Government @ Work: Key Events 1990-2011 (RTC,HUD,PRWORA)

This corresponds to a post on my other blog (now in draft) under “Unsafe for Human Consumption? The Leftovers of Government by the People.  Meanwhile, this one itself got out of control and is 20,000 words — part quotes, part exhortation, and (true to style) I have about three different themes going at once.

I looked up details from  Ms. Fitts, “The Myth of the Rule of Law,” and laid this as background to the passage of “PRWORA” (Welfare Reform, 1996) supposedly to end welfare (poverty), and its later metamorphoses.

Also, while there, another look at how this 1996 switchover from “AFDC” (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) became instead “TANF” (federal block grants to the states), not actually to reduce welfare or poverty, or particularly help children, but from what I can tell, to start doing to HHS (which administers food stamps, cash aid to families, Medicaid, gives out grants/incentives to foster care, adoptions, and in short is one of THE largest federal agencies — which the USA’s own “GAO” disclaimed to report on, but did take special time to comment upon, i.e., the HHS grants aren’t being well monitored.

1996 welfare reform’s background includes political problems a Democratic President (Clinton) had during a Republican Congress already prone to lecturing poor people about their poverty, wanted to add to this single mothers about marriage, and almost everyone about “abstinence,” meanwhile diverting billions into “Fees for Friends” programs in (on closer examination) amazing repetitive patterns of favoring groups that simply don’t stay incorporated, and later (see “Baltimore”) show up as suspiciously dishonest in their handling of these grants.

Another angle on this, which I believe IS relevant, is how President Clinton and his then-advisor Dick Morris, it turns out, had both? studied at Oxford, and (at least Clinton) were Rhodes scholars.

Which brings us also to the topic of the Rhodes Scholars, and the original purpose behind Cecil Rhodes — British Expansionism.  The details of this information really do show the canvas on which the events of the last few decades have been painted by the same school of artists, trained essentially by the same masters, and in some cases descendants are involved.  Combined with Catherine Austin Fitts’ quotations  about “financial coups d’etat” and hearing that the decision had been made to let the USA go down financially, I think the British Imperialist/expansionist connection really does bear keeping in mind.

We need to know how this works and make up our minds where we stand regarding the matter.

It’s time to face the facts, when I also present more facts on who is buying up American real estate, selling its debt and sticking us — we are now the “indigenous people,” the lowly taxpayers — and doing this from tax-exempt foundations and PRIVATE equity.  While the people in power may be Americans, their heart, mindset, and trainers are not.  As such, when we talk about law, we have to look at who laid down the law — and who is financing our own government.

Absent really having this conversation, there is simply not enough common logic to work with; people are operating on myths and not willing to lay down their idols yet.

Let me start here with Rhodes.  I already have posts on another blog, “from Transvaal to TANF” and “Rhodes Scholars in the US: Sir John Templeton.”

It’s a lot of material, and I cannot invest much more formatting time.  Anyone of moderate intelligence, and who is willing to make some time to keep paying attention, over time, will eventually be able to connect the dots. I am simply waving a few red flags here.

There will be some heavy lifting (mentally) required in this field, to get any substance.  There’s also delayed gratification before an “Aha.”  (suggestion, skip the text, read what’s in the tables, perhaps).

I’m sorry, but that’s just how it goes. In life, we need to sort and select information, and validate or reject it, but (trust me) the brain works better when exercised — not tickled but actually used to make important decisions and think beyond one’s lifetime. To make halfway intelligent decisions about the future, for your kids (if there are some), or beyond one’s lifetime — then you are going to have to do some mental and HEART work, and face your unpleasant emotional responses to things you unearth.  Just working a job or a profession (trust me) is more fun, and often more financially rewarding — in the short term.

This diagram works for me …. seems to hold some water, from “the Paper Empire: Unwinding the global fiat money experiment.”  Some of this history only goes back to the 1800s or so — that’s not too hard to summarize, or at least count the wars. We are still within 100 years (as of 2013) of the creation of the Federal Reserve, the passage of the income tax, followed by  World War I (it only got its numbering to distinguish it from World War II), followed by enough people deciding that it was “good” to keep the USA on emergency status (since 1933) — makes governance simpler.

Then these are described on the site (please look for definitions).   In brief,

 Sociopaths don’t experience real emotion, but are good at imitating it, and they tend to gravitate to power situations:    “They are naturally suited for climbing social power structures.  The highest levels of banking, finance and politics contain far larger concentrations of sociopaths than the population at large.”Sheep, “The great bulk of the population exists neither to control others or to discover truth. They simply want to live their lives.  They attempt to do this through the path of least resistance.  The process of seeking truth involves tremendous amounts of mental work that gets in the way of living their lives. They prefer not to do the heavy lifting required to arrive at a set of beliefs, but rather, to adopt a predefined set.

They find great comfort in seeking the approval of others as it reassures them the belief systems that they have adopted (or have been taught) are correct. Once reassured, they are relieved of the arduous mental work required to discover the truth.  The Sheep tend to follow the voices of the sociopaths, who in turn seek to herd them;  to shear them;  and in some cases – to slaughter them.

[[From the same site…]]

Truth Seekers  At this this end of the distribution lay the diametrical opposite of the sociopaths.  These are the individuals whose desire for truth and the ability to live free, is so strong that they will accept a more difficult life in order to accomplish those goals. Unlike the sociopaths, they have no desire to wield power over others . . . These people are strong individualists and tend to be scientists, artists, and thinkers.  Because of their inherent nature, they tend to avoid any involvement in politics, the bureaucracy, and institutions of management.  It is only in times of great political strain, and threat to their own freedom, that they are forced to become part of the politic.  They rise up during times of revolution, as necessary, only to fade away once the overthrow of the sociopaths has been accomplished. Power is then gradually yielded back to the sociopaths as the lessons of the past are slowly forgotten by subsequent generations of Sheep.

What can you say?  I am the daughter of a scientist, I am an artist (not visual arts), and I think.

I have ALWAYS been intensely curious about truth; I came out this way, and never fit in right as a kid.  When I got to college, I didn’t just attend college — I wanted to know why my classmates had come also, and went about interviewing them.  For years, I was constantly interviewing people about how they lived and what motivated them (actually I still do this conversationally).  This had nothing to do with an interest in psychology and desire to label, file, and manipulate others.  I simply wanted to know.

I slept through a good deal of K-12 school, came out on top anyhow, and woke up for things that engaged my full attention, and studied them further afterwards.   For some reason, I had no respect for teachers that didn’t require me to work hard, which most didn’t — and that was in a well-respected public school.

As a parent of more than one child, I have seen them come out differently — that’s from a very early age. Both very smart, but they processed information differently, as I do from my own siblings, one of who I’d call a sociopath, the other, who married one.  I also appear to have married one, but eventually managed to throw him out, at serious risk (and requiring courage and resourcefulness to figure out HOW).

I have sampled all kinds of bureaucracies, and managed small, medium, and a few times, sectors of large businesses for others, run a few (small) myself. If I were in your business right now, your bottom line would be helped, because I’m creative, and diligent, and pretty quick at picking up where the roadblocks are — regardless of the field.  I’m a problemsolver. I ENJOY thinking, I can tolerate all kinds of people, but I HATE liars. Wasting my time and boredom are a form of torture, along with the various forms that are legitimately called “domestic violence.”

When there’s the right support system, people of this type (creative, diligent, professionals — leave me alone, let me practice in my field, or create a new field if necessary) are contributing to society.

The problem comes is that the happy-in-their-profession professionals have a moral duty (by and large, they have forsaken it, no offence meant) to keep the sociopaths who fund them in place — but  by and large they simply won’t.  Sociopaths are always waging some kind of war, they always have some kind of “game” they are playing, and they work through and in government, which has the capacity to collect huge wealth and the means to absolutely dominate any population through force.   Some of these come up from hardship, others from wealth. As I am not God, or an expert in genetics, I can’t say whether it’s spiritual or genetic in origin — nor is it my place in a blog like this to say so. However, I experience dealing with the different types as a spiritual issue.

I have at least two sociopaths in my extended family.  You do not reason, negotiate, or cut a deal with a sociopath without becoming more like them.  They are going to suck up all the air in any relational space; either you breathe that foul air, or you break loose.  I don’t think chances of shutting them up are very good.

Sooner or later you will be compromised.  Like parasites, they are in the business of destroying other things and people, particularly independent good things not under their control — and if you cannot stomach ejecting this from any system; but still love the paycheck, you WILL be sooner or later a who to worse and worse treatment (of yourself, a relative, your neighbors).   You will be used.  Any technology or neat inventions you may help create, will also be used, to wage war, usually on the innocent.  [Come to think of it, Ms. Fitts also speaks of “economic tapeworm” in American society.  The real problem is the comfort zone.

I am saying this with all that I have inside right now — I know what I’m talking about here.   Any people are only ‘marginally’ sheep, who are not comfortable in that function, and are willing to, perhaps change — now is your time!  Get educated, and get an action plan, do not sit still and be sucked dry and lied to, if possible.  If nothing else, tell people to read their CAFRS, read a few sites that make sense (I’m recommending Fitts, Burien, and for starters; or you can plow through my stuff).   You have to TOTALLY lose your taste for falsehood and go seek the bottom-line truth of the largest possible scope, and then come to a decision on it.

This is, (FYI), what Jesus Christ basically demanded of people, prophets basically do that; probably why they were always getting thrown out, or stuck up to their necks in dung (Jeremiah), or being hunted down.  They disrupt the status quo, BUT they are the white blood cells of human society.  People that don’t want to, or can’t function like this, can do something to make at least a little space for those that are, to exist, or risk taking a few in from time to time.

One thing, I know personally, that brought out my fighting spirit and willingness to take some real hardships (and take on these tasks) was being a mother.  I also was, as an artist and thinker, incensed at the stupidity and cruelty I saw in these court systems.  It’s outrageous that people who have gone through near-death experiences should be sat down and lectured by their own government, made to deal personally with people who have assaulted them, and in short, treated like animals for the crime of acting like real human beings.  As an artist (and obviously writing AIN’T my longsuit) I am willing to undergo a transformation to speak to these issues so that, perhaps at some other time, it may be safe for future artists or creative sorts to exist, and not be used by sociopaths to destroy others.

I kept noticing, over time, that of the hundreds (literally) of people who knew what was going on in my home, or who afterwards were wonderfully supportive during major trauma (associated with custody) — only a very, very few actually expressed outrage — they got f for my sake.  But every one of these were also dependent upon the system for their lives, and for their housing.  I had no right to ask them to sacrifice more than they already did.

But just for the record, standing by me at least morally — only a very small handful (actually, at this time, it’s really only ONE person) actually got indignant.   Said person, I also noticed, is, #1 an atheist (I’m not, but this seems significant); #2 a long-term leader in (her) own field, #3, creative, very very smart and self-assured, and does not appear to give a damn what people think of (her); and #4, as it happens suffered horrible beatings throughout her childhood (confirmed by her sister), from their father (only one child was attacked), into and a bit beyond even being married.  In one of them, she was almost killed.  I know a few women in this category (some, it was their mother who abused).  All of them seem to be fiercely independent, smart, and make breakthroughs in various fields.

I don’t know how to say this much plainer, about the three types (call them what you will.  It’s not meant to be condescending, it’s not an appeal to the “elitist” to say, oh, I am a truthseeker because I spend a lot of time looking.

I really think that society cannot survive (it will implode and/or explode) unless the proportions of truth-seekers increase, and the “sheep” start calling upon what’s left of them, and examine their own leadership. WHILE HERE, let me explain, no question about it, several major religious call their flocks “sheep” and themselves “shepherds.”  there is a reason people like to assemble themselves under sociopath leaders who enable abuse and set up codependent relationships.  These people tend to not deal well with conflict, and are (to put it plainly) just not independent thinkers.  They may not like attention focused on them, but they like the social grouping.  Such groups are often ripe picking for the stray abuser, which is why this keeps hitting the press, and why I steer clear, particularly being female.

