Collins assists Cornell extension in getting tax exempt status back
Congressman Chris Collins (NY-27) helped the Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) of Genesee County regain its tax-exempt status, something it should have never had revoked in the first place. The CCE of Genesee County contacted Congressman Collins’ office after it was notified by the IRS that its tax-exempt status was being revoked without an explanation.
After months of back and forth, Collins’ office determined that the IRS mistakenly placed CCE of Genesee County on an "Auto-Revocation" list. The issue has now been resolved and the agency’s tax-exempt status has been restored.
“On behalf of CCE Genesee, I am extremely thankful and grateful for the persistent and timely support, and active intervention with the IRS in resolving the erroneous revocation of our tax-exempt status,” said Beverly Mancuso, executive director of CCE Genesee. “Attempts to resolve this were unsuccessful until I reached out to Congressman Collins’ office. I am extremely relieved to have this matter successfully addressed and behind us, hopefully once and for all. I cannot even imagine how much time and effort was required on the part of the Congressman’s office, but our association is more than thankful.”
“Unfortunately, the IRS is an example of big government bureaucracy at its worst, and I am grateful my office was able to help Cornell Cooperative Extension of Genesee County get out of a mess it never should have been in,” Collins said. “Our office is always available to constituents and local agencies who are having a trouble navigating the federal government to get an answer or resolve a problem.”
Why do I suspect "CCE" may be the reason for the "‘Auto-Revocation’ list"?
Maybe the Infernal Revenue Service mistook CCE for a TEA Party "Code Word".
Why doesn't Collins get tax exempt status for all New York residents?
"Why doesn't Collins get tax exempt status for all New York residents?"
Yes! Why not? Entitlements for all!
Exactly. Then, Why entitlements for any???
That was my first thought as well Brian. Good comments.
It's a pretty simple concept Scott, when an ever increasing portion of people's incomes and property values are not being seized by threat of violence anymore, folks will have much more money to donate towards private charities. Charities we choose to support. Private charities do a far more effective and efficient job of helping those who need it than does government bureaucracy. Proof of the average person's generosity lies in the support many charities receive now even after the gub'ment has had their way with most of us.
"Private charities do a far more effective and efficient job of helping those who need it than does government bureaucracy."
I guess efficient and effective is one way of putting it. Helping? Not always, at least not in the way I think you meant. Just a bit of good old free-market initiative, I suppose. You'll probably blame the government for this, as well.
That is why I wrote about choosing the charities we would support. These kinds of expose's are a great tool for the honest free market of charities. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
You wrote that private charities are a more efficient and effective way of assisting the needy than government bureaucracies. I offered evidence that the cliche is a myth. Especially in terms of efficacy. Charities are businesses. Even the bogus 'non-profits'.
" Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
That's true, but the crud keeps coming back. Choose as carefully as you want, the cons are clever, quick, and historically have never been in short supply. They serve themselves, not the needy.
Well then don't support charities, that is your choice.
I want everyone to have more choices. Instead of having the fruit of our labor taken and then bureaucrats deciding who gets what.
Are you saying that noone in government has ever stolen or misappropriated funding intended to help someone?
"Are you saying that noone in government has ever stolen or misappropriated funding intended to help someone?"
Of course not. I'm saying that private charities do not meet the societal need you'd like to imagine they do.
"I want everyone to have more choices."
People have all sorts of choices. I can't think of a place in the world where people have more choices and freedom than the United States. You feel that you should be entitled not to have to pay taxes. I value the social contract more than that.
I believe most folks value the "social contract" as you call it. I call it love & respect for their fellow human beings. That is why I believe that people will do a better job of looking out for each other than government.
We may have more freedoms than other countries, but we are not as free as we could be. That being usually my point which you typically ignore.
"I believe most folks value the "social contract" as you call it."
When I read comments in the Batavian, I'm not always so sure. And it's not what I call it, the social contract is a principled ideal, widely held. As individuals, we consent to surrender certain rights and freedoms to governance, in order to better secure other rights and freedoms.
" I call it love & respect for their fellow human beings. "
I'll put my trust in something more substantial, thanks. Like the rule of law.
