journal.  If prohibited buyers can’t purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer because of background check requirements AND they can’t purchase one in a private sale covered by universal background checks then the likelihood that the individual who shouldn’t have a gun is restrained from getting hold of one is increased — and that’s the function of background checks.

Here’s what the bill actually does:

“AN ACT relating to public safety; requiring a court to transmit within 5 business days certain records of adjudication concerning a person’s mental health to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History for certain purposes relating to the purchase or possession of a firearm; authorizing the inclusion, correction and removal of the information in such records in each appropriate database of the National Crime Information Center; requiring each agency of criminal justice to submit information relating to records of criminal history within 60 days after the date of the conviction; requiring certain persons to request a background check before transferring a firearm to another person under certain circumstances; prohibiting certain persons from having possession, custody or control of a firearm; prohibiting certain persons from selling a firearm under certain circumstances; revising the functions of the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services of the Department of Health and Human Services; requiring a mental health professional to notify certain persons when a patient makes certain explicit threats of imminent serious physical harm or death; providing penalties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.”

The bill addresses the reporting and updating of information from the judicial system and the mental health system such that dealers will have access to the best information about a buyer in as timely a manner as humanly possible.  The entire point of the measure is to assist legitimate law abiding gun dealers run background checks to sort out the felons, the fugitives, the seriously and dangerously mentally ill, and minors from procuring firearms.

Personally, I can’t think of a single firearms dealer who would even remotely want to sell a gun to a felon, a fugitive, a dangerously mentally ill individual, or a kid who’s shopping without parental permission.  I can’t imagine a licensed firearms dealer promoting his inventory to those who have histories of violent domestic abuse, or to a person intending suicide.

At this juncture in the argument we need to differentiate between “law abiding” and “responsible.”  To be law abiding one need only to have not broken any laws.  To be responsible requires more effort.

Who is responsible for Manuel Mata’s acquisition of a gun, a gun used to kill his girlfriend, her daughter, injure a 4 year old child, and then used to attempt suicide? [LVRJ]  Mr. Mata had a previous arrest.  Was it for a felony? Might his purchase have been more unlikely with expanded background checks in place?  Or, was the arrest for a misdemeanor charge, meaning that according to Nevada statutes he was still technically within the “law abiding” category?

We’d be far better off promoting the notion that being a responsible gun owner is preferred over merely being a law abiding one, and that those who are responsible citizens should be protected from the law abiding albeit irresponsible ones.   Governor Sandoval could promote this by signing SB 221 into law — time will tell if he has the political courage and moral fortitude to do so.

Questions and Answers

Aggregation: Where’s the Gun Safety/Background Check bill in the Nevada Assembly? Answer here.  Who’s the big winner in the Nevada Legislative biennial lottery?  Answer here.  From which states is an undocumented worker most likely to be deported? Answer here.  Is a grazing permit a “revocable privilege” or a “property interest?” The answer so far, but there’s probably more litigation to come.

Dept. of No Surprises:  Now, who would have guessed that the beneficiaries of various and sundry tax breaks (hereinafter called Tax Expenditures) are those in the top brackets of U.S. income earners?  Answer: Everyone, including the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.    What are the most “Cringeworthy” Quotes from Wall Street?  Let’s start with “That’s why I’m richer than you…“

Contrary to the steady drum beat of radical assertions that the Social Security Administration won’t be around to help young workers when it’s time for them to retire, there’s “Social Security’s challenges continue to be modest and manageable.”  There’s more here from the CBPP.

Women Where Daily?  Members of the Armed Services Committee are seeking answers from top military brass on issues related to acts of sexual assault (predominantly against women) in the U.S. military. More here.   The ladies of the Senate confronted military leadership concerning the problem, more here.  An ex-Army prosecutor reached out to Senator Gillibrand, more from the Buffalo News.  And, Senator Boxer has teamed up with a former Marine to push the issue to the foreground.

Women can say silly things — there’s this nugget:

“I think that more important than that is making certain that women are recognized by those companies. You know, I’ve always said that I didn’t want to be given a job because I was a female, I wanted it because I was the most well-qualified person for the job. And making certain that companies are going to move forward in that vein, that is what women want. They don’t want the decisions made in Washington. They want to be able to have the power and the control and the ability to make those decisions for themselves.” Rep. Marsha Blackburn [ HuffPo]

What’s “THAT?” The reference goes back to equal pay for equal work legislation.   And, what sort of “recognition” would the ladies like from corporate America?  Money would be nice?  No one is talking about women being employed — the pay question refers to those who are already in the workplace and already getting paid an overall average of 75 cents on every dollar a man can earn.   “They” don’t want the decisions made in Washington?  Let’s go to the next line “They want to be able to have power and control and the ability to make those decisions for themselves.”   The question was about what women will be paid for their work.  Exactly what “power, control, and ability” do they have when facing an employer who discriminates based on gender?  Dear me, is Rep. Blackburn suggesting the ladies unionize?   The entire point is that in discriminatory situations the women do NOT have the power, or the control, or the ability to obtain equal remuneration for equal work.  However, we have to remember that Rep. Blackburn voted against the Lily Ledbetter Act… and the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2009.

Surprise! Women Are Working. Who Knew?

Breadwinner Moms? Who knew?  The Pew Social and Demographic Trends research finds 40.4% of American families have both adults working.  Predictably, the American Family Association decries the trend observing that women are “designed to serve their husbands.”  This, in addition to:

“Lou Dobbs on the May 29 edition of his Fox Business show Lou Dobbs Tonight hosted a panel of all men — Fox contributors Juan Williams, Erick Erickson, and Doug Schoen — to discuss the study. On this panel, Erickson reacted to Pew’s research by comparing the relationship between men and women to the relationship between male and female animals, concluding that men losing their dominant role in the family is “tearing us apart.” [MMFA]

Really? Now where was all this concern for “family values” when enslaved women were hoeing fields in the American south?

“Of course, the burdens, physical as well as psychological, that came with childbearing were enormous for enslaved women. Expected to put the needs of the master and his family before her own children, the slave mother on a large plantation returned to the fields soon after giving birth, leaving her child to be raised by others. On a smaller farm, the slave’s mothering responsibilities were simply added on top of her usual duties. For the love of their children, slave mothers often chose to stay in bondage, while their male counterparts attempted escape. The female slave was, moreover, faced with the prospect of being forced into sexual relationships for the purposes of reproduction. Perhaps more harrowing, she might be witness to her daughters suffering the same fate.” [PBS]

Oh, but that was so long ago — we should all “get over it?”  Times were different.  They certainly were.  However, while white women were considered too delicate to be exposed to “man talk,” and indeed too fragile to mention body parts, the Black woman was supposed to face a day’s grueling work in the field and then attend to her responsibilities as a house wife.  If this is the ‘traditional’ perspective on marriage and family life, then it was certainly highly selective.

Or, where were the cries of alarm for the American Family when by 1900 Black women and immigrant women dominated the numbers of those In Service.  The mistress of the house could breeze through the living quarters issuing  orders, demand that beds be made to perfection, that food be served on time, that fires be lit or laid up, that washing be completed, ironing and sewing be finished, and by the way they’d like hot water packed upstairs for bathing… that would be at 8.34 pounds per gallon.  For a Victorian era child’s large bath tub that would mean filling a container with a capacity of about  6,032 cubic inches — half full would equal 3,016 cubic inches at 231 cubic inches per gallon.

The attitude which supported the abuse of enslaved women could as easily justify the misuse of servants.  Fragile, ethereal, white women must be protected — Black women, immigrant women were beasts of burden.