There are differences; I’ve recently heard a PhD geneticist confirm as well).  Again, I haven’t heard the youtube here yet, but sometimes George Carlin nails a situation; he’s right about this one:

George Carlin on who really controls America
Posted on August 12, 2011 by paperempire| Leave a comment

America’s education system doesn’t suck by accident. The real owners of the country want it that way. As Mr. Carlin points out: ”They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 years ago”.

So have you figured it out yet? Do you understand that the fundamental nature of our monetary system impoverishes us and destroys liberty? Do you understand that a free society cannot exist without sound money?

In looking at what C.A. Fitts discovered, and acted on, within HUD and FHA, I have to ask, how is it that no one did, before her?  Was this her calling for her time?

Anyhow, the Rhodes Scholarships are picking the cream of the crop, inviting them to Oxford to study, and training them up in the way they should “go forth and conquer,” regardless of national origin, according to the British expansionist version of the world.  Bill Clinton was one of these.  And being President, he’s the one that signed Welfare Reform, 1996.  He also sent out a “fatherhood memo” in 1995.

Rhodes Scholarships to Americans began in 1904 and I understand there have been over 300 of them.

Point in Case:  England had lost the colonies physically but for us paying attention to finances, the economic war hasn’t ceased.  Governments must be transformed to centralized control in the British order, or else.  I will make this a separate post….

Ms. Fitts’ publication (The Myth of the Rule of Law) (if not all its additions or updates) is now over a decade OLD.  I’m posting the contents, because (herein) I’m looking in particular about parts of the RTC — the “Resolution Trust Corporation” — which was “The RTC was a mechanism by which the American taxpayers underwrote approximately $500 billion of waste, tax shelters and fraud in a manner that allowed the investors to buy the assets at a discount . . . “I think a lot of us don’t really understand how “the borrower is servant to the lender” in contemporary terms, or think (in the course of daily life) about language that would be familiar to people working in the field.And how the US (federal) government, which obviously knows this, has been buying up real estate and debt, alongside also (it would seem) creating fraudulent mortgage paperwork, and selling assets to friends and sticking the public with the liabilities, while all the time promoting debt, debt, debt, (guilt), debt & disaster, cut services — blame the poor, blame someone else, etc.   We have to start thinking in terms of sales:  buying and selling, markups, and middlemen.

But somehow even people who are in sales, or even run others’ businesses for a paycheck, even people who are accountants, do not think strategically about the larger, and largest scope of the landscape we work in.I have come to the conclusion that the large-scale scope of this ignorance is as hazardous to the average family as the perpetrators.

Fraud happens when people have previously consented, usually, en masse, to let someone else mind their business, and failed to oversee it properly.   When this reaches exponential proportions, as it has, we have a completely dangerous situation, and there is no solution other than shipwreck without a mass change of conscience (a change of heart, really) about the ship.  Of state.   People have to be willing and able to handle conflict.

If I’m just living in my own home, paying its mortgage through working a job, and trying to have enough net income to keep food on the table, I am not likely to be contemplating, or be fluent in concepts like “securities” or “pooled mortgage defaults” or perhaps even in “investment” in theory, let alone in practice.

I probably am not thinking about how debt is bundled and then put on the auction block and understand  WTF* this same government feels free to lecture the poor unemployed or underemployed about their work ethic (“the lazy bums, welfare queens, and frauds hitchhiking on the honest working class”), and the middle class about its responsibility to pay off the collected trillion-$$ US Debt (part of the game of which is keeping the working middle classed focused on the lazy bum low-income population).

(*scatalogical acronym, alternate version “WTH.”  It works for me, might be too old for your basic teenager)

As a mother I’m particularly sensitive to the “lazy bum” treatment after a few years of sleep deprivation while working full-time nights married, repeated work sabotage, credit destruction, and personally witnessed it work in exact reverse from its original stated purpose, and its label:  “Child Support Enforcement.”  This post (towards bottom) documents some of the metamorphosis from actually reducing poverty to marriage promotion.  I also have personal experience with attempting to work with a local child support agency before and immediately after an overnight custody-switch,  before I knew to look at who was funding it.  (NOTE:  CAFRs often show Child Trust and Child Support Funds, and they should be noticed).  In other words, I saw it in action — letting the arrears build up to unacceptable (crisis) levels, refusing to take action, then when it finally commandeered my ex’s license, someone obviously cut a deal along the way — because he simply snatched our children, immediately terminating the responsibility (current), suspending ANY payments on arrears for a long time, getting arrears compromised retroactively (by about one-third) and in the process wiping out my offspring’s chance of EVER getting child support from at least their one working parent, as the drawn-out process destroyed my own income.Our children were then essentially “sold” to third parties, and no doubt someone is billing their social security#s to a program they’re not in. It is ALL gamesmanship, not just part of it.What I learned from watching this process spin out over several years is, how gangs of crooks actually work as enabled by local (county, state, federal) government.  The pattern of fraud, lying, deceit, absolute and utter lack of accountability (more than even a veneer).  While this is valuable knowledge, it sure is unpleasant and has changed me into a less gullible, but also less trusting person — but probably a lot more useful one to the rest of society then when I was coasting along as an innocently happy employee or private contractor in my settled profession.In discussion the PRWORA aspect, I also bring up (again) how this basically ignores domestic violence as a real source of post-separation poverty.  “DV coalitions are brought in as the icing on the cake, and if they try to function in substance to counter post-separation violence in the family law venue, they would lose their funding. Again, patronizing attitudes towards “low-income” people are completely inappropriate from Administrations that knowingly did not publicize the net worth of government (CAFRs), and which have overseen the levels of dysfunction Ms. Fitts and friends found within HUD.   Weighed in the balance, it can’t, won’t, and has no real intention, to balance its own books.  When actions have been taken to do so, the ship doesn’t change direction, but the whistleblowers have been targeted, as the Hamilton Securities story appears to show.In draft, this is a 17,000 word post (it has lots of quotes).  I will either split it again, or leave it long and expect people to read in installments.  It takes talent and time to write short pithy, but documented, exposes.  I don’t have the time.   Learn to scan for relevant data — that’s what I had to do!  Professional publishers pay developmental editors, copyeditors, proof-readers, abstractors, and indexers.  I am writing “on the fly,” here, but do have a nose for information that speaks to the big picture, with supporting detail.  Please tweet or publicize the blog to taxpayers, people struggling with foreclosures, or people who are standing beside others dealing with domestic violence or loss of contact with their children thereafter.Please review my last [on a different blog] post (“Government:  Same Turkey Outside, but Who Changed the Stuffing?”  It’s not that long), quoting from Ms. Fitts and Mr. Burien, and the evidence from the Massachusetts League of Women Voters that Massachusetts did indeed, as Mr. Burien noted, actually abolish several of its counties (leaving the shell geo-political designation, but governmentally up to the “commonwealth” (state, for most of us) level.  And notice that this happened AFTER 1996 welfare reform.  I cited Fitts saying:I tend to like “show and tell,” not just “tell.”  Perhaps I’ve heard too much “that’s just what YOU say” talk from the deny/rationalize/desensitize quarters, and tend towards over-documentation.  In fact, I know I do.But I know will that also loses readers….So, I’m moving part of that “show” over here. As I said up front, to get the whole picture, rotate from blog to blog (see “what it’s about” and two other opening pages under blog title here).Who is this woman and why should anyone listen to such radical, unpleasant statements?  Is she making it up? Where’s the documentation? How plausible is it?Well, here’s just part of one segment from a table of contents (links) on”The Myth of the Rule of Law” (2001), stating her job reference:  Assistant Secretary of Housing in the Bush (Sr.) Administration.  I know elsewhere that she had worked for an investment firm, and was FHA Commissioner.  Her mother was  an economist with the Philadelphia Federal Reserve system (who retired to raise children) and her father a trauma surgeon.   Her motivation for learning “How Money Works” was watching the destruction of a neighborhood.  Mine was watching the destruction of lives through the court systems, while religion stands by and/or enables.  I am very familiar with the concept of economic AND social control systems, which is why I want them changed.So, please read several paragraphs here to get a grasp of the terms, and the economic scope.  This is our federal government’s behavior, having control of multi-billions of $$ collected from wage-earners, invested around the globe, and not accounted for right.Referencing the timespan 1989-1990:If you follow my first Lets Get Honest family law blog (since 2009), (or the shorter, neater, but still perceptive version, “Read My Links”), just about every other post I have something to say about welfare reform, diversions of funding to federal (and other) contractors, block grants to the states, and how the family court was set up to dispense therapy; as a literal mental health Archipelago, decked out and robed as if a court of law ruled by facts, and concerned with the kids.By now, there should be, for its followers, and somewhere between the first one’s 500+ posts,  a basic understanding of how radical this was, and why and how it happened.  Unknown to me at the time (I was in an abusive marriage and experience as part of the control factor repeated sabotage of work and economic options that might allow me accumulate enough resources to leave, rent my own place, and support our kids in safety.  Unfortunately, such paranoid/controlling/abusive persons (AND institutions) have a keen sense of when someone is about to break loose, and have a kazillion ways to prevent it.  The primary means is often simply economic — in order to flee, and stay separate, one needs to live somewhere, obviously.  Many people under such control have already been isolated from support systems — or such support systems simply ignore the abuse and danger which are routine, if you’re in it.That’s the bad news; but the GOOD news is that we have learned from the experience, and have a valuable lesson for the rest of the country.The only problem is, the government has sunk its funding into various rhetoric-based information “clearinghouses” (,, etc.) for the same sorts of propaganda that abusers use to continue their sick relationships, to continue the same sick premise that everyone should support it, while it continues to lie, steal, cheat, abuse and hurt people it’s supposed to be serving, protecting, and (as implied in a marriage vow) nurturing, cherishing, etc..And as of about the mid-1990s, while the domestic violence crowd was allowed to exist, it too took government funding (a lot of it) and had to either be put on a leash, restrict themselves as to venue, or countered.   And so we get major support towards any and all nonprofits which will speak out (as loud as you want doesn’t matter) about domestic violence and abuse, or even violence towards women — so long as they don’t truly defame the institutions of marriage and family, and do NOT report on how the “conciliation courts” commonly known as domestic relations, custody, or “family” courts.AND so long as they do not blow the whistle on how the propagandists live (which isn’t by the standard, often low-wage, employment they are pushing on everyone else who is separated).When AFDC went to TANF under President Clinton, in 1996, it was major transformation of the distribution of federal grants to the states, and a major policy change.  It was at several levels a response to feminism, and as such, many religious groups were quite favorable to it.  In my opinion, it appealed to the basest human instincts to negatively (or, patronizingly, which is hardly much different) others, lie to them, and profit from it — indefinitely.  In other words, it appealed to sexism, racism, elitism, and pride.  No one could get away with, I’d like to think, talking about certain ethnic groups directly in the 1990s (as had been in the 1960s and earlier), but it was still acceptable throughout society to talk about women in this manner, and particularly single mothers, and — let’s get down to business — particularly single mothers of color on welfare.  Accordingly, promote marriage, and abstinence, and reward those willing to lecture on fatherhood as well. Here’s a 2001 paper, posted online at “” (presumably Kentucky University):- – – – -it goes on, and on – – –nowhere in there will it recognize that sometimes poverty is caused by domestic violence. The bottom line of recognizing that is that it may NOT relate to incompetence, laziness, lack of training (sometimes, it’s the opposite), and as such, families affected by this need justice, or at least protection, far more than they need.  For any entity as dishonest and extortionist as this government is turning out to be — to try and pull the “moral high ground” as part of public policy is ridiculous.  One of the first things I picked up on, starting to read some of the rhetoric (including the Congressional testimony leading up to 1996 welfare reform, not to mention afterwards). It’s racist, condescending, patronizing, hypocritical, regards the other population as a substance to be worked on — and its operational system is not transparent.  No person of spirit and with a backbone would voluntarily subject themselves to this type of treatment, and people are indeed resisting.  However it’s difficult to resist without resources…More to the point, this whole welfare reform (which is, really a “federal budget/appropriations”) deal chronologically follows significant money-laundering operations being set up in the 1980s (The Franklin Coverup//Credit Union & Child Prostitution Ring (which definitely ties into drugs, narcotics trafficking, ie., the children were used as drug mules also: Google “Paul Bonacci”)). High-profile politicians and FBI were nailed/blackmailed because of their (nasty) private addictions. Eight people were murdered as part of the coverup. While this was centered in Nebraska, it is an object lesson in who, really, is running our national and state governments.  Kids were flown all over.Note: children for the purpose of trafficking were some, provided from foster care families; some from Boys Town, and some of those, once forced into it, then used as bait to kidnap others. Children were murdered. Witnesses (Paul Bonacci, Alicia Owens) were prosecuted for slander, and some of them turned up dead. The material is sickening and vicariously traumatizing (one reason for the name  blog: “Cold Hard Facts”) is my own attempt to avoid ongoing re-traumatization vicariously without abandoning the cause of speaking out against child-trafficking for financial profit.  I do have PTSD!  But financial fraud is only one form of abuse;  generally speaking abuse is comprehensive, and comes as a cluster of characteristics — and this includes sexual and physical abuse of women, and boys and girls, and yes, men, as well.  Not all abusers are white middle-aged males;  the Larry King involved in this scandal certainly wasn’t!At this point, I pretty much believe that the money laund go together. Where there’s a certain amount of financial fraud and coverup, there are those other matters not acceptable to discuss in polite, moral, society, and certainly not fun to talk about, either.  No one said truth was always pleasant — but it’s needed.Therefore I find that welfare reform of the 1996s in the perspective of the other matters which preceded it (1980s — around which time the battered women’s movement was developing but had already, from my research, been anticipated and derailed/outgunned, outfunded (looking here at Ellen Pence (d. recently)’s “Collective Community Response” movement, Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, etc.” and diverted from confronting this matter, to compromising it:  they would train judges and sell supervised visitation and intervention programs instead.  The key word being “SELL” – and there is big bucks (incl. federal bucks) in this type of “technical assistance” programs.I am not done exposing this yet (on different site), but through simply being nosy, discovered the “blackbaud” trademark, and how this made a UK citizen a multi-milionaire.  It’s a software platform that Technical Assistance and Training platform used by this MN group to sell it’s web-based programming material, and schedule seminars and conferences, etc.You can notice that this 2001 description of the changeover simply quotes other research, but there’s next to no reference to violence as a factor in poverty:- – – – -it goes on and on.How hypocritical — the system is actually driving families who (unlike it) actually depend on working jobs onto poverty after having been sold as reducing welfare, which was characterized (esp. by Republicans then in control of Congress, although the President was Democrat) as being caused not by, say, our own government defrauding Americans of many things  — like a valid currency, or accountability in its use of our investments, while concealing the existence of CAFRs (by and large) from the public, and while not being able ITSELF to run programs like HUD as anything other than a slush fund,” or “fees for friends,” while in short itself engaged in criminal racketeering beyond the imagination of the ordinary individual even if such a person actually intended to somehow be a welfare queen and was innately “indigent” per the propaganda.  This is also the same government involved in The Franklin Coverup, (child prostitution ring for the purpose of blackmailing politicians to enable the money-laundering, etc.); in fact, the more I look at these things, the more disgusting and revolting it becomes.However, PRWORA eventually morphed into classifying as many people as possible for “TANF” services, particularly when the matter of child support is taken into account.  It was sold as poverty reduction, but within a very few years, changed its tune, which can be documented (and has been).From the Perspective of a Battered Woman who opted for Single-Motherhood as both fiscally and physically preferable.  Not to mention in about every other way:While welfare reform was happening, I, and thousands of others (I DNK if hundreds of thousands, but suspect so) around the country, were trapped economically AND physically through threat in abusive (violent) relationships masquerading under the umbrella institution (many of them) of “marriage.”  Some of these had additional religious rationalization added in for good measure, and were caught unawares.Therefore it’s clear what PRWORA overall doesn’t accept, or account for, is that many times women are targeted once they are landed specifically because of their education or independence; they may have even been selected for partners because of their earning capacity and apparently religious institutions are often likely to produce more submissive ones, too.  Moreover, sometimes the abuse starts in earnest when they are pregnant and actually in a situation needing some help or support from their partners, or at least expecting some.It doesn’t make much policy sense to dump so many millions into programs based on false (if not, many of them, utterly ridiculous) premises, but welfare reform wasn’t actually (in my opinion) designed to make sense or actuallyreduce poverty and child abuse.  Comparing Savings and Loan Scandal, HUD Loan Sales (Bank Bailouts), and THEN Welfare Reform (The Bush Sr. years, the Clinton Years, Bush Jr., now Obama) it is simply consistent conduct:

  • Previous setup creates predictable crises
  • Emergency Status (since 1933) enables “anything goes” solution
  • The solution will ALWAYS lead to more centralized control and suspense of the rule of law.
  • The solutions generally enable more “fees for friends.”
  • Wealth flows away from the common person and taxpayers to the “amoral” and tax-exempt.

For these women (and I know a lot of them, have networked, looked at court dockets, researched local county situations, and national organizations as part of attempgint to understand “how can this be?” in my own country.   So, during the 1990s, at least for me, and for most of such women, political reform or tracking government was the least of our day to day worries; we were in survival mode.  When it comes to women (we know there are men) targets of partner violence (“IPV” as it’s called, “intimate partner violence.”  When I finally learned that there were laws in place to help save my life, and my kids’ (and exes) of course, this was excellent. however, it was not enough — and the bill (presented a few years later) was essentially child sacrifice to the system, and being subjected to ongoing indoctrination, patronizing and condescending treatments, and being blamed for a single primary mistake:  Not being prophetic, mind-reader, or simply smart enough to predict how the relationship was going to turn out.Some of these women are experiencing severe post-separation losses, and/or death, anyhow, through the insane ideology of the same courts. It’s become a real litany of tragedies, and we really do have to continue exerting major life energies while still single (or, even at times, after remarriage to a decent man this time) to stay alive.  These are becoming, it seems, more and more violent and sometimes claiming bystander victims.  No one who has come close to similar situation can afford to fall asleep at the wheel:  Our courts are enabling familicides under the name of “family”– and this is directly related to welfare reform, which idolizes the same.  It’s a national cognitive dissonance of epic proportions and (quite honestly)has me wondering where a real vision for a possible, sane future, might lie.    I personally feel as though I am racing the clock for solutions that may involve any sort of collective action.For example, here’s a case that — fully 8 years after the father tried to kill his wife on a regular visitation pickup — is still in appeals.  She was actually awarded $3.7 million damages (appropriate — see the details) and he still wants joint custody and to get out of the award.  Obviously, someone is a sociopath — but the institution that said, “visitation for violent fathers, joint custody (etc.)” set this one up, and that institution is amoral.  It’s a business outfit, not a personal protection outfit.Eventually I learned that our country defines “crime” not consistently as violations of basic humanity so much as economic competition with its own RICO business agenda.  Knowing this sheds an entirely different light on the Penal Code, Family Code, Education Code and all the other “codes.”  Essentially, they are there for show; they are the Emperor’s Robes, to encourage generally moral behavior among most people — but not necessarily for governmental leadership and its associates, who are more about:[[Whatever….  however in From Transvaal to TANF” I show how then-President Bill Clinton (i.e., he was Prez in 1996) was caught (Democrat President, Republican Congress) between a rock and a hard place on this matter of a budget, from which we got welfare reform.  Around the same time he was also caught with his pants down (literally). His Administration, in short, needed to redeem itself. PBS Frontline narrates the process of introducing “Hegelian dialetic” to come up with “ending welfare as we knew it,” which it did.  Not in a positive sense, but it did. I understand this triangulation having seen it in action locally and in my life also. Those employing this ALWAYS have another agenda (for Clinton, it was political), and it is definitely “amoral,” which is a serious problem.In February 2012 in “From the Transvaal to TANF (Welfare Reform) via Rhodes (and a Rhodes Scholar)  I’m looking back from a 2011 perspective, quoting the Assistant Secretary of HHS addressing a “Fatherhood Conference” in San Francisco.First, I’ll excerpt the 2011 comments (and my response about general ignorance of TANF aka PRWORA, welfare reform), then the PBS outline of what led up to it politically, from Clinton’s Perspective.  That he’s a Rhodes Scholar and a consultant (if I remember it right, an Oxford Scholar figures in, there is an identified agenda behind the original Rhodes Scholarship, part of which is to restore the British empire to its global domination…. One thing at a time, though!~ ~ ~The last segment was from 1989-1990.  Here’s a retrospective of the $500 billion bank bailout (CitiCorps, etc.) and what it means for not even “the little guy” or individuals — but even small businesses.I am building layers of information here, to characterize what is taking place IN government, and what significance it has.  When the discrepancy of treatment of government versus people is at the multi-billion and multi-trillion-dollar level, and was are still approaching this institution as if it’s benevolent and has our best interests in mind — instead of dedicating ALL we have (energy, time, purpose, networking, looking for a strategy to resist, and to become NOT so dependent for our own physical survival on this centralization of power in Washington, D.C. (in particular) and ITS network of influence and power) — we become progressively dumber and more docile with every generation, and as time passes.  We become the acted upon, and not actORs.At all times, it’s in the government’s interest that we CONSENT to lack of accountability while continuing to fund its hunger.  Take it from a domestic violence survivor — same is true of any kidnapping — the time to resist the hardest is before you are “taken,” and controlled.  If that doesn’t happen, escape becomes harder, more dangerous, and more costly.As with an abusive marriage (sorry to keep raising the analogy), it is started with, generally, a public oath “Do you solemnly swear,” etc.  It’s started under the umbrella of something good — voluntary liaisons, that is.  Same deal with cults (they recruit) and same deal with expansionist central governments.  They sell their purpose to counter some other social evil (like big business?  Or anarchy?  or the bad guys in the next neighborhood?).So, here’s another chapter in the same story, from the same author:You tell me why the federal government should have $1.2 trillion credit, about one-third of it in HUD mortgage insurance, and it was already known at the time that HUD was being run as a criminal enterprise?  (Fitts was told this before taking the position, and found it out once in there).This segment then goes on to talk about how HUD finally got in there and started putting out bids to improve recoveries of loan losses.  (“The auction block” of homes that residents could no longer afford to pay the mortgages on).  This is where Fitt’s firm Hamilton Securities got involved.  What I am showing is how our government sets up situations of huge debt, doesn’t track where it is, and then sells it to bidders.Let’s talk about 1989 again, and the Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis, and how government galloped in to “rescue” We, the People by creating another tool from which to steal from them some more, using public credit for private profits.  To understand this, we have to understand at least the process of buying and selling, investing for profits.MOST OF AMERICA doesn’t even understand that beyond the local grocery stores or gas stations.  We have been drilled and grilled to work for wages by the hour, giving HQ its cut and an implicit belief that this will be invested and saved for our collective benefit, by Big Brother.  We essentially pay it to mind our personal business, while we work in ITS businesses.    It’s as though, “out of sight, out of mind, leave it to the experts, money is too complicated for ME to understand; give me a decent job and leave me alone!”  — even if you are an expert in something else, like your own work.  I was also raised this way.  If we are good citizens, good students, good boys and girl (though adults) and mind our business, and simply work, we will be OK.Wrong!!Basically these high-powered players are saying the same thing my pipsqueak research concluded — the money is not monitored; anything goes, literally, and as such, when money is given to this centralized power hub up front, regulated (??) by elected representatives, you might as well kiss it goodbye.  One last quote from this site:Many people are, of course, too heavily invested in a system that basically (if not ideally) still works for them, for now.  Others are employed by it.  I cannot and do not expect to reach everyone.But I want to reach enough people who understand that, when dealing with extreme power, TRUTH COUNTS.  People willing to discard bad analysis and propaganda, and replace it with the factually honest and historically reasonable.Governments are corporations who play by different rules, that they make.  While not all public servants may understand they are working for an expansionist, lawless (except in reference to itself) beast, literally, and are taking a ride on parts of it — more people towards the top and policy-setting circles do than might be expected.  People who GET the truth and SPEAK the truth in a certain manner will find out very quickly where individuals stand.  Some of these people have been killed for doing so.A radical decision to “read thy CAFR, Know thy Government, Talk back to Taxes” CAN become a movement — and it will change society if it inspires enough.  And guess what — there are SOME legal ways not to fund this beast, or to detox from it.

You may want to also check out (found while looking for The Myth of the Rule of Law and the Destruction of Hamilton.  Let’s see where this serendipity (“found”) post fits in the mix:

More on an upcoming post:

From Cecil Rhodes – An Outline Historical Biography …born on July 5th, 1853 in Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire, England where his father was a clergyman. The fifth son amongst a family of nine children he was afforded a grammar school education until he was diagnosed with a tubercular lung condition at age sixteenand doctors advised his parents to send him out to South Africa so as to benefit from the country’s drier climate.In 1870 Rhodes sailed off to southern Africa where he joined his eldest brother Herbert, who was trying his hand at farming in the coastal region of Natal.  {{Why did a British clergyman send a son off to farm in Natal?}}In the same year, diamonds – which had unexpectedly been discovered for the first time in southern Africa two years before – were suddenly being found in staggering quantities in the inland area now known as Kimberley. When Cecil arrived in Durban in September he found that Herbert had already departed for the diamond area…. [Crop Failure, Cecil joins brother in diamond hunt, returns for Oxford but again can’t handle the wet climate. Back to South Africa…]
“Other aspirations were also stirring in southern Africa. A numerous Dutch (Boer or Farmer) opinion being inclined to favour the formation of a United States of South Africa that was to include such Boer republics of the Transvaal. Rhodes strove to modify this aspiration towards any such Union operating within the British Empire.Rhodes’ interest in expansionism led to his appointment in 1884 as resident deputy commissioner in Bechuanalanda territory to the north that Rhodes hoped to see attached to Cape Colony.In 1888 De Beers was restructured as De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. and this company has continued to exercise a monopoly over Kimberly diamond production. Rhodes also won mining rights from the Matabele King Lobengula whose domain lay to the north of Bechuanaland.In 1889 Cecil Rhodes formed the British South Africa Company and obtained a Royal Charter from the British Government to occupy Mashonaland. In 1890 he took office as Prime Minister of the Cape, from which office he had involvement later that year with the establishment of the British outpost of Fort Salisbury (named after the British prime minister of the day) deep in Mashonaland. By 1894 Mashonaland and neighbouring Matabeleland had been subjugated and were united under the name of Rhodesia….at the age of only 49. He died just two months before the end of the Anglo-Boer War. By the time of his death, Rhodes had been instrumental in bringing almost one million square miles of Africa under British dominion.
At the age of 19 Rhodes had first written out his “Last Will and Testament.”This brief document, prepared at a time when Rhodes’ possessions were modest indeed, included, as its central objective, the furthering the interests of the British Empire. The Will that was valid at the time of Rhodes’ death established the funding of 57 scholarships – now famous as the Rhodes Scholarships – as a practical way of attempting to meet such objective. ***

Rhodes actually left the greater part of his vast fortune for the establishment of these scholarships at his alma mater, Oxford University. Rhodes decreed that these scholarships were to be awarded to young men in regard to:
‘literary and scholastic attainments; his fondness of, and success in, manly outdoor sports; his qualities of manhood, truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for the protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship, and his exhibition during his school days of moral force of character and of instincts to lead and take an interest in his schoolmates‘.

…In 1977, British Parliament finally legislated to allow women (and other nationalities) to receive them.

The Myth of the Rule of Law: 
How the Money Works: The Destruction of Hamilton Securities Group
by Catherine Austin Fitts
12 August 2002
Originally published in SRA Quarterly, London, November 2001

  • In 1989, US financial institutions experienced a wave of single family, multifamily and commercial mortgage defaults known as the Savings and Loan crisis. The resolution of the so-called S&L crisis saw the development of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). The RTC was a mechanism by which the American taxpayers underwrote approximately $500 billion of waste, tax shelters and fraud in a manner that allowed the investors to buy the assets at a discount.Two of the biggest winners were the large banks that were bust but did not go bust and the large banks that were not bust who enjoyed the ride. The former were floated out by a nicely upward sloping yield curve thanks to Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman. The Fed pumped Citibank out of a negative equity position with royal amounts of federal credit arbitrage. Citibank could borrow short and reinvest long at a 500 basis point spread and just keep doing it until it had generated sufficient profits to comply with its regulatory requirement for equity capital. In the meantime, NationsBank and those who started with positive equity positions were having an even better time. Congress never discussed or voted on it.
  • As non-performing mortgages cascaded into the RTC and private financial institutions in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, auction markets in those loans developed. There were a wide variety of buyers — real estate investors looking to get control of properties, mortgage brokers buying and selling whole loans and securities firms looking to pool mortgages and issue new securities in the pools. The technology of mortgage workouts boomed.
  • HUD was the only major financial institution that stayed on the sidelines and simply let its portfolio grow, until by 1993 it had approximately $4 billion of performing and non-performing single family mortgages and $8 billion of multifamily mortgages.***  The cost of holding these mortgages in portfolio was substantial. The cost to nearby homeowners and residents was also substantial as homes sat empty and foreclosed or apartment buildings in need of workout went unattended. As field offices were overwhelmed, contractors were hired to help service the various portfolios. As the portfolio and losses grew, so did their business. And so did the criticisms. The HUD Inspector General criticised HUD for not having a loan sales program and the large portfolio of defaulted mortgages was listed as a “material weakness” by HUD’s outside auditor and the OMB.
  • Another one of Bob Rubin and the NSC’s problems in 1996 was that the information regarding government narcotics trafficking kept seeping into the public awarenessin a manner that could impair essential narcotics trafficking profits and reinvestment thereof.Government deficit financing both in the US and worldwide had for decades depended on an ever-expanding illegal narcotics trade. Narcotics had been a banking business from the beginning, controlled for the benefit of those who wanted large pools of deposits to finance new investments or to take in payment for trade from those who could not access credit.As head of the arbitrage desk at Goldman Sachs for many years, Rubin would have seen the process by which organised crime profits, cycled through Wall Street, bought up corporate America through mergers and acquisitions and leveraged buyouts. This was a game he must have understood.
  • The NSC’s Point of View: Missing Money and Slush Funds
    • “One of my accomplishments in the Bush Administration was to persuade the Office of Management and Budget to allow us to create a legal requirement that HUD and its component parts have a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and audited annual financial statements with actuarial studies, and then to require it of all the other federal credit programs. After we won OMB’s support, the notion of CFOs, accrual statements and outside audits caught on all round the government. One of the reasons the “missing money” problems have come to the fore is that GAO is continually announcing that such and such an agency can not produce audited financials as required and the amount of the adjustments without documentation it requires to get the agency and the US Treasury to agree is such and such.In March 2000, the HUD Inspector General testified that HUD would not publish financial statements for fiscal 1999 and that the undocumentable adjustments made so far to balance the books was $59 billion”

(italicized, bold, green = segments I draw from).

 . .the members of the Administration have no way of guaranteeing their safety and the safety of their families if they defy orders of those who have the weaponry and power to enforce their will by any means necessary.

Essentially there is no government as many of us think of it.”

“… Since WWII, the American economy has been “fiscalized.” By that I mean that most households, state and municipal governments, and local economies have become highly dependent on federal government credit, contracts, subsidies, and other forms of income and  are heavily regulated by federal agencies.This widespread dependency on the federal financial mechanism is the basis for extraordinary central control.”

Catherine Austin Fitts, Quoted from:”Straight Talk with Catherine Fitts:  We are Victims of a Financial Coup D’Etat” by Adam Taggart, posted January 30, 2011

When I joined the Bush Administration in 1989 as Assistant Secretary of Housing, I read the budget for the Federal Housing Administration. It described a $300 billion portfolio of mortgage insurance with about $50-100 billion a year of annual originations.

((meaning, more mortgages being bought by the government?))

I asked the person responsible for the comptroller function to direct me to the place in the budget where it explained how much we were making and losing. I was told there was no such place. I asked where the financial statements were. I was told that the accountants had them, that they reported to a different Assistant Secretary and that I was not allowed to speak with them. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) had audited our financial statements several years ago. We could not afford an outside auditor, let alone every year. Besides, we operated on a cash basis. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would never permit accrual statements.

This is “only”the difference between the yearly budget and the net worth–between “regular” financial statements and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports that governments have required of each other – I thought — since 1972.  This is on what Walter Burien is a major whistleblower.   The United States of America can’t (or won’t) audit itself properly and can’t, last we heard, issue an opinion on whether its own financial statements are worth a spit in the wind, as I have posted, I believe this month.

Consider: Nonprofits have to write accrual statements.  Public-traded corporations have to, for their shareholders.  But what was going on here: the USGovernment, ain’t — and who are the primary stakeholders in this government, if not people supporting it with their wage deductions, and lifetime of work? We deserve the same accountability as any shareholder (at least), but have been derailed and distracted from even knowing where to LOOK, let alone seeking to grasp HOW to get such an accounting. THAT has to change!

After months of working with a variety of parties at HUD, OMB and in the Administration, and with much support from GAO, the accounting group was moved over to my area and legislation was introduced and passed that required a comptroller for the FHA Funds, a chief financial officer for the department, and a legal requirement for annual audited financial statements and actuarial statements.

As I’m reading this, I’m looking at the resistance of the OMB (Office of Mgmt and Budget) to accountability, and the support of the GAO (General Accounting Office) for correcting the situation.   Perhaps people should take this into account when seeking information on operations of the courts.  Go to the businesses and accounting offices.  Do not seek information on balance sheets from people or offices whose business it is to keep the funds coming in, and retain a large profit margin.

When we got access to our financial information, it turned out that we were losing $11 million a day in the single-family fund, the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, and more in the multifamily and special risk fund called the General Insurance Fund. What is more, I discovered that we had never tracked our financial results on a place-based basis. In other words, ten regional and eighty field offices had no idea how they were doing. So we put together crude place-based cash flows. What we found was simply astonishing.

First, the national data on which the portfolio was based turned out to be the irrelevant product of averaging. A look at all ten regions and eighty field offices showed that no one part of the portfolio fit the image depicted by the national averages. Our vision of our business had been substantially distorted by the way in which the data had been presented.

When it comes to the HHS grants-based marriage (etc.) promotion, anyone taking a look at the write-ups and with a little experiential awareness of reality, could talk back to them and realize the same thing.   The data was irrelevant as presented

The same is true (LGH chiming in here) no doubt when data is put out regarding the situation of “families” in America, children being at greater risk from single-family housholds, and pushing marriage counseling to help the country.  What they don’t want out — is THIS type of information documenting fraud and waste.  They want the focus on those least able to resist!



Second, it turned out that over 100% of our losses were generated in two regions. The first was headquartered in Texas, and included Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. We discovered that the Texas region had lost over $2 billion the year before. They had no idea. The second was headquartered in Colorado. What the numbers showed was that S&L fraud and HUD fraud were perpetrated by the same networks and in the same places involving the use of federal credit.

These particular regions overlap with strongholds of issues I address in Family Court Matters — Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (and friends) AND their strong ties to Colorado (University of Denver, PREP, Inc. Markman & Stanley and friends; and the nonprofit Center for Policy Research which has been influential in child support matters.  Texas is a stronghold in fatherhood movements; Michael Hayes of the Office of Family Initiatives (OAG) is still there, for all I know.   Not to mention, this is where the Bush Family hails from.  We are talking below the Bible Belt and a major center of the Midwest.

Meantime, back in Washington, everyone was talking about these two scandals — the S&L scandal and the HUD scandal — as if they were separate. It was clear that place-based financial data would have told us what had happened, who had profited and how to prevent it from happening again. It also became apparent that our investments in communities conflicted with the other federal, state and local investment in that place. There was no mechanism to optimise total government investment and operations within a place.

Federal spending seemed intentionally designed to insure that there could be no flexibility between categories.We were spending $55,000 a year for a woman and 1.8 children to live in a place and in a manner such that they would and indeed could never become taxpayers and get off the dole. We were spending $150-250,000 to build public housing while HUD foreclosed homes that could be bought and fixed up for $50,000 were available a block away. We were paying large corporations $35-150 dollars an hour to do things that people who lived in those neighbourhoods could be trained to do.


Notes: This completely matches my understanding and experience, although I have not lived in public housing. I received temporary help shortly after leaving the abusive marriage, in which my credit had been first shut down, then destroyed. With diligence and I’m going to say resourcefulness (assessing the situation and needs), I made choices and BEFORE the restraining order was expired (3 yrs in our state) had moved, with some help, and gotten to financial independence, and, without further intervention, would’ve been quickly in a position to not even need child support payments. I had some control over my own infrastructure and was restored to a functional position in my community, parenting, taking care of the children, had worked out a temporary truce with the father (who was involved with their lives) and such. It took less than one year to reverse this trend through intervention, and there is no question that in this case, it was deliberate, strategically aimed at preventing ECONOMIC independence, and designed to keep me back in that box based on the profile: Single mother; and not on reality. CAFitts doesn’t talk (at all, that I can see) about this situation– I don’t believe she’s a mother — but you can easily see above how federal HUD policy is going to affect single mothers who need help with housing.

The Impact of PRWORA on Recipients and Former Recipients of TANF

by Carol Merrifield (probably for a class in) Public Benefits/ Professor Levy/ Spring 2001

In an attempt to break the so-called “cycle of dependency,” President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)1 in 1996.

PRWORA replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). One of the dramatic differences between the previous welfare system and TANF is the emphasis placed on employment. While the previous welfare system encouraged education and training as the means to escape poverty in the future, the new “Work First” ideal embodied in TANF stressed work as the most important step towards immediate self-sufficiency.2STATUTORY SUMMARY

Congress specifically stated in the Act that is their intention that “each State that operates a program funded under this part is encouraged to assign the highest priority to requiring adults in 2-parent families and adults in single-parent families that include older preschool or school-age children to be engaged in work activities.”3

. . .In order to protect the rights of workers who are not participating in TANF, employers are not allowed to fill a position with a TANF worker if the vacancy is the result of a lay off from that, or a substantially equivalent job, or if an employee has been terminated or removed involuntarily from that position.12

. . . The reform of the welfare system to include work requirements for recipients has had a complex impact on the lives of the people the system is designed to assist. Many recipients are unprepared for the necessity of balancing work and family.***  The National Survey of America’s Families, conducted by the Urban Institute in 1997, reveals that many TANF recipients report significant barriers to successful employment. 41 percent of TANF recipients reported low education levels, while 43 percent reported lack of recent work experience.13

The emphasis on employment begins as soon as an individual or family applies for TANF benefits. A recipient must work once s/he has been receiving benefits for 24 months or the State determines that the recipient is ready for employment.4

In order to insure that the states implement TANF with the appropriate emphasis on the employment of recipients, the program requires that each state reach a certain minimum participation rate in order to receive block grant funding from the federal government.5 The minimum participation rate increases from 25% in 1997 to 50% for 2002 and after.6

The minimum participation rate describes the percentage of participants who are engaged in work for the minimum average number of hours per week.7 In order to qualify as “engaged in work” the recipient must be participating in “work activities” defined as: unsubsidized employment, subsidized private sector employment, subsidized public sector employment, work experience, on-the-job-training, job search and readiness assistance, community service programs, vocational educational training (not to exceed 12 months for any individual) or the provision of child care services to an individual who is participating in a community service program.8

While PRWORA allows individuals engaged in vocational education and teen parents attending school to be treated as “engaged in work,” a state cannot count such individuals for more than 20 percent of the individuals determined to be engaged in work for purposes of determining the minimum participation rate.9 Limiting the percentage that the state can claim toward the minimum participation rate acts as an incentive for the state to limit the use of such exceptions.

Another Reason to Shut Down the Child Support System  (the 2012 appeals case summarizes the situation):

POSNER, Circuit Judge. The defendant in this adversary proceeding in bankruptcy, David Larsen, attempted to murder his ex-wife, Teri Jendusa-Nicolai. He was convicted of state and federal crimes and sentenced to life in prison. Although his attempt had failed, he had inflicted severe injuries that resulted in her suffering a miscarriage*** and the amputation of all her toes; for after beating her with a baseball bat he had sealed her in a garbage can filled with snow and left it (and therefore her) in an unheated storage facility, causing severe frost- bite. In a tort suit that she brought together with her present husband and her two daughters, a Wisconsin state court awarded her a $3.4 million judgment against Larsen for battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and her husband and daughters $300,000 for loss of consortium

re:  miscarriage:  this wasn’t a single mother.  She had remarried and was pregnant by her new husband.  It appears that this (2004?) incident was a weekend visitation with their father.  Young children were in his care during this incident, and they were ALSO driven in the pickup truck (with their mother trapped in the garbage can full of snow trying to escape or attract the attention of passing motorists! It was her mother-instinct, she related later, that kicked in the survival-instinct; it was a miracle that she was able to make THREE phone calls from this situation (from that garbage can), incl. two to 911, and one to her husband. They got lucky and found a business card with the address of the storage facility (in another state!!) in the home. As I recall the narrative, she also managed to struggle and get a hand out to wave to passing motorists; he stopped the car, beat her again, and stuffed her back in. Can you spell “sociopath” yet??)

Jendusa-Nicolai’s Attempted Killer Denied Visitation By Lauren Leamanczyk

RACINE – He tried to kill his children’s mother, but now David Larsen wants the right to have those kids visit him in prison.

Terri Jendusa-Nicolai has had sole custody since Larsen was convicted of attempted homicide and sentenced to life in prison. Larsen beat Jendusa-Nicolai, kidnapped her and left her to die in an Illinois storage locker. She says he is trying to harass her by bringing her back to court again. “There is no merit to his motion whatsoever,” she said. Jendusa=Nicolai also says it’s hard to even listen to Larsen’s arguments. “Just hearing is voice is not something I really want to do.

Meanwhile (2011) she also testified on behalf of a bill preventing public officials from harassing crime victims (a bill inspired when a woman whose boyfriend had tried to strangle her, found the 50-yr-old prosecuting District Attorney (she was 26!) sexting her trying to start a relationship — at the same time  The DA had a $105K public job, and avoided prosecution by resigning.

Kratz resigned from his $105,000 position in October 2010 after the AP reported he had sent 30 racy text messages over three days a year earlier to 26-year-old Stephanie Van Groll. Kratz, who was 50 at the time, wanted Van Groll to start a relationship with him, calling her a “hot nymph” with a great body. At the same time Kratz was prosecuting Van Groll’s ex-boyfriend on charges he tried to strangle Van Groll.

After the text messages became public, then-Gov. Jim Doyle began a process to remove Kratz from office, but Kratz quit before the process was complete. Other women started to come forward with stories similar to Van Groll’s, alleging Kratz sexually harassed them, too.
The Justice Department and OLR reopened their investigations. The DOJ concluded in March that Kratz hadn’t committed any criminal violations.

This is an excerpt from another of my posts, the original subject matter was the family court system.

Thesis – Antithesis — Synthesis
Term comes from:

  • Georg W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), as in, precursor to Marx.
Why it’s here and important to grasp:
cf. “Triangulation” Used by Bill Clinton in getting TANF (Welfare reform) passed, i.e., positioning his version as neither Republican nor Democrat, but above the two.  My interest is in the process used to move consensus from one point to another without actual reference to substance of the contrary positions. (see post “from Transvaal to TANF“).  In other words, manipulation to produce a desired outcome.  This was mentioned in connection with Thesis/ Antithesis/ Synthesis.
{{I haven’t read Hegel. It simply hasn’t come up.  Perhaps this is why:}}

For over 180 years students have complained that Hegel’s best-known book of philosophy, the PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND (alias PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT), is too difficult to read.

 A few have tried to summarize Hegel’s book, and often their summaries were longer than the original, and just as difficult to read. Today, right here on the INTERNET, I give to you a twelve page summary of this famous book, a book that inspired generations of European philosophers since it first appeared in 1807.

This summary is meant for the beginner in phenomenological philosophy, to encourage more students to struggle with the book for themselves

Summary of Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind by Paul Trejo, August 1993

~ ~ ~ ~

(text to the right here excerpted from another, smaller, Let’s Get Honest blog, “the Family Court Franchise System.”)  The topic is “triangulation” which started welfare reform, resulting in (@ 2011) this type of behavior:  Federal Agency sucking up to private nonprofit which (as it so happens re: this one) is sponsored by, #1, a Chicago Fathers’ Rights Attorney (Jeffrey Leving, Esq.) with close connections also to the Obama Administration, and #2, a nonprofit called CJH Educational Services from North Carolina, which I can document received HHS help getting set up.  It might also be of note that at least one of the leaders pushing for an aspect of welfare reform (Ron Haskins) also hailed from NC).
this country is still just over half female, and some of us are getting tired of the rhetoric, even though this female does understand it as a budgetary matter.  Welfare being sold as a gender problem by the Republicans, however, the Democrats seem to have had little problem (since 2008) with getting elected and promoted on the same platform and, from there, expanding it (I’ talking, Obama-Jeffrey Leving-Illinois connections.  Obama was the Senator from Illinois, we may recall.  The HQ of the American Bar Association (our President, now isn his second term, having come into office as an attorney) is now (i believe) in Chicago also:
For example, in D.C. at least:
2010 Census: State Population Profile Maps
2011 12TH ANNUAL 
MARCH 2 2011
We meet at a time of great transition both in this country and in the rest of the world.  Sometimes it’s a challenge just to maintain your equilibrium.   In view of this, your conference theme strikes me as particularly apt.  In this moment of transition, we certainly need torenew, restore, rebuild and reflect on our commitment to strengthening families and supporting fathers.  The fundamental principles and values that have served us well endure, but we’re exploring new methods of getting there, methods that are based on hard evidence, that reflect the current realities of the country, that both respond to immediate needs and form a solid foundation for progress as we move forward.
Over the next couple of days you’re going to be hearing from some of my ACF colleagues and a panoply of service providers who are very involved ina range of programs to promote responsible fatherhood.  So to begin this morning I’d like to give you an overview of our activities at ACF, some of our philosophical underpinnings, and a glance at what we might expect in the future in this crucial area of strengthening families by supporting fathers, including those who are incarcerated.

That’s just typical intro.  Here’s the tantalizing promise, at a conference full of government employees and current fatherhood grants recipients, etc. — in SF!

…Our programs touch fathers and strengthen families even when they’re not specifically called fatherhood programs…

[HHS/] ACF’s Current Commitment to {{spending public money, obtained from a population that is 51% female, for the purpose of }}Serving Fathers That’s why ACF has been involved in the responsible fatherhood business for a long time.  Our body of work and our knowledge base are constantly growing.
The two main ACF components involved in fatherhood are the Office of Child Support Enforcement ((“OCSE”))and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families  ((“TANF”)).  OCSE’s able leader, Vicki Turetsky, will address you tomorrow and Dr Charles Sutton from OFA is on the panel today.  In line with ACF’s great emphasis on interoperability among our programs, Child Support and TANF are working closely together to make sure fathers have every possible opportunity to contribute to their own and their families’ well-being

Basically, almost any custody case that has a child support order, almost.  See how this is a FAMILY COURT MATTER? (and Franchise…)

He’s just getting warmed up…. telling the conferences where HHS allegiance truly lies.  Note:  Women with open child support or welfare cases are NOT formally told by child support offices OR welfare offices, that this even exists.   That’s on a “need-to-know” basis, I guess.  let them ask their husbands at home, or fathers, I guess.

I’m happy to report {{to you guys, who probably also vote}} that top-level support for responsible fatherhood is alive and well.  Congress recently not only provided $150 million for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, but it also made several significant changes in the law:
  • Previously, funding for fatherhood activities was limited to a third of the total allocation; now fully one-half can be used for fatherhood. That’s an increase of $25 million for fatherhood programs.

Based on my close look at many “marriage” programs, they’re fatherhood programs anyhow.  It’s a moot point — and the CFDA on the grants database doesn’t distinguish between “marriage” and “fatherhood” either — there is one CFA# (93.086) for both.

It gets even better, as to $$ promised; again this was 3/2011:

A grant funding announcement is forthcoming, but I can’t talk about how it will be structured yet.  We’re very pleased that Congress increased the amount of the total allocation available for fatherhood programs and we look forward to working with you** to implement better and more comprehensive programs.
The Fiscal Year 2012 budget includes several new legislative proposals that reflect the President’s emphasis on supporting responsible fatherhood.  It includes new investments of $305 million the first year and $2.4 billion over ten years for a new Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative, as well as continued funding for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood program.

Give a Republican (or a right-wing evangelist) an inch, he’ll complain it’s not a mile.  this is EXACTLY what’s happening in the Presidential primaries right now.

**The “you” being addressed is a nonprofit organization, Fathers and Families Coalition of America, with the top Executive listed being a JUDGE, plus of course some Revs.  They have America divided up into 5 regions (see site), while HHS has it divided up into 10, for better management.

Why are People so Ignorant of This, and 1996 TANF Reform’s place in it?  Because we get our world views from Mainstream Media, and are too busy to figure out where our taxes go?

While this conference with top HHS personnel courting the conferences was going on, a heated on-line debate for about two months was being held on-line (in on California Family Courts Helping Batterers and Pedophiles Get Custody, which drew out both mothers’ and fathers’ rights advocates — and over 2,000 comments on two articles alone.  Of all these, including several nonprofit advocacy groups for mothers losing their custody to batterers, etc. (topic of the article) I was the ONLY commenter who even mentioned this conference, held right during the debate!  And very few (like one or two others) even mentioned the access/visitation funding.

In retrospect, publication might have been a pre-planned press promotion (Good Cop/Bad Cop act) between a certain two nonprofit organizations, though I don’t know.  I do know the article omitted the major elements and associations running the courts which these groups know of…

From  “Chapter 4: the Clinton years” — this is relevant to budget, and to CAFRS.  Click on each of the sub-links to the right, to get an idea.    
Clinton speaking to children after the Oklahoma City Bombing (4.22.95)CHAPTER IV: 1995-1996 FROM DEFEAT TO VICTORY Clinton saw the Democrats' defeat in the 1994 election as a personal failure and a warning sign that he would not win reelection.  He turned to an old associate to help bring him back from the brink of disaster.

The Comeback Kid Redux

Finding His Voice – Oklahoma City Bombing

Standing His Ground – 1995 Government Shutdown

Under Fire – Starr Inquiry

Welfare Reform

Savoring Victory

The Comeback Kid Redux
Clinton turned to consultant Dick Morris to fashion a comeback following the Democrats’ devastating loss to the Republicans in the 1994 Congressional election. Morris, who had helped Clinton develop political strategy since his race for governor of Arkansas in 1978, aimed to help the president move more to the center politically. Clinton, fearing resistance from his staff, initially kept Morris’s assistance a secret.

(click on each of the links to the right for more background.  Clinton had Morris on as advisor, but he wasn’t in the staff meetings.  1995- Oklahoma Bombings helped Clinton’s credibility in a crisis:

he Oklahoma City bombing provided Bill Clinton with an opportunity to stand out as a leader. Just at a time when Newt Gingrich and the Republican agenda dominated the political arena and Clinton felt the need to reaffirm his relevance, he was able to bring the country together as only a president could.

Backing up to 1995, there was a primetime press conference, April 18th, and the president is asked about this sort of feeling in the press in Washington that the Republicans seemed to be dominating the debate at this time. And the president in this press conference says, “The president is still relevant here.”

Stephanopoulos: Channeling Dick Morris. Dick Morris was telling him to buck up his confidence, “The president is still relevant, the president is still relevant.” Perfect example of the stage direction coming out of the actor’s mouth, as opposed to the script.

When that comment showed up on the front pages of all of the papers the next day, what were you thinking?

Stephanopoulos: There wasn’t a lot of time to think about it. I think late the next morning the Oklahoma City bombing happened, and the president was relevant.

Panetta: When the Oklahoma bombing came, his capacity to get out there and, first of all, speak to the American people in a calm way and reassure them, and ask them not to kind of prejudge what had happened here, and then what he did following up on that, in terms of dealing with the victims and what took place there, I think that, more than anything, brought out the human side of Bill Clinton. And people really, for the first time in a long time, connected with the president and what he was trying to be and who he was.

In 1995 (the same year Clinton wrote his “fatherhood memo”).  Excerpts from the sidebar show the context of welfare reform, at least as portrayed by PBS here…

In a showdown over the budget in the fall of 1995 the president did not compromise. After vetoing the budget proposals sent to him by Republican Congressional leaders, the federal government shut down twice. To many in the White House, it was the decisive moment in his first term and helped him win reelection.

Going back to Morris, he is advocating certain things that are in the polls. You’re advocating other things. And here you have a Democratic president really putting in a very Republican proposal.


And I told Clinton that I felt no amount of rhetoric will convince people of that. You have to actually produce a balanced budget without cutting these programs. And the staff was opposed to that. They were liberals who I think for the most part really didn’t want the deficit to go away. They were having too good a time with the deficit. Because as long as there was a deficit, they could run against the Republican cuts.

You develop a theory that comes to be known as “triangulation” after the ’94 elections. Very briefly, what was your thinking?

Morris: Well, we were locked into a very sterile conflict between the left agenda and the right agenda. And it was like going into a restaurant and not being able to order a la carte. If you wanted to have pro-choice, you had to vote for the Democrats and accept high taxes. If you wanted to have pro-life, you had to also accept government-less environment. There was a coupling here on both sides that was inappropriate.

And I felt that what you should do is really take the best from each party’s agenda, and come to a solution somewhere above the positions of each party. So from the left, take the idea that we need day care and food supplements for people on welfare. From the right, take the idea that they have to work for a living, and that there are time limits. But discard the nonsense of the left, which is that there shouldn’t be work requirements and the nonsense of the right, which is you should punish single mothers. Get rid of the garbage of each position that the people didn’t believe in, take the best from each position, and move up to a third way. And that became a triangle, which was triangulation.

For those of your viewers who are into philosophy, it really is Hegelian in concept: the idea of a thesis, an antithesis, and a synthesis. And when we originally discussed it, we did so in terms of Hegel, which we had studied at Oxford.** But in American politics, we spoke of triangulation.

  • {{I discuss on a home page to this blog, “See the Matrix” Overview. Whether it’s called Unfreeze/Change/Refreeze, or Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis, or the Shock Doctrine (i.e., create the crisis, but have anticipated the outcome of this created crisis and already having a pre-planned solution for it; one good example being (in my opinion) “9/11/2001” which I believe was, indeed, an insurance-motivated, pre-planned demolition, for which it was deemed “OK” to sacrifice 3,000 Americans.  Or, “problem-solving courts” and, in my observation, “language transformation” of the legal system into behavioral health language — these are part of a larger, planned scenario.}}
  • ** Not to forget, Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, right?

Stephanopoulos: Triangulation. Dick, whenever he was going to explain to those of us who were slower than him on staff, he would say, “This is triangulation,” and hold up his fingers like this. And it was basically to treat Democrats and Republicans in the House alike. Your adversaries were both of them. The president is supposed to push off either one in equal measure and appear to be above the political fray.

This was Dick Morris’s idea.

Stephanopoulos: Yeah, and, you know, it’s empty of substance. It’s amoral. But it makes some political sense at some level. And what the president was so skillful at, as frustrating as it could be at times, was taking parts of Dick’s theory, parts of the triangulation theory, but not going too far with it. And he got in more trouble when he accepted it whole.

Panetta: There were those of us on the staff who thought the president would be willing to do whatever was necessary to cut a deal. And we kept saying, “No. This is fundamental to everything that you have fought for. I mean, you have set priorities for this country. You’ve said what you want for education. You’ve said what you want for health care. You’ve said what you want to do for the environment. And everything, they’re putting into their plan is against everything you’re for.”

But, nevertheless, inside of him, he always has this sense that “I know that rational people ultimately can come together and cut this deal.” So we had made several offers, as the discussions went on. And the Republicans had rejected them. They came back with some offers. We had rejected them. And there was a moment — in which the president — we made another offer. And Gingrich said, “I’m sorry. No. We can’t accept it.”

clinton during the shutdownAnd the president looked at him and I think it’s one of those moments when you know that the president really got it. The president said to Gingrich, “I simply can’t do what you want me to do. I don’t believe in it and I don’t believe it’s right for the country. And even if it costs me the election, I am not going to do this.”

And I kind of sighed at that point and I thought, “He gets it. He gets it.” Because there’s always a point in politics when you do have to draw a line. And it tells you a lot about who you are. And I think at that moment, I knew he would win the election because, suddenly, what he was about was clear to him, but it also became clear to the country as to what Bill Clinton represented. So I think it was not only a terrible mistake on the part of the Republicans, in terms of their own politics, but it sure as hell helped us to find what the president was all about for the election.

Stephanopoulos: No one knew who would get blamed more for the shutdown, Democrats or Republicans. But there was more than the shutdown involved. First, there was also this threat that they would not extend the debt limit, that this was the big hammer that would force the president to accept whatever the Republicans wanted.

Our strategy was very simple. We couldn’t buckle, and we had to say that [Republicans] were blackmailing the country to get their way. In order to get their tax cut, they were willing to shut down the government, throw the country into default for the first time in its history and cut Medicare, Social Security, education and the environment just so they could get their way. And we were trying to say that they were basically terrorists, and it worked.

Morris: From the very beginning, Bill Clinton had two big problems — a third of the country thought he was immoral, and a third of the country thought he was weak. Now, we couldn’t solve the first problem, but we could solve the second one. And the budget fight was a way of solving the second problem. Because in the course of resisting those budget changes, in the course of taking two government shutdowns and not blinking he convinced people that he was strong, and it solved his most solvable problem. Still couldn’t solve the morality one, but we sure could solve the weakness one.

Stephanopoulos: We’d won. And you know, he didn’t know it then, but we’d won not only the shutdown, but by winning the shutdown, Bill Clinton won the ’96 election. Bob Dole was behind and never caught up. 

The Myth of the Rule of Law: 
How the Money Works: The Destruction of Hamilton Securities Group
by Catherine Austin Fitts
12 August 2002
Originally published in SRA Quarterly, London, November 2001
How the Money Works: HUD Loan Sales

As non-performing mortgages cascaded into the RTC [[RESOLUTION TRUST CORP]] and private financial institutions in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, auction markets in those loans developed. There were a wide variety of buyers — real estate investors looking to get control of properties, mortgage brokers buying and selling whole loans and securities firms looking to pool mortgages and issue new securities in the pools. The technology of mortgage workouts boomed.

They word “auctions” should have certain historic connotations, and not with high-end artwork. Think about it comprehend this auction block, only it’s web-based!..The internet really got up and running around this time, the 1980sff.. only what’s being sold now is simply debt.  The person who buys the debt holds the SECURITY.  In this case, right to the underlying real estate.  They are, literally, buying up the land out from under its residents.

HUD was the only major financial institution that stayed on the sidelines and simply let its portfolio grow, until by 1993 it had approximately $4 billion of performing and non-performing single family mortgages and $8 billion of multifamily mortgages. The cost of holding these mortgages in portfolio was substantial. The cost to nearby homeowners and residents was also substantial as homes sat empty and foreclosed or apartment buildings in need of workout went unattended.

As field offices were overwhelmed, contractors were hired to help service the various portfolios. As the portfolio and losses grew, so did their business. And so did the criticisms. The HUD Inspector General criticised HUD for not having a loan sales program and the large portfolio of defaulted mortgages was listed as a “material weakness” by HUD’s outside auditor and the OMB.

This mess on the back end of the lending and borrowing process was also shutting down the ability to continue origination volume on the front end.

Credit reform legislation passed during the Bush Administration was designed to prevent S&L type scandals happening with the * * * > > > $1.2 trillion of federal credit * * * < < < <, of which HUD mortgage insurance as about one third. In addition to requiring annual financial statements and actuarial statements, new originations required loan loss reserves funded through appropriations.

In 1993, the Clinton Administration’s plan to issue lots of mortgage insurance faced a funding problem. High default rates on the mortgage insurance portfolio and low recovery rates on the defaulted mortgage portfolio had serious implications for the cost and volume of new originations. That meant that the pressure was intense to substantially improve the recovery rates.


In 1989, US financial institutions experienced a wave of single family, multifamily and commercial mortgage defaults known as the Savings and Loan crisis. The resolution of the so-called S&L crisis saw the development of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). The RTC was a mechanism by which the American taxpayers underwrote approximately $500 billion of waste, tax shelters and fraud in a manner that allowed the investors to buy the assets at a discount.

In looking up the RTC (above) — (The instrument to bail out the S&L), I ran into “” which is a public source indexed database on, I guess, some of these matters, and this two-paragraph summary of the situation in deregulating S&L.  The moral here, is the perils of trusting our own (here, federal) government on a tight leash, and not understanding that it’s high time to figure out a leash.  Or, prepare for eternity, in the alternate (not a bad idea for having a good life, in general.  Live like it counts, in other words. Develop a backbone and some ethics, which the present system does not have!)  (This book apparently talks about the RTC, perhaps it’s in a library or available on-line).

Mayer, Martin. The Greatest-Ever Bank Robbery: The Collapse of the Savings and Loan Industry. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1990. 354 pages.

Martin Mayer was a member of the finance committee of the President’s Commission on Housing beginning in 1981, and has written nearly a dozen books on business and finance, including the bestselling “The Bankers” (1975).

In 1982, Congress passed the Garn-St.Germain Act, which tended to deregulate the savings and loans. Until then the industry concentrated on the community-based home-mortgage business, but now it was free to speculate. Getting the cash for these new, risky investments presented no problem, because the federal government still insured all deposits. The U.S. Treasury had to cough up $500 billion to get out of this mess.

Despite the witty humor, it requires fortitude to wade through this book’s alphabet soup of regulatory agencies, mixed with esoteric financial instruments pushed by Wall Street sharks. Mayer’s conclusion is that deposit insurance was the “crack cocaine of American finance” — once good old American greed was deregulated, the door was open for massive abuse. Who got the money? Wall Street investment houses got most of it, depositors got some of it because of high interest rates, and the Mafia types and Texas cowboys came in third. Who’s to blame? The accounting profession was dishonest, and big-name law firms bullied the regulators. In the end, their S & L clients had plenty of time to convert deposits into questionable investments.
ISBN 0-684-19152-0

Here’s another resource on the creation of the Resolution Trust Corporation.  From ‘FDIC Banking Review, 2005, Vol. 17 No. 2,

Politics and Policy: The Creation of the Resolution Trust Corporation
by Lee Davison* {* is acknowledgments; see link}
As the U.S. government sought solutions to the S&L crisis in 1989 and set about revamping the thrift industry’s activities, regulation, and supervision and restoring the industry’s insurance fund, it faced a multitude of challenges.

This is hypocritical — it was Congress that voted to deregulate the S&L industry to start with, thereby causing the problem.  Congress is the lawmaking arm of the US Government, and they screwed up. So, then we are going to allow them to figure out how to correct what they screwed up, allegedly to save us from worse harm?

In order to solve any crisis (including avoidable ones, i.e., “setups”) government processes are usually laid aside, swift, severe action must be (always) taken.

One of the most significant was to create a mechanism that would resolve all then-insolvent thrifts as well as the large number of thrifts expected to become insolvent in the near future. The mechanism not only had to be created but it also (optimally) had to be able to accomplish its mission—closing, selling, or merging institutions and disposing of vast amounts of assets—as quickly as possible. Furthermore, it had to do so in a way that would minimize taxpayer costs and avoid serious dislocation in markets. Quite obviously some of these goals were at cross- purposes.

One circumstance that aided policymakers was the existence of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)—that agency could provide expertise, an initial set of policies, and so allow for a relatively swift start to the task. Even with this advantage, the task of creating the necessary mechanism was not going to be easy.

Given the extensive use of tax dollars that would be required, inevitably the mechanism would be a governmental entity. …

{{I think this article should be read….}}

The RTC also would be given the power to set credit standards for institutions for which it was responsible, to require mergers or acquisitions, to organize federal mutual savings associations, and to review the 1988 FSLIC cases. Institutions managed by the RTC were to be restricted in certain ways—for example, with respect to asset growth, lending, use of brokered deposits, and interest rates.

As for funding, the RTC would be given the power to issue capital certificates to the funding mechanism espoused by the administration (the Resolution Funding Corporation) and would be permitted to borrow $5 billion from the Treasury.7 The RTC would be overseen by an Oversight Board, which would serve as the RTC’s Board of Directors and would consist of the Treasury Secretary, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Attorney General.

. . .One group that played little or no role in the establishment of the RTC was the thrift industry itself. Insolvent thrifts, the group with which the RTC was to deal, could exert little influence on Capitol Hill. . . .

President George H.W. Bush announced his plan for what would become the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) on February 9, 1989. This bill promised to become the most significant legislation affecting depository institutions in a decade and the most important legislation affecting the S&L industry since the Great Depression

Resolution Trust CorporationResolution Trust Corporation (RTC) [from TFD: “the Financial”]

A corporation that no longer exists,but had a major impact on U.S. real estate markets…formed in the wake of the banking and thrift crisis and bailouts of the mid to late 1980s. As lending institutions were declared insolvent and closed by their various regulatory agencies, [1.] the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or [2.] the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC,pronounced “fizz-lick”) arranged for payments to depositors and then took over the assets of the failed institutions.

And we wonder why the USA is THE world’s largest owner of infrastructure on the planet. You’re looking at it!!! Pay the depositors, take over the real estate. But who voted the crisis into being to start with? Congress!, the 1982 law mentioned above, looks like.

The assets could include performing and nonperforming loans, real estate, vehicles, equipment, furniture, and often rare and expensive artwork and accessories. The task of managing and liquidating the assets proved too much, so the government created the RTC to take over those functions. The mandate of the RTC was to liquidate assets, including real estate, as quickly as possible,even if a higher price might be obtained by holding the assets and managing sales over a longer period of time. Billions of dollars of real estate came into the hands of the RTC.The real estate was then sold,often for pennies on the dollar,and as a result many real estate markets were seriously depressed and took years to recover.

The Complete Real Estate Encyclopedia by Denise L. Evans, JD & O. William Evans, JD. Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

And we’re supposed to believe that this wasn’t a foreseeable conclusion from the policy set earlier?

Finally, I see in 2008 (a WSJ article) certain people, including Paul Volcker, were calling to resurrect the RTC, but have it hold onto the assets for longer and get a better price on it. They speak of “infected tissue” which brings up the question — who injected the virus initially?

Resurrect the Resolution Trust Corp.
Wall Street Journal, Opinion, 9/17/2008

We are in the midst of the worst financial turmoil since the Great Depression. Absent bold action, matters could well get worse.

Neither the markets nor the ordinary diet of regulatory orders, bank examinations, rating downgrades and investigations can do the job. Extraordinary emergency actions by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to date, while necessary, are also insufficient to resolve the crisis.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giants in the mortgage market, are overextended and now under new government protection. They are not in sufficiently robust shape to meet all the market’s needs.

The fact is that the financial system needs basic, long-term reform, but right now the system is clogged with enormous amounts of toxic real-estate paper that will not repay according to its terms. This paper, in turn, is unable to support huge quantities of structured financial instruments, levered as much as 30 times.

Until there is a new mechanism in place to remove this decaying tissue from the system, the infection will spread, confidence will deteriorate further, and we will have to live through the mother of all credit contractions. This contraction will undercut the financial system, and with it, the broader economy that so far has held up reasonably well.

I know in miniature that recommendations from abusive PEOPLE cooperating with each other and proposing solutions based on denial of prior abuse, are going to each and every time mess with income-generating capacities, and increase dependency, reduce accountability and transparency, and this PROCESS must be fought. If the battle is not fought right up front (failing to assess the resources on the opposing side, or perhaps not realizing until too late that is is virtually a war), the only option is to continue battling longer, and with increasingly depleted resources, energies, and TIME.

I am STILL fighting the war that began when I first stood up to one person, who then found allies in the courts, in the extended families and in the religious sphere. It looks like it’s going to last more than the full generation it has already lasted — in my personal situation. There have been huge casualties — from my perspective. From the other perspective, they are not casualties, they are wins. The name of the game is pretending and talking cooperation and help, “rescue” when the fact there was no need for rescue prior to the interventions.

To “GOVERN” is to “REGULATE,” having first obtained power to do so. Always the first attempt will be made to get people to simply give it over (because they are too busy for self-government, or too stupid to realize how important it is, to understand the temperature of the times). However, there is usually a backup-plan for the non-cooperative, and that is FORCE.

We are talking economic force, and previously setting up situations where people stood to lose their real estate. As I read this WSJ 2008 article (at which time my own life was on the rocks from the courts’ repeated failures to do what they claimed they were there for; ditto the police; ditto the child support enforcement. When Ms. Fitts’ “The Myth of the Rule of Law” came to my attention, I had no problem understanding the concept, and thanks to clear explanation, drawing the parallel from my understanding and experience, to the larger scope.)..

After the dramatic rhetoric (at top of the article), comparing the predictable and probably avoidable S&L crisis, it then goes into the proposed solutions. People who set up crises know plenty about them, and be assured, the solutions proposed in times of crises, have been strategized well before the eruption.

Here it goes, same article, suggestions in the Wall Street Journal 2008 from


There is something we can do to resolve the problem. We should move decisively to create a new, temporary resolution mechanism. There are precedents — such as the Resolution Trust Corporation of the late 1980s and early 1990s, as well as the Home Owners Loan Corporation of the 1930s. This new governmental body would be able to buy up the troubled paper at fair market values, where possible keeping people in their homes and businesses operating. Like the RTC, this mechanism should have a limited life and be run by nonpartisan professional management.

Such a stabilizing mechanism would accomplish four much-needed tasks:

– First, by buying paper that otherwise is effectively not trading, it would help restore liquidity to the marketplace and help markets to function more fluidly again.

– Second, by warehousing the troubled paper for a longer period than, for instance, the Fed’s discount window typically should or could, it would allow for a more orderly liquidation of this paper, and the chance for much of it to recover a portion of its value.

– Third, by giving the agency the ability to manage mortgages with flexibility to keep people in their homes and businesses running, it should lessen the number of foreclosures. This, in turn, would help moderate the decline in real estate values and the deterioration of neighborhoods, thus supporting house prices that in fact lie at the heart of the crisis.

– Fourth, where necessary, like the RTC of the 1980s, this new mechanism can assist the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in resolving sick institutions that are so clogged with the troubled paper they cannot continue as independent entities. However, we would hope that purchasing the mortgage-related paper will minimize the need to provide emergency, short-term assistance to solvent banking institutions.

It is certainly the case that the new institution we are proposing will in the short run require serious money. That will involve a risk to the taxpayer; but the institution, administered by professionals, means that ultimate gains to the taxpayer are also possible.

Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, hired as a consultant by Fannie, said in 1990 that the risks of a bailout were ‘remote.’ Shown here, Mr. Volcker before the Senate Banking Committee in 1980. 
Four years later,, 9/7/2012 (not 2008!)  Adapted from “The Fateful History of Fannie Mae,” by James R. Hagerty, published Sept. 4 by History Press. This is the first of four blog posts related to his book. 
Fannie, a government-chartered provider of funding for home mortgages, in 1990 was facing closer scrutiny from Congress over the risks it took by rapidly increasing debt as it gunned for growth.The collapse of hundreds of savings-and-loan institutions during that era had forced Congress to look harder at other potential bailout candidates, including Fannie and its smaller rival Freddie Mac. The Treasury was working on a report that would conclude, among other things, that a lurch in interest rates of four or five percentage points could wipe out Fannie’s entire net worth.  The collapse of hundreds of savings-and-loan institutions during that era had forced Congress to look harder at other potential bailout candidates, including Fannie and its smaller rival Freddie Mac. The Treasury was working on a report that would conclude, among other things, that a lurch in interest rates of four or five percentage points could wipe out Fannie’s entire net worthThat report would bolster the case of lawmakers like U.S. Rep. Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican who wanted Fannie and Freddie to hold more capital as a buffer against financial accidents.

Fannie, in one of its most audacious lobbying coups ever, pre-empted the Treasury report. The company hired Mr. Volcker, who had stepped down as Fed chairman three years earlier, as a consultant to assess the adequacy of its capital.

In his March 6, 1990, report, Mr. Volcker said that if Fannie followed its capital plans, “the company would be in a position to maintain its solvency in the face of difficulties in the housing markets and an interest rate environment significantly more adverse” than anything seen since World War II. The risk of a taxpayer bailout “would be remote,” he added.

The blessing of the revered Mr. Volcker, who as Fed chairman had snuffed out the inflationary fires of the late 1970s, was a huge advantage for Fannie. If he said Fannie’s finances were sound, few would dare disagree. 

At a news conference, David Maxwell, then Fannie’s chief executive, said the company’s business wasn’t nearly so risky as that of big banks, with their dubious lending to commercial real-estate developers and struggling foreign governments. “There are no unpleasant surprises because of the nature of our assets,” he said. “We don’t have any see-through buildings, any Third World countries or any strip shopping malls. We just have those mortgages.”

Reassured that the danger was minimal, Congress in 1992 enacted a weak regulatory regime that allowed Fannie and Freddie to hold less than half as much capital as the typical big bank. As Rep. Leach said at the time, the legislation was “written largely by lawyers” at Fannie and Freddie

Continuing with Ms. Fitts.  She is going to explain why banks are allowed to buy low and sell high using PUBLIC credit, but you and I cannot obtain the same rates.  There’s no competition, economically, who has the upper hand in this matter.  That’s our government!

Two of the biggest winners were the large banks that were bust but did not go bust and the large banks that were not bust who enjoyed the ride.

The former were floated out by a nicely upward sloping yield curve thanks to Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman. The Fed pumped Citibank out of a negative equity position with royal amounts of federal credit arbitrage. Citibank could borrow short and reinvest long at a 500 basis point spread and just keep doing it until it had generated sufficient profits to comply with its regulatory requirement for equity capital. In the meantime, NationsBank and those who started with positive equity positions were having an even better time. Congress never discussed or voted on it.

In 1993, I had lunch with the head of corporate lending in the DC area from NationsBank. He explained that NationsBank had no plans to make small business loans of any meaningful volume in the district. I had checked their latest SEC filings that morning. NationsBank had approximately $110 billion in long treasury bonds on their balance sheet.

Essentially, the American taxpayers were providing them with the mechanism to borrow short term at a low price using our credit, collect up all our deposits using our credit, then lend to our government long term at a 550 basis point spread where they had a recourse guarantee of our credit, and refuse to lend to my small business since it was not good enough business for them. The net result was that I could finance my government handing out more subsidy and credit to large corporations while I financed my small business with my credit card, paying them 18% to borrow my money provided with my credit and deposits.

As a board member at Sallie Mae at the time, I also got to see firsthand how the Government Sponsored Enterprises were doing. About a third of our balance sheet at Sallie Mae was borrowing short to invest long in what was essentially the same federal government credit arbitrage. It appeared that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were doing the same thing.

What we were creating was a society in which certain institutions were not only not allowed to fail, but were guaranteed profits using taxpayers’ credit.

The best part yet was that every time the taxpayers and their credit bailed these folks out, they and their investors got to keep 100% of the equity. So heads you win, tails you stick the losses to the taxpayers.


Large banks are not allowed to fail. This set the stage for a long series of taxpayer financed rescues: the Mexican bailout, the “restructuring” of Russia, and the Long Term Capital Management bailout.

In March 2000, the HUD Inspector General testified that HUD would not publish financial statements for fiscal 1999 and that the undocumentable adjustments made so far to balance the books was $59 billion. A close reading of the undecipherable preliminary audit indicated that, in fact, the number was $17 billion in fiscal 1998 and $70 billion on the asset side and $59 billion on the liability side in fiscal 1999.

As a practical matter, since HUD was assuring us that their systems did not work and that they had simply not bothered to check their accounts and cash balances in the old fashioned way using paper and pencil, we had no numbers of any meaning. In fact, anything was possible. Worse yet, GAO reports of the Treasury accounting systems — both as to their reliability and control by private contractors — are also disturbing. With little or no “info-sovereignty”, the internal controls are insufficient to assure that cash balance reconciliation between an agency such as HUD and Treasury are accurate.

When an agency can issue government guarantees and not record what they have issued correctly and then write checks that are not recorded correctly, then one or more of the players that handle the money, namely the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, AMS and Lockheed, may be in a position to steal literally hundreds of billions of dollars with no one the wiser except those enjoying the fruits.

The indications are growing that Treasury and OMB are engaging in fraudulent transactions and that the key financing, accounting and payments systems are run by contractors who are either in on the deal or turn a blind eye. What this means is that the financial disclosure provided by the federal government may be essentially meaningless. It does not take long to realise that in a world with no financial controls — with the fox in control of the chicken coop — anything is possible….

In 2000 I visited with a senior staff assistant to the Chairman of one of the appropriations committees for HUD. I asked him what he thought was going on at HUD. He said, “HUD is being run as a criminal enterprise.”

Based on the documentary evidence, that is absolutely correct.

Copyright © 2001 Catherine Austin Fitts
Copyright © 2002 Scoop Media

The Myth of the Rule of Law and the Future of Repression (by Keith Preston, from “Alternative Right”):

Like all other political collectives, the United States possesses a body of political mythology whose function is to convey legitimacy upon its own state. For Americans, this mythology takes on the form of what Robert Bellah identified as the “civil religion.” The tenets of this civil religion grant Americans a unique and exceptional place in history as the Promethean purveyors of “freedom,” “democracy,” “equality,” “opportunity,” or some other supposedly noble ideal. According to this mythology, America takes on the role of a providential nation that is in some way particularly favored by either a vague, deist-like divine force (Jefferson’s “nature’s god”) in the mainstream politico-religious culture, or the biblical god in the case of the evangelicals, or the progressive forces of history for left-wing secularists. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the sacred writings of the American civil religion. It is no coincidence that constitutional fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists are often the same people. Prominent “founding fathers” such as Washington or Madison assume the role of prophets or patriarchs akin to Moses and Abraham.

In American political and legal culture, this civil religion and body of political mythology becomes intertwined with the liberal myth of the “rule of law.” According to this conception, “law” takes on an almost mystical quality and the Constitution becomes a kind of magical artifact (like the genie’s lantern) whose invocation will ostensibly ward off tyrants. This legal mythology is often expressed through slogans such as “We should be a nation of laws and not men” (as though laws are somehow codified by forces or entities other than mere mortal humans) and public officials caught acting outside strict adherence to legal boundaries are sometimes vilified for violation of “the rule of law.” (I recall comical pieties of this type being expressed during the Iran-Contra scandal of the late 1980s.)

I quote a lot of C.A. Fitts.  She also talks about the role of slush funds/money laundering in re: Iran Contra — although I’m not blogging it…  The thing is, when one has evidence of massive money missing in transit, the question is — what’s being done WITH that money?  I mean, think about it …

Ultimately, of course, there is no such thing as “the rule of law.” There is only the rule of the “sovereign.” The law is always subordinate to the sovereign rather than vice versa. Schmitt’s conception of the political indicates that the world is comprised first and foremost of brawling collectives struggling on behalf of each of their existential prerogatives. The practice of politics amounts to street-gang warfare writ large where the overriding principle becomes “protect one’s turf!” rather than “rule of law.” 

His [[whosever Carl Schmitt is]] recognition of the essence of the political as organized collectives with the potential to engage in lethal conflict and his understanding of sovereignty as exemption from the rule-making authority of the state have the ironic effect of stripping away and destroying the systems of mythology on which states are built. Schmitt’s analysis of the nature of the state is so penetrating that it gives the game away. Politics is simply about maintaining power. Period.

(this appears to be a conservative on-line magazine and I’m simply excerpting the quote for my own purposes:  States ARE maintained by MYTHS.  And, money.  First a few more paragraphs as this author describes forms of totalitarianism likely to develop (actually, they have, and are now operational) in “the West” and particularly, the USA/LGH)

The state may not murder you or put you in prison for decades without trial, but you may lose your job, have your professional licensees revoked or the social service authorities threaten to remove your children from your home, or be subject to significant but brief harassment by legal authorities. You may find yourself brought up on minor criminal charges (akin to those that might be levied against a shoplifter or a pot smoker) if you utter the wrong words.

{{many of us already know this isn’t threaten to remove, but actually remove, and the legal harassment isn’t short-term, either.  Catherine Austin Fitts went through this also, and describes it in detail; it began AFTER developing a successful software showing, by geography, WHERE the money was being lost, i.e., “Hamilton.”  That business was destroyed; she had to start over, after living for a fugitive for a while.  I notice she chose to start over (corporation wise) outside the US…}}

Likewise, the state will increasingly look the other way as the use of extra-legal violence by leftist and other pro-system thugs is employed against dissenters. Indeed, much of what I have outlined here is already taking place and it can be expected that such incidents will become much more frequent and severe in the years and decades ahead. What I have outlined in this paragraph largely defines the practice of political repression as it currently exists in the West, particularly outside the United States, where traditions upholding free speech do not run quite as deeply.

However, this by no means indicates that Americans are off the hook. An even greater issue of concern, particularly for the United States, involves the convergence of four factors within contemporary American society and statecraft. These are <1> the decline of the American empire in spite of the continuation of America’s massive military-industrial complex, <2>mass immigration and radical demographic transformation, <3> rapid economic deterioration and the disappearance of the conventional American middle class, and <4> the growth of the general apparatus of state repression over the last four decades (the prison-industrial complex frequently criticized by the Left, for instance).  {{I added the <numbers>/LGH}}

The American state has at its disposal an enormous military industrial complex that, frankly, wants to remain in business even as foreign military adventures continue to become less politically and economically viable. Likewise, the ongoing domestic wars waged by the American state against drugs, crime, gangs, guns, et. al. have generated a rather large “police industrial complex” with American borders. … in the foreseeable American future, the state will have at its disposal a significant apparatus for the carrying out of genuinely brutal repression of the kind normally associated with Latin American or Middle Eastern countries. Recall, for example, the “disappeared” of Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s. It is not improbable that we dissidents in the totalitarian humanist states of the postmodern West will face a dangerous brush with such circumstances at some point in the future.

Leave a Reply!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s