". . .but we are not as free as we could be. That being usually my point which you typically ignore."
Fair enough. But everything comes with its cost.
"As individuals, we consent to surrender certain rights and freedoms to governance, in order to better secure other rights and freedoms."
Unfortunately, the scales have tipped too far in the government's favor. We're overtaxed, over regulated and over managed. I always find it mind boggling when people defend government. It's a mindset as alien to me as thinking there's cheese on the moon. I'm speaking of state and federal government, of course. All government should be local with as little state and federal government as possible. Unfortunately, too many people love themselves some big government.
On the charity vs. government front, I have a one phrase comment: "VA Medicine." Enough said.
Also on charity vs. government ... I think relying on the happenstance of charity might leave some people who truly need the help unprotected or inadequately cared for. That would be a problem. The problem with government handouts isn't that they happen, it's that they're mandated, taxed and administered at the wrong level. All social services should be local -- locally taxed, locally administered, minimally regulated by big government. Let local people decide how local tax dollars are doled out. Such a system would cost less, be more equitable and less ripe for fraud and abuse, and it would be easier to manage to use such programs more like fill ins where charity falls short, rather than the default substitute for private giving.
I could live with that Howard
Say BTW Scott, is the CCE of Genesee County one of those "Bogus non-profits" or are you OK with them?
"All social services should be local -- locally taxed, locally administered, minimally regulated by big government."
That's just how Ronald Reagan gave us the homeless situation we enjoy today. But the idealized, vaunted local communities that were to bite the bullet of de-institutionalization didn't give a damn.
"California was the first state to witness not only an increase in homelessness associated with deinstitutionalization but also an increase in incarceration and episodes of violence."
"On the charity vs. government front, I have a one phrase comment: "VA Medicine." Enough said."
So are you suggesting charities are up to it? And to think the VA can cope with the influx of casualties from eleven years of protracted war with less funding ( since the tax-averse neo-cons promised would be a fast and cheap military campaign), and that General Shinseki got cashiered from the Joint Chiefs for suggesting otherwise, maintaining that it would in fact be much more costly, both during hostilities, and especially after. . . And now we're shocked, shocked that the system is failing? So what is your point, Howard? What's your suggestion?
"Say BTW Scott, is the CCE of Genesee County one of those "Bogus non-profits" or are you OK with them?"
I don't know anything about them; what makes them bogus?
Nothing, I was interested in your opinion
Ummm... CCE is not merely a private, local non-profit. It's supported, in large part, by state and federal agencies:
"The Cornell Cooperative Extension System extends Cornell University's land-grant programs to citizens all across New York State. With a presence in every county and New York City. CCE puts research into practice by providing high-value educational programs and university-based resources that help solve real-life problems.
Cornell Cooperative Extension is a partnership among federal, state, and local governments, the national land grant system, and Cornell University. "
And sure, many private non-profits do excellent work; that doesn't mean, however, that they are equipped to do *everything* for a community.
"That's just how Ronald Reagan gave us the homeless situation we enjoy today. But the idealized, vaunted local communities that were to bite the bullet of de-institutionalization didn't give a damn."
Blaming Reagan is a bit of a myth and certainly a simplistic way of looking at things.
In California, a Democratic-controlled legislature cut spending on care for the mentally ill. In part, driven by a strong patient-rights movement at the time (these are things I remember from living in California at the time).
Here's a lengthy NYT piece that covers how doctors misinformed the government about the consequences of the policy. It wasn't that local communities didn't give a damn. They were given no chance to prepare. Further, from covering homeless in San Diego, I will tell you first hand that every night dozens of charity-funded beds go empty while people sleep on the streets. There are programs in place there that simply aren't used by all the homeless. For one thing, to participate in those programs, they would have to remain sober.
The Supreme Court also ruled in 1975 that the state can't detain a mental health patient who isn't dangerous.