Harriet Stanton Blatch’s speech to a convention in Washington, D.C. in 1898 summed up the problem for women in the workplace:

“We have never been “supported” by men; for if all men labored hard every hour of the twenty-four, they could not do all the work of the world. A few worthless women there are, but even they are not so much supported by the men of their family as by the overwork of the “sweated” women at the other end of the social ladder. From creation’s dawn. our sex has done its full share of the world’s work; sometimes we have been paid for it, but oftener not.”

A few years later (1911) women — mostly immigrant women from Germany, Hungary, Russia, and Italy — were the victims of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in New  York.  It was the most deadly factory fire in memory, and launched workplace safety standards in this country.  The wage scale didn’t match the sacrifice:

“But you see hours didn’t change. The hours remained, no matter how much you got. The operators, their average wage, as I recall – because two of my sisters worked there – they averaged around six, seven dollars a week. If you were very fast – because they worked piece work – if you were very fast and nothing happened to your machine, no breakage or anything, you could make around ten dollars a week. But most of them, as I remember – and I do remember them very well – they averaged about seven dollars a week. Now the collars are the skilled men in the trade. Twelve dollars was the maximum. ” [GMU edu]

It’s 2013, and women are still paid on average 75% of what their male counterparts are earning.   Working women are “tearing us apart?”  Who tore apart the families of those Africans placed in bondage? Who expected those Black and immigrant women to work full time cooking meals, doing housework, tending to children, and doing the scullery work — and then return at night to repeat the process in their own homes?  Who turned immigrant apartments in tenement buildings into piece work factories for various industrial sectors?  Who expected the girls at the shirtwaist factory to place their lives in peril for seven dollars a week?

If the “dominant role” for men is predicated on his performance as Master of His Domain (while his privileged wife orders the servants around) then this is indeed a thin bollard on which to moor social values.

If the “dominant role” for men is grounded upon differentiating between women of color, or working women, from  his view of his own spouse as the “nest builder,” then the class-ist, racist, perspective is entirely too visible.

 

Yawn: Wake Me Up When The Right Has A Real Point To Make About The IRS

For all the hyperbole and thumping over the “scandal” ridden nature of the Obama administration — YAWN.  We’d might want to remind ourselves that one of the definitions of “scandal” is “defamatory talk or malicious gossip.”  Definition number four pretty much summarizes the current level of Talk Show speculation which passes for news on cable networks.  YAWN

The current spate of GOP poutrages have neither the substance nor the significance to rise to the level of a good scandal.  The IRS is being vilified for doing its job — albeit clumsily — of determining whether or not a 501(c)4 organization qualifies for tax exempt status as a social welfare oriented organization.  The term “target” has been tossed about loosely, as if the organizations in question have been something to which aggression is directed or as if they were the object of attack, derision, scorn or abuse.  A much better word for members of the D.C. Village Press to use might be “flagged,” as in “to mark for attention.

The blundering and maladroit shortcuts used by the Cincinnati office of the IRS to identify organizations which might not qualify under the terms of 501(c)4, do not, in themselves, constitute an act of aggression, nor do they comprise a torrent of attack, derision, scorn or abuse.    Consider the general outlines of 501(c)4 qualifications:

Types of Organizations Exempt under Section 501(c)(4)

Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(4) provides for the exemption of two very different types of organizations with their own distinct qualification requirements. They are:
* Social welfare organizations: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, and
* Local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of designated person(s) in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.

Homeowners associations and volunteer fire companies may be recognized as exempt as social welfare organizations if they meet the requirements for exemption. Organizations that engage in substantial lobbying activities sometimes also are classified as social welfare organizations.

The IRS provides some helpful examples for those seeking to know if their organizations might qualify for tax exempt status under the provisions of 501(c)4.  Organizations which are primarily focused on political activities — campaigns, advertising for a candidate or party, etc. fall under the scope of 527s.   Therefore, if I seek to file an application for 501(c)4 tax exempt status I’d probably not be expecting to qualify if my organization conducts political campaigns for, or in association with, a candidate or party for local, state, or national offices, or if it functions as a political action committee.

If there are gray shaded areas between the definitions of a social welfare organization and a political organization then the proper jurisdiction  to craft appropriate language lies within the Congress of the United States.    Going a step further, there aren’t that many things that ARE taxable for a 527.  Most of the revenue come in the form of “exempt function income:”

“A contribution of money or other property; Membership dues, fees, or assessments from a member of the political organization; Proceeds from a political fundraising or entertainment event or from the sale of political campaign materials, which are not received in the ordinary course of any trade or business; or Proceeds from conducting bingo games that are defined in Code section 513(f)(2).” (emphasis added)

The big reason for the attraction to 501(c)4 status is that the donors need not be made public.   Thus, those who are up in arms about the villainy at the IRS are in essence telling the rest of us that they are positively OUTRAGED that political organizations might have to reveal who is bankrolling their operations.

Now which problem goes beyond the Yawn Test? (1) That the Internal Revenue Service used inappropriate terms to flag 501(c)4 applications which “sounded” like they would more appropriately be 527s? or (2) That we have corporations and other sources of extreme wealth seeking to cover their tracks when they engage in political activity at the local, state, or federal levels?

Tell me that the Congress of these United States is taking a serious look at the opaque and nubilous realm of political campaign funding in this country and I’ll stop yawning and start “listening with both ears.”  Until then, more unsubstantiated musing about the fumbling efforts of some IRS employees in Cincinnati, Ohio to differentiate between 501(c)4′s and 527s will merely serve to make me hit the snooze alarm button.

AB 287: One Facet of Nevada’s Mental Health Services Problems

Nevada’s unfortunate tendency to ship psychiatric patients from the Rawson-Neal facility to parts unknown has drawn appropriate scrutiny from all manner of powers that be.  [full story Las Vegas Sun] By political lights it appears we can move toward solving the problem by adding 19 beds? No word yet on the 20 consultants recommended to resolve staffing problems.

It will probably take more than that. The 2009 grading of Nevada’s overall level of psychiatric services by the NAMI earned us a “D.” (pdf)  And, that “D” was a a ‘grading on the curve’ gift.  Nevada earned an “F” in category I which includes Health Promotion and Measurement.  We got a “D” in category II, financing and core treatment or recovery services.  The state received another “D” in consumer and family empowerment, category III.   Nevada flunked category IV, community integration and social inclusion.  As well we might have given the transportation policy?

One thing failing states are not doing in terms of category IV criteria is allocating resources for long term care and housing of mentally ill individuals.  Failing states also have difficulty extracting the mentally ill from the criminal justice system.  Nevada has mental health courts — which were in serious jeopardy under funding proposals in 2011. [LVSun]  By April 2013 not much had changed. The mental health courts are still not “up to speed,” still in makeshift accommodations, still overloaded. [LVRJ]

The Nevada Legislature has taken up one significant piece of legislation concerning the treatment of those individuals, often well known to local law enforcement, who are dangerous to themselves or to others when not taking their prescribed medication.

AB 287, a bill that “Authorizes the involuntary court-ordered admission of certain persons with mental illness to programs of community-based or outpatient services under certain circumstances,” passed the Nevada Assembly on May 24, 2013.  It has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services.  Testimony in favor of AB 287 held in April noted:

“Currently in the state of Nevada, a person with severe mental illness is ten times more likely to be in one of your jails or prisons versus one of your psychiatric hospitals. This is a less restrictive alternative to hospitalization. While it will not solve all the issues with the mental health system in Nevada, it is a critical tool that the state is missing.” [Ragosta, TAC pdf]

One of the more insightful statements in opposition to AB 287 came from an individual who questioned the cost effectiveness of emergency treatment while the remainder of the mental health system in Nevada struggles with serious underfunding and consequent understaffing.

AB 287 will be heard in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee today. (May 28th)

Meanwhile, the funding issue continues for a state which has cut some $80 million for mental health services since 2007, and which has cut 19 staff positions by attrition.  There was some savings from pharmaceutical policy changes, but perhaps not quite enough to account for the total decrease in federal funding which dropped from $721.2 million for nationwide services in 2007-2009 to $631.2 million in 2011-2013.  [LVRJ]

Nevada’s own version of self-delusion includes visions of making a broken system work — without adequate personnel and staffing — in the interest of “saving money.”  This seems a classic case of penny wisdom and pound foolishness.

The well intentioned objections of the ACLU notwithstanding, there is a need for AB 287 to protect both the individuals who refuse treatment and  the communities in which they reside.  While we debate the finer points of civil liberties and the stigma attached to mental illness, there are still individuals who are experiencing auditory hallucinations, or who display other serious  symptoms, who “loop” through the mental health system, and who are in urgent need of assistance in some other location than a holding cell.

Nevada ranks 39th among the nation’s states in its funding for mental health care services. We can, and should do better.

Saturday Blog and News Roundup

It’s been a while since the last Round Up of good reading from the blogs, Nevada’s and from other parts of the country.  From the Nevada Progressive we learn that the radical fundies have put the kibosh on realistic sex education programs in the state of Nevada.  Heaven forefend we’d adopt curricula in this state which would alleviate the issue of unwanted pregnancies, provide accurate and adequate information about contraception, and prevent abortions….  There’s more on the topic from The Sin City Siren.

Looking for a concise summary of the tax issues before the Nevada legislature? Your first stop should be Sebelius’s “A Few Truths..” posting.   Hugh Jackson takes a gander at the Chamber of Commerce and its abiding love for education, just so long as it doesn’t cost them any coin of the realm — a taste of the full column.

“The chamber is “for” education. So a billionaire can sashay into a chamber gathering and win applause by saying that education needs more money — just so long as she qualifies her declaration as a “conceptual” need that merely requires the nodding of heads, as opposed to an actual need that demands businesses start paying some taxes.”

Add a bit of video to your news perusal by clicking over to Jon Ralston’s “Legislature poised to hide money and gifts.”   If all this is making you thirsty, click over to the Blue Nevadan for a list of Drinking Liberally sessions.   Another event worth noting is a rally for immigration justice in Reno on May 29th , details are available from the Nevada Rural Democratic Caucus.

Best of the Week

Speaking of Immigration — Crooks and Liars posts a good read on a federal judge’s ruling that “Sheriff Joe” has been engaging in good old fashioned racial profiling.  Surprised?

How many bridges have to collapse in this country before we get SERIOUS about funding infrastructure projects?  Add the I-5 bridge over Skagit River in Washington to the list of failed structures. There’s more on the story from Think Progress.  Click over to Demos for “The High Cost of Bad Infrastructure.”

I’d be much more in tune with the current Republican poutrage over the investigation of a Fox “news” reporter IF the network hadn’t called for a DoJ investigation of the New York Times beginning  in December 2005.  Perrspectives has a post devoted to this topic. “The next month, Deputy U.S. Attorney Matthew W. Friedrich told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Bush DOJ thought that journalists or “anyone” could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing classified information.”   And, then:

“As it turned out, those words came as music to the ears of Fox News and the conservative commentariat. After all, they had been cheerleading for the Bush administration to prosecute the New York Times for months.”

The National Journal has an insightful piece about “How the GOP Will Keep Stirring the Scandal Stew Over Recess.”  Nomadic Politics asks “Why should Tea Party Groups have any tax exemptions?”  Good question!

Then we have the specter of the House Republicans imperiling the U.S. economy and governance in general by refusing to appoint their own conferees, as explained in Politicususa.   While you’re on the site, see how the GOP may not be a viable national party much longer if they keep putting the interests (read: profits) of the Big Banks over the needs of students.   Oh, for the Good Old Days of the Whigs?  The Booman Tribune takes a look at our dysfunctional Congress in “Talking to a Living Room Table.”  Well worth the click and read.

Have a Great Weekend!