Arkansas Blog

What is Suhl's relationship to Mike Beebe?

ARK. BLOG As we reported earlier, he gave him $1,000. Another $25,000 and he'll catch up with the Republican Party of Arkansas. In short, you keep trying to turn everything into a Beebe story. Let's make this story what it is -- a scandal for which people of both parties have to answer.

"I'd found five names under which the Lord's Ranch gave money to legislators in 2004. Another sleuth on the case says he's found nine corporate veils for the Lord's Ranch operator."

How is that different that all of the LLCs that have the same principles that Beebe takes money from?

ARK. BLOG Not at all. Nor is it any different from the related real estate companies, to name one group, that A$a! ahs taken money from. This is a bipartisan scandal. It can be ended only by an end to corporate contributions. Care to sign your name to that petition?

Both are guilty, but who is the greater beneficiary of the issue?

Only dumbasses like Stuart Jones over at the Arkansas Truth blog are dense enough to claim that only Beebe does this, but if Asa's received a few double-dip gifts and Beebe's received a pile, then they're not really on the same level of loophole abuse.

ARK. BLOG I simply haven't studied it enough to say whether one or the other has had more multiple contributions flowing from the same interest. I know both have done it and both will try to do as much as the bank balances and organizational structures of the donors will bear. Seems to me there's no such thing as a little bit pregnant. Some can just get pregnant faster. You could swear off corporate contributions. You could swear off PACs. Some candidates limit contributions to $250. There ARE ways to be above reproach. Still looking for that man/woman in Ark. this year.

Instead of banning corporate contributions, why don't we just close the loophole by limiting principals of corporations to only contributing on behalf of one company?

Let's not forget about McDaniel and his buddy Barrow....how many companies does that guy have???

"You could swear off corporate contributions. You could swear off PACs. Some candidates limit contributions to $250. There ARE ways to be above reproach. Still looking for that man/woman in Ark. this year."

Boy Max, do I have the candidate for you.

He won't get any contributions of more than $250, nor will he get any corporate or PAC money (albeit not by choice).

His name? Jim Holt!!!

Maybe this can be your first step to coverting to the GOP....

ARK. BLOG Jim has always been pretty good on ethical issues. Except for those freebies for which he won't disclose the source. But I'm not a one-issue voter in this case.

"There ARE ways to be above reproach. Still looking for that man/woman in Ark. this year."

Perhaps you should take this opportunity to give credit where credit is due, Max.

You ought inquire as to Rep. Lindsely Smith's fundraising.

What is Suhl's relationship to Mike Beebe?

ARK. BLOG

As we reported earlier, he gave him $1,000. Another $25,000 and he'll catch up with the Republican Party of Arkansas. In short, you keep trying to turn everything into a Beebe story. Let's make this story what it is -- a scandal for which people of both parties have to answer.

Has Suhl given Asa any money? If not then that matters.

Max wrote:

"Community services are cheaper, better, more accountable and keep kids in their families."

Would you care to provide some hard data to back up this broad generalization? Is the community service necessarily cheaper if they are receiving big bucks in federal grant money on top of the medicaid payments? Who says it is always better? Do you think there might be some link between Arkansas' ranking in meth production and usage and the massive number of kids in our state who need residential care? Ya think? Do you have any idea how many physically and sexually abused kids there are in our state? Are there any socio-economic differences between Arkansas, Ohio, and Idaho? Perhaps one or two?

Granted -- you guys don't like the Governor. We got that message very clearly. But be responsible in your journalism. Not every thing about this issue is political. There are tons of hurting and abused kids out there who need help, and a lot of good, caring people trying to help them. Don't turn them into a political ping-pong ball. And don't be hoodwinked by the folks who are working hard to protect their own special interests and grant money by discrediting their competition in the private sector.

RAnon
Another contributing factor in Arkansas is that there are, required by law, certified counselors in each and every building. Florida took the lead in this requirement followed by a few other states and then Arkansas. The point being, perhaps our "boots on the ground" are more well-trained and more observant than other states. Do the numbers of referrals take that into account?
I whole heartily agree that children should not be ping pong balls on the table of politics. But, they are, and they will be, until the Feds step out and the Arkansas Department of Education is held accountable for curricula and the parents are held accountable for their children.
Services are easily available throughout the state. The committment from the parents to access those services, is in my experience, lacking.

We're told a DHS official dodged a legislator's question about Lord's Ranch. Arkblog

Question Arkblog ?

Can you name that DHS official so the taxpayers. know who it is ? Full name please and office they hold at DHS ?

RLR asked for the names of those who "dodged a question."

In an article at http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/06/22/News/336685.html, Arkansas News reports, "The state spent more than $112 million on in-patient child psychiatric care in 2005, serving 5,154 patients. In contrast, Davis said Ohio - with a population nearly four times the size of Arkansas' - spent a total of $105 million in Medicaid funds for mental health services for children, 912 of whom were served on an in-patient basis." The article also points out that "The Lord's Ranch has an $8.5 million contract with DHHS to provide mental health services for children." If the Lord's Ranch has an $8.5 million contract, and Arkansas spent $112 million, that leaves $103.5 MILLION DOLLARS SPENT WITH OTHER FACILITIES FOR RESIDENTIAL CARE.

So, why did Rep. Pam Adcock, D-Little Rock, state in the committee meeting, "Everybody in here is dancing around the issue, but we know it's about DHS vs. the Lord's Ranch"? Far from "dancing around the issue," or "ducking the question," Selig told Adcock that the agency has seen increases in residential treatment offered by many providers, not just one. "This is not about a particular provider," Selig said.

But the perception in the State Capitol and the attitude at Arkansas Times would certainly indicate that DHS doesn't like the Lord's Ranch. Has DHS ever shown any animosity toward privately owned, faith-based child care institutions? Anybody remember someone called Jocelyn Elders? Does her legacy of harassment of faith-based care continue with the staff at DHS? If the Lord's Ranch receives a very small piece of this pie, why do they draw so much investigation that a State Representative says the entire meeting at Little Rock yesterday was about DHS going after the Lord's Ranch? Does anyone in State Government ever show resentment toward privately held, faith-based institutions who provide an alternative to state-controlled, Federally-funded care centers? Does it bother them when the care given through faith-based programs turns out to be better, or at least as good, for far less money?

I think there are a lot of good questions that need to be asked. Unfortunately, I don't think that many of them will ever make it to DHS or the Arkansas Times because it doesn't suit their obvious agenda.

Local outpatient providers are very thin on the ground, child psychiatrists even thinner. Many , most of the kids are abused and neglected, and much more likely as adults to end up in the criminal justice, substance abuse, and child abuse (as perps) system than at the state hospital. Other factors- marginal foster families (in terms of the child's needs), schools that are too often puntitive(paddling and flunking abused kids, go figure) rather than supportive, insurance coverage-even in ArKids First, 1 visit w/ therapist a week, a medication prescription. month, and visit to the M.D. = $60 cash out of pocket).

We pay on the back end in crime, dropouts, out of wedlock births, another generation of dependent kids, and jail.

"Does it bother them when the care given through faith-based programs turns out to be better"

One of the points made in the committee yesterday is that no one knows whether the Lord's Ranch and other vendors are doing anything to make a difference. What, exactly, did the $8.5 million get spent on? What are the outcomes? I wouldn't think it inappropriate to ask these questions. Since at least five of Suhl's retainers were in the meeting, I'm not surprised that none of them wanted to ask those questions.