Only 32% of CGI revenue was spend on grants paid out.

Reported prior year figures reported on their 2013 Form 990:

Revenue: $28,221,924

Grants paid: $8,975,872

Salaries, benefits: $6,949,577

Other expenses: $12,296,668

Less than 32% of the revenue was spent on grants paid out.
Over 24% was spent on salaries and benefits.
"Other expenses" accounted for almost 44%.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/271/551/2013-271551550-0b0d6513-9.pdf

GuideStar couldn't provide a Schedule A, which would have listed such details as salaries.

Chelsea V Clinton is listed as a director, but no salary is described, that's often on Schedules A and J.

Personally, when I know that United Way puts out 65-75% of their revenue in grants and CGI can only spit out 32%, it's a red flag.

And when United Way grants paid out are always well above the salaries plus overhead but CGI salaries + expenses are DOUBLE what the grants are, that's a red flag.

There is the appearance that CGI is a money pit that does some good but at a very high cost for doing that good.

Technically, it's legal to have a foundation that takes in money and all they do is fly around and make presentations and shake hands.

The numbers surprised me, but then it fits the pattern.

Only 32% of CGI revenue was spend on grants paid out.

Reported prior year figures reported on their 2013 Form 990:

Revenue: $28,221,924

Grants paid: $8,975,872

Salaries, benefits: $6,949,577

Other expenses: $12,296,668

Less than 32% of the revenue was spent on grants paid out.
Over 24% was spent on salaries and benefits.
"Other expenses" accounted for almost 44%.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/271/551/2013-271551550-0b0d6513-9.pdf

GuideStar couldn't provide a Schedule A, which would have listed such details as salaries.

Chelsea V Clinton is listed as a director, but no salary is described, that's often on Schedules A and J.

Personally, when I know that United Way puts out 65-75% of their revenue in grants and CGI can only spit out 32%, it's a red flag.

And when United Way grants paid out are always well above the salaries plus overhead but CGI salaries + expenses are DOUBLE what the grants are, that's a red flag.

There is the appearance that CGI is a money pit that does some good but at a very high cost for doing that good.

Technically, it's legal to have a foundation that takes in money and all they do is fly around and make presentations and shake hands.

The numbers surprised me, but then it fits the pattern.

Marin County voters have always had the right to vote on water plans. In recent times, however, egged on by greedy developers and builders that need water to grow Marin development, the Marin Water Board has been trying to sneak one over on the voters and get a desalination plant up and running there.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/desalination-has-a-big-problem/

First: A graphic that reads "Sphera Hydrogen is Easy to Use". Follow the links to see THIS graphic explaining that it's a Natural Gas and Coal-to-Hydrogen Scheme.



Throw some solar and wind turbines in and Carbon Capture and Sequestration and all of a sudden it's "green" (washed).

Second: The 2013 model of Panasonic's household fuel cell (ENE FARM) is mentioned as if to demonstrate proof of this new clean technology. Well, the problem is that these fuel cells use natural gas as the energy source. They depend 100% on Fossil Fuels.



Household fuel cells have adopted city gas (methane, CH4) as fuel, and steam reforming
as the method to produce hydrogen, so that the existing city gas supply infrastructure can be used.

Since hydrogen is produced in the place where it is used, there is no need to transport or store hydrogen, which is hard to handle.

However, when hydrogen is extracted by steam reforming, carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) are produced, because it is a fossil resource containing carbon that is being reformed.

http://panasonic.co.jp/ap/FC/en_doc02_02.html

[font size=14]Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs Problem[/font size]
She talks populism, but hobnobs with Wall Street.

—By David Corn Wed Jun. 4, 2014 6:00 AM EDT



A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton delivered a much-touted policy speech at the New America Foundation in Washington, where she talked passionately about the financial plight of Americans who "are still barely getting by, barely holding on, not seeing the rewards that they believe their hard work should have merited." She bemoaned the fact that the slice of the nation's wealth collected by the top 1 percent—or 0.01 percent—has "risen sharply over the last generation," and she denounced this "throwback to the Gilded Age of the robber barons." Her speech, in which she cited the various projects of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation that address economic inequality, was widely compared to the rhetoric of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the unofficial torchbearer of the populist wing of the Democratic Party. Here was Hillary, test-driving a theme for a possible 2016 presidential campaign, sticking up for the little guy and trash-talking the economic elites. She decried the "shadow banking system that operated without accountability" and caused the financial crisis that wiped out millions of jobs and the nest eggs, retirement funds, and college savings of families across the land. Yet at the end of this week, when all three Clintons hold a daylong confab with donors to their foundation, the site for this gathering will be the Manhattan headquarters of Goldman Sachs.

Goldman was a key participant in that "shadow banking system" that precipitated the housing market collapse and the consequent financial debacle that slammed America's middle class. (A system that was unleashed in part due to deregulation supported by the Clinton administration in the 1990s.) This investment house might even be considered one of the robber barons of Wall Street. In its 2011 report, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a congressionally created panel set up to investigate the economic meltdown, approvingly cited a financial expert who concluded that Goldman practices had "multiplied the effects of the collapse in [the] subprime" mortgage market that set off the wider financial implosion that nearly threw the nation into a depression.

Hillary Clinton's shift from declaimer of Big Finance shenanigans to collaborator with Goldman—the firm has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation—prompts an obvious question: Can the former secretary of state cultivate populist cred while hobnobbing with Goldman and pocketing money from it and other Wall Street firms? Last year, she gave two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs audiences. (Her customary fee is $200,000 a speech.)

In recent years, Goldman Sachs has hardly exemplified the values and principles Clinton earnestly hailed in her speech. A few reminders:

~~~see the rest of the article here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem