The article examines how nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working with children from poor and socially excluded families operate in the neoliberal environment. The case of non-governmental school-age childcare centres (SACCs) in Lithuania was analysed. SACCs provide social services to children from poor and socially excluded families. The study is based on 62 qualitative interviews with experts working in non-governmental SACCs. Results indicate that financial support from ministry and municipalities enables SACCs to survive. From the perspective of SACCs it has been observed that government uses new public management tools in a modern fashion to transfer the responsibility onto the shoulders of non-governmental SACCs, while the government reduces its contribution to symbolic financial support and the request for accountability. The current government–NGOs relationship, based on neoliberal ideology and new public managements tools, has negative consequences and does not ensure social services for socially excluded target groups, especially in a country with a sizable welfare gap.
Health Care, Mixed Stories
The 2012 decision in National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius was reported as a relief for the administration as Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to side with the liberal quartet meant that the Afordable Care Act, the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s domestic policy agenda, survived the challenge brought by NFIB and 26 state attorneys general. Nat’l Fed’n Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). In a complicated ruling the Court determined that the so-called ‘individual mandate’, which required people
lost the election to Richard Nixon, but the concept of basic income survived, albeit in another form. In 1975, the United States passed a law on tax credit [Earned Income Tax Credit ( Wikipedia 2019c )]. This idea is based on proposals for a negative income tax presented by Milton Friedman in his book Capitalism and Freedom , published in 1962. Friedman’s idea is closely related to the idea of basic income. Every individual of a given age would be eligible for tax credit of a given size. The credit would be taxed as any other income. Hence, individuals receiving
pertinently, the systematic absence of it) requires to be considered. Tax authorities suffer from information asymmetries and resource constraints, with the consequence that only a small minority of uncertain positions taken at the tax compliance stage are challenged. Further, in cases where a position is likely (but not certain) to survive a tax authority challenge, a tax authority may be expected not to challenge it even with adequate resources at its disposal and in full view of the evidence. In the United Kingdom, for example, HMRevenue&Customs’ stated policy provides
sometimes retained their birth names at marriage; men sometimes adopted the surnames of their wives; and children and grandchildren sometimes took the surnames of their mothers or grandmothers. Women had been permitted to own and inherit property through early medieval times, with Saxon landowners willing their lands to their daughters as well as their sons. Later, inheritance for daughters became limited to situations where there were no surviving sons. Surnames as a social and legal convention became closely connected to property, such that the person with the property
in business, lending support to the conclusion that Trump’s attempt to maintain a stake in his private interests while serving in public office would be untenable in other contexts. See infra notes 97–113 and accompanying text. Returning to legal issues raised by the President’s conflicts of interest, Part VI describes three federal lawsuits filed in 2017, two of which have survived motions to dismiss and have addressed the meaning of “emoluments” as understood by the Framers of the Constitution. See infra notes 114–201 and accompanying text. We conclude that
wearing body armor and would not be injured), and Joe moves to avoid the bullet. The bullet hits Jane and kills her.
According to the bodily movement test, Joe’s movement would be classified as killing since it caused Jane’s death. Nevertheless, his act is seemingly more accurately defined as a letting die, and, therefore, Joe would be liable only if we could identify a duty to stand in one place and not move.
“Freezing to death” – Joe is about to freeze to death. In order to survive, he tries to enter John’s house. John blocks Joe by locking the door. Joe dies
of Management and Budget (OMB), the CBO and the GAO have the necessary expertise to make such judgments, but lack not only the authority to veto legislation or administrative actions but also the political legitimacy to survive resulting push back. Some better method for appointing umpires would be required, such as presidential appointment with supermajority senate confirmation. Those distressed by “gridlock” in Washington today clearly will be even more distressed to consider yet another locus of veto power over legislation. See supra note 55. The first
‘benefits’ is issue were, and in what respects same-sex partners were disrespected and subordinated. Justice Kennedy touched briefly on these points in Part I of the judgment, but they were not drawn out at any length. The only issue raised in relation to Mr. Obergefell – whose partner had died – was that he could not register as the surviving spouse on his partner’s death certificate. That is not the weightiest of issues. The point noted under Michigan law was arguably much more substantial; gay couples could adopt children only as individuals, not as (unlike a married
Scalia then matches ludicrous metaphor with ludicrous hyperbole in a cringeful echo of his opinion in Romer :
This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above mentioned laws [inter alia prostitution, adult incest and child pornography] can survive rational basis review. Id . at 599.
That there are many ways of ‘promoting’ majoritarian sexual morality that do not entail criminalizing people whose sexual preferences do not