You are attempting to tie homelessness with mental health and while that may be true in many cases,recently it is also caused by the economy, housing bubble and the financial crash of 2008. And no, despite whatever our exalted Leader Pres. Obama says, it's not over. Lowering the cost of government by reversing the order of influence from top-down to local-up will cure much of that almost instantaneously. Small family run businesses will be able to employ more, even if part time, and those people will have more spendable cash in hand. Therefor creating demand for more services and creating more job opportunities. It really can't work any other way. Local government control of finances and services will put more cash in the poorest peoples hands quicker. It's just simple logic. As for the mental health institutions closing after the fed turned them over to the states, that was because they were bleeding money & Reagan didn't care to deal with it. Personally, I never voted for Reagan either time and have as little regard for him as I do the vast majority of 20th and 21st century Presidents.
I have already submitted my plan for the county nursing home, there's no reason why that couldn't also be applied to mental health hospitals as well, even if they were operated by 2 or 3 counties together. Not rocket science.
We can quibble over the origins of the homeless phenomenon, but I don't think you can claim that local community action and involvement has been anything other than negligent. Therapy was explicit in the de-institutionalization model.
"I will tell you first hand that every night dozens of charity-funded beds go empty while people sleep on the streets. There are programs in place there that simply aren't used by all the homeless."
Yes, there are the drunks, and those with severe organic brain disorders, and the stark raving mad. The street offers no place for therapy, no matter how many beds and sanctimonious prayer services are offered. (Some of them are so crazy they think the government is spying on them, and trying to control their actions!) The Court made a terrible decision in that case you mention, and the prisons are now our asylums.
I can agree about the prisons. Another mess entirely. But I digress
"I don't think you can claim that local community action and involvement has been anything other than negligent. "
Actually, I claim quite strongly it hasn't been negligent at all.
You even go on to quote why I say it hasn't been negligent. I'm a firsthand witness to how it hasn't been negligent, at least in San Diego.
Ever seen "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"? Prior to the O'Connor ruling, institutionalizing people against their will was a real problem.
The problem with the Progressive mindset is Progressives believe all problems are solvable and can be solved, ideally by bigger and bigger government programs.
There's no easy solution to mental illness. You can't lock up people who present no threat to society in a manner that insures humane and equal treatment for all. Certainly, there are some with mental illness who would be better off in an institution, for their own sake, but a system that relies on force will inevitably sweep up people whose rights to liberty are being violated.
A system that doesn't involve compulsion will just as inevitably lead to people being out of institutions who maybe should be.
The problem with big government is there's no such thing as perfection, and trying to make things perfect only makes things worse. That's why smaller is better. Decentralization is better. Better doesn't mean perfect.
And the blame-Reagan myth is no mere quibble. It's a fiction that is easy to find in liberal/progressive publications over and over and over again. It gets repeated and repeated and repeated and it's simply wrong. I'm not a Reagan acolyte; it's just that it's wrong, and that's no quibble.
Howard writes: "The problem with the Progressive mindset is Progressives believe all problems are solvable and can be solved, ideally by bigger and bigger government programs."
WRONG, wrong and wrong. Progressives believe that government programs sometimes can, do and should solve certain problems that are beyond the scope and/or interest of private industry, small groups or local governments. We also believe that private industry and local governments *sometimes* need to be checked or regulated, because the interests of industry are not always in line with the interests and welfare of citizens... or of residents... or of workers (anybody remember Love Canal?). We also happen to believe that the rights and interests of minority groups and vulnerable citizens also, sometimes, need to be protected; historically, local/small governments have not always looked out for those interests (Jim Crow, anyone?).
The "ideally by bigger and bigger government programs" part is just an empty and meaningless slam. Do you want me to provide you with an equally ridiculous caricature of libertarian ideology -- because I certainly can?
Emma, Emma Emma; Where do I start? The first and foremost issue with big, centralized government is that it needs a lot of money to operate. That attracts greedy people who then find ways to intertwine with politicals who lust for power and will then make coercion legal so as to fund the programs which the greedy ones will facilitate and gain profit from. This has metastasized into the unholy Wall St/ Washington/ Global Corporation hydra which is choking the life out of a nation founded on individual liberty and economic freedom. The big corporations you are so afraid of, right now have the corrupt federal government in their pockets, there's not much regulating going on that wasn't pre-planned and approved by the big boys. Oversight of local government could be done easily by the voters, if mandated rules of operation were not in place and if the 2 largest political parties didn't control the election process. Do you really think Jim Crow laws are possible in this day and age? With the instant 24 hour news channels, the internet and truthfully a more evolved way of looking at race. Really?
Lastly, I doubt you speak for all progressives/liberals.
"The problem with the Progressive mindset is Progressives believe all problems are solvable and can be solved, ideally by bigger and bigger government programs."
The problem with the right-wing mindset (typically arrived at from the comfortable remove of privilege) is the idea that there is nothing finer than the status quo. Most problems are solvable, or at least can be improved upon, and while perfection is not attainable, it cannot be made the enemy of the good. That, and a strange nostalgia for a world that is no more -- or never was. Sort of a wild Wyoming Territory romance from another era, where men were men, and women followed behind and carried the kids and ammo. That is not the reality of the world we live in; we live in a densely populated, volatile, and highly diverse society.
The only thing certain in human affairs is change, and this is why liberalism wins. Culturally, one can't stand still without getting run over. The people who understand that change is inevitable can make choices that maximize social well-being, the wealth of citizens, and their liberty. Progress will happen.
Good thing I'm not a right-winger, but a level-headed, liberty-loving American.
It's not about nostalgia, it's about freedom. Freedom never goes out of style, it just gets trampled on by those who love big government.
Freedom doesn't stand in the way of progress. It creates progress.
Liberalism is not equal to Progressivism. True liberals love freedom. (Reason Magazine was founded by a band of hippies ... what's so funny about peace, love and understanding?)
Say what you want about libertarians, Emma, but you won't necessarily be talking about my politics. It's kind of hard to put me in any single box.
Dave writes: "The big corporations you are so afraid of, right now have the corrupt federal government in their pockets, there's not much regulating going on that wasn't pre-planned and approved by the big boys. "
On this point, we are basically in agreement. That's precisely why, in my opinion, we need more true *reformers* in government (people like Senator Elizabeth Warren come to mind) -- individuals who *aren't* afraid to speak the truth and to rein-in the power of Wall Street and mega-corporations, when such measures are called for. The answer sure as heck isn't to let the Robber Barons have free reign with *no* regulation, whatsoever. That is also why we need to figure out how to curb the amount of money flowing into campaigns and into politicians' pockets. Our current right-tilting "Corporations are people" Supreme Court surely isn't helping matters. And seriously, do you really believe that there isn't also a heap of graft and corruption on the smaller local levels of government?
And I may not speak for all progressives/liberals... but you certainly don't speak for us -- any more than *I* speak for libertarians and conservatives.
Scott writes: "The only thing certain in human affairs is change, and this is why liberalism wins. Culturally, one can't stand still without getting run over. The people who understand that change is inevitable can make choices that maximize social well-being, the wealth of citizens, and their liberty. Progress will happen."
Right on, Scott. Well stated!
I'm not claiming to represent anyone but myself.
Yes, I agree there is corruption at the local level, but if more of tax dollars were collected and distributed at the local level, more taxpayers would pay attention (most don't now) and those problems would be exposed and rooted out. It's harder to steal from the same people you have to face in church, or at a little league game or in the grocery store. As for Senators and Congressmen, the stories are legendary of how they go to Washington full of ideals and then change or get shoved out. Mostly all of them are wealthy going in and even wealthier coming out. It is a cesspool and needs to be drained, now. I fully and absolutely agree with term limits, I think it would help immensely. The "robber barons" (?) won't operate unchecked, they're checks and balance will come from the free market, if it is allowed to operate. It's not now, that's for sure
"The 'robber barons' (?) won't operate unchecked, they're checks and balance will come from the free market, if it is allowed to operate. It's not now, that's for sure."
Oh, right. That has *never* worked in the past, and it sure as heck won't now (at least not for the average citizen). Do you really think that the answer is just to let big corporations and Wall Street do whatever they want to do? We've been down that road before. It wasn't pretty.
The Myth of the Robber Barons.
Related to that, about Teddy Roosevelt's "reforms."
We all love our titles don't we?
Yes, I am a Libertarian, but I'm also a Localist. I believe that real government is down at the ground level where the affect of actual decisions are made, and not made by people thousands of miles away.
When it comes to social issues, I'm more "liberal" than most liberals. As a board member of the GVCLU, I have have fought against inequalities across the board.
When it comes to spending, I'm more interested in the sustainability of a thing. We have systems that don't work. They haven't worked, and the only reason why they still are going is because we keep taxing higher and higher for it. It will not last.
That is not sustainable.
There are plenty of public/private solutions that can make everyone happy while respecting individual rights, and not be completely moronic with our funds.
Maybe if we were all less interested in our differences, and more interested in finding that balance, we would actually achieve something,
Just my two cents.
"The Myth of the Robber Barons."
It's astonishing to me that someone who, if I remember correctly, deplores crony capitalism, finds apologists for the Robber Barons, who pretty much invented crony capitalism. *shrug*
Dave, isn't that the group that pretends not to understand Lincoln's suspension of habeas in Maryland was constitutional? And as well, is a revisionist defender of the Confederacy? I'm not sure I'm that open-minded, but I'll give your post a read. Thanks.
"Maybe if we were all less interested in our differences, and more interested in finding that balance, we would actually achieve something,"
That's a pretty good two cents, Phil.
Sooo. you admit to not being open-minded then. Not a surprise.
As for agreeing with my friend Phil. I know that Phil truly is interested in finding balance. He means it. Me, not so much to be truthful. You, Scott on the other hand seem highly interested in promoting your point of view. You constantly snipe out a sentence or 2 from someone's thought and then smugly and snidely attempt to belittle them. It's quite tedious actually. Please don't insult Phil like that.
Dave, what makes you think that Scott is insulting Phil? He's not. He's being sincere (at least I believe that he is). And I agree with Phil, too, to the extent that our politics have gotten too divisive and nasty... to the point where it's nothing but counter-productive. I also agree that many of us can/could find common ground on certain issues, were we all to sit down in a bar and talk over drinks in a more "friendly" setting than this forum.
That doesn't mean, however, that we have to agree with you, Dave, or with your ideology -- or with what seems to be the "old boys club" libertarian regulars who all pal around in this forum. You, yourself, admitted to not being particularly "open minded."
Scott and I are both educated, well-read individuals (as I'm sure you are). Do you really think that we haven't already been exposed to libertarian thinking and scholarship? I realize that I haven't been here all that long, but in the time that I have been reading these posts, I've seen you do plenty of your own smug sniping, Dave. Maybe you just don't think that people should be allowed to disagree with you? I don't know. In any case, I know Scott quite well, personally, and I can assure Phil that I see NO indication that Scott is trying to insult him.
That said, I can also play at the "read THIS book" link game. Indeed, I spent a number of years in grad school, so (although I may not be good for much else) I'm actually pretty good at that particular task.
There is also a volume 2 and a volume 3:
This one was even written by a Republican:
Want more? Just ask.
". . .you admit to not being open-minded then"
That's not what I said. Read for comprehension, Dave,
"Please don't insult Phil like that."
I insulted no one, certainly not Phil. I was completely sincere in my comment to him. I appreciated that part of his post. I'm sorry if you failed to comprehend that. (And am mystified by your interpretation of it.) Perhaps you need to try to not be so condescending.
"Scott on the other hand seem highly interested in promoting your point of view."
And you are not, Dave? A little less hypocrisy, please?
"It's astonishing to me that someone who, if I remember correctly, deplores crony capitalism, finds apologists for the Robber Barons, who pretty much invented crony capitalism. *shrug*"
What's funny about this is it shows you completely don't get what the book is about. It's really, honestly hilarious.
No real comment on the first book, Emma.
The second book ... "written by a Republican." Yeah, that's really going to impress me.
And the third book by a socialist about Iraq ... not sure how that fits.
By the way, Scott is actually *far* more open minded than are most Americans, Dave; he's certainly more open-minded than you're giving him credit for being, Dave. Indeed, I'd have to say that he's much more tolerant to divergent political ideas than I am... and I'd guess (from your posts) than you are, Dave.
Scott grew up in Kansas, in the heart of one of the most Republican regions of our country, and he's traveled and lived all over the world. He's also a very nice guy with a great sense of humor, who actually gets along with just about everyone he meets -- and yes, he has a number of right wing and libertarian friends... many of them have been his friends since childhood. So... you're really barking up the wrong tree to attack him, personally, as you have.
Well, I don't know why you don't have comments on the first two books, Howard. Are you merely dismissing them? They are both important and exhaustive studies that present counter-narratives to the book that you posted. I noted that the third book is written by a Republican, not because he is writing Republican doctrine, but just to indicate that Phillips is certainly no socialist. As for the Klein book (subtitled The Rise of Disaster Capitalism), if you read it, you'd understand how it ties in to this particular discussion.
The other way to respond to ...
""It's astonishing to me that someone who, if I remember correctly, deplores crony capitalism, finds apologists for the Robber Barons, who pretty much invented crony capitalism. *shrug*""
So you admit that the Gilded Age was an era of crony capitalism. It's kind of hard to argue then that the era represents a failure of free market capitalism.
Which is what the Misses link and "Myth of the Robber Barons" is all about ... the majority of abuses of the era were government abuses, not free market abuses.
I do recommend 'TITAN' by Ron Chernow on the life, times, and businesses of J.D. Rockefeller. It's one of the best bios I've ever read. A surprising individual emerges, not the ogre you'd expect. (Well, as he progresses in age he mellows as he works as hard distributing his wealth as he did in amassing it.) However, it may not have the Cato imprimatur, so it's probably not sufficiently hilarious.
Sorry, the both of you Emma and Scott go out of your way time after time to attack others. I may be adamant about my point of view, but not nasty, that's on you. Don't try to paint me with your brush. I don't need to be validated, either. I have my own opinions and thoughts and couldn't care less if anyone else agrees or not. No hypocrisy here, I never said I was searching for common ground. I am actually open-minded, what I meant was I'm not very concerned with compromise. You have called my opinions "utterly ridiculous', and used similar language toward others and now you want to be conciliatory. Shove it. By asking you to not insult Phil, I know you were being complimentary, but I do not believe you are sincere. That is an insult to his sincerity. My apologies to Phil for dragging his name into this. I comprehend just fine, perhaps your anger comes from the fact that I can see straight through your snide BS. I'm sure you will try to belittle me for that. Boo hoo
I think we've strayed from the take away of this story: If you are screwed by your Federal government you had better have the ear of a prince of the realm. Your status as a citizen certainly is insufficient.
That says about all that needs to be said in defense of local power instead of state or federal power. If you need to lobby an elected representative in order to get the bureaucracy to do its job... You just might live in a plutocracy.
"So you admit that the Gilded Age was an era of crony capitalism. It's kind of hard to argue then that the era represents a failure of free market capitalism."
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. I'm saying the distinction of the political entrepreneur as opposed to the market entrepreneur is nonsensical, and is merely a revisionist device and invention. Markets behave as they always have, throughout history, with all the complex interweaving of opportunistic individuals, markets, and states, as that entails.
Your nasty post speaks for itself, Dave ("Shove it.") Not the first time I've seen you post that sort of sentiment to people on these boards; in fact, I've seen it a number of times from you. It's clear that you just don't think that people should be allowed to disagree with you. Whatever. Don't worry, though, I'm definitely not being conciliatory to you.
I was, however, being sincere to Phil... as was Scott. You, Dave, are just rude and nasty to people who disagree with you; Phil (from what I've seen here) isn't. Big difference.
"Shove it. By asking you to not insult Phil, I know you were being complimentary, but I do not believe you are sincere."
Hard cheese, Dave. But I am not a liar. And I have not attacked anyone. Ideas, yes. Individuals, no. I'm sorry if that distinction is lost on you.