Banks are moving towards online accounts only; public TV stations are geared to disappear; public land lines for phone are being eliminated...........your government is systematically pushing all formerly public utility and services to private computer.....and more specifically, mobile broadband access. I'm listening to NPR's On The Media estimate ten years until this transition is complete and estimated that by then, the major players in internet access will be charging $120 a month for cable, phone, and web......an then downloading data will be packaged as to limit further by cost how much your will be able to access. As they push to shut down the public Post Office...........how will the majority of people communicate? When you do communicate, the government and corporations will have access to your every word.
Remember, all the middle-class is being pushed into poverty........so we are looking at 70-80% of the population in the next decade IF YOU DO NOT VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT!
ALL OF THESE DECISIONS TO DOWNSIZE ALL THAT IS PUBLIC ARE FUELED BY THE DECLARATION OF HAVING NO FEDERAL FUNDS......THAT DEFICIT YOU KNOW. YOU SEE BELOW THEY ARE TRYING THEIR HARDEST TO SPEND WHAT LITTLE WE HAVE COMING INTO THE GOVERNMENT ON BUSINESS.......SENDING YOUR MONEY RIGHT TO CORPORATE POCKETS! GIVING MEGA-RICH VENTURE CAPITALISTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FOUNDATION MONEY TO FUND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE! REALLY?
Overview of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. As President John F. Kennedy said in 1963: Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races [colors, and national origins] contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial [color or national origin] discrimination.
If a recipient of federal assistance is found to have discriminated and voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, the federal agency providing the assistance should either initiate fund termination proceedings or refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal action. Aggrieved individuals may file administrative complaints with the federal agency that provides funds to a recipient, or the individuals may file suit for appropriate relief in federal court. Title VI itself prohibits intentional discrimination. However, most funding agencies have regulations implementing Title VI that prohibit recipient practices that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
To assist federal agencies that provide financial assistance, the wide variety of recipients that receive such assistance, and the actual and potential beneficiaries of programs receiving federal assistance, the U.S. Department of Justice has published a Title VI Legal Manual. The Title VI Legal Manual sets out Title VI legal principles and standards. Additionally, the Department has published an Investigation Procedures Manual to give practical advice on how to investigate Title VI complaints. Also available on the Federal Coordination and Compliance Website are a host of other materials that may be helpful to those interested in ensuring effective enforcement of Title VI.
IT TAKES THE COURTS AGAIN TO STOP WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS PASSED BY THIRD WAY DEMOCRATS ------ WE HAVE NO ONE IN LEADERSHIP PROTECTING THE PUBLIC------THE MORE REAL PROGRESSIVES ELECTED, THE MORE POWER TO ELECT PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP!
House to Consider Proposal to Bar Indefinite Detention After Arrests on U.S. Soil
By CHARLIE SAVAGE Published: May 17, 2012 WASHINGTON
New York Times
— The House is preparing to vote again on an unresolved legal controversy: whether the military may imprison terrorism suspects captured on United States soil without trial. The renewed debate comes as a federal judge has enjoined the government from enforcing a statute codifying the government’s powers of indefinite detention. Lawmakers are considering amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act. One of them, sponsored by Representative Adam Smith of Washington, a Democrat, and Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a Republican, would scale back a highly contested provision about indefinite detention created in last year’s version of the law, by saying it does not apply to domestic arrests.
AS YOUR POLITICIAN TELLS YOU THESE SOCIAL AND SERVICE PROGRAMS MUST BE CUT TO PAY DOWN THE DEFICIT, THE NEXT PHASE OF CORPORATE GIVE-AWAYS ARE HEADING FOR CONGRESS. PROGRAM-RELATED INVESTMENTS (PRI) ARE BASICALLY THE SAME AS b CORPORATIONS AND NON-PROFIT GRANTING AGENCIES IN THAT THEY GIVE YET ANOTHER CHANNEL FOR PEOPLE WITH MONEY TO MOVE THEIR MONEY TO PRIVATE COMPANIES THROUGH CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.
VENTURE CAPITALISTS HAVE MORE MONEY THAN THE GOVERNMENT AND NEED NO GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE FOUNDATION FUNDING. VENTURE CAPITALISTS ARE THE ONES WHO FUND THE INNOVATORS. SO THIS IS JUST A BLATANT CORRUPTION OF THE PUBLIC SYSTEM BY TREASURY SECRETARY GEITHNER--------OBAMA'S FAVORITE BANKER!
Opinion | June 3, 2012 Wall Street journal
Why Not Venture-Capital Philanthropy?
Some of our brightest, most innovative thinkers are at start-up companies. But these companies often have a hard time raising capital. Venture-capital firms have become more cautious, unwilling to fund start-ups that have bright ideas but whose products are a long way from commercial viability. Venture capitalists consider such start-ups—such as early-stage biotech firms—too risky to justify their investment.
Charitable organizations can now step up and help. The U.S. Treasury Department has recently issued a proposal to clarify that foundations may buy stock or make loans to a commercial venture if its activities promote its charitable objectives. Legal uncertainties surrounding such investments had previously held back the risk-averse trustees at many charities.
And so, instead of making a $500,000 grant to a university, an Alzheimer's foundation could buy $100,000 of stock in each of five private companies trying to find a therapy for Alzheimer's. Or a foundation dedicated to improving financial access for the poor could make $100,000 low-interest loans to five microfinance banks in different countries.
Both of these investments would be permissible for a foundation as so-called program-related investments, or PRIs.
Foundations have traditionally fostered research through grants to universities and other nonprofit institutions. They will continue to do so, because many of our best minds work in the academy on basic research.
Nevertheless, program-related investments can be more effective in certain situations. Some of the world's most talented scientists work in commercial companies. And they have a financial incentive to make breakthroughs in areas that foundations consider vital to their charitable missions.
At the same time, PRIs in for-profit companies generally count toward meeting a foundation's requirement to distribute 5% of its endowment every year. Even if a commercial investment generated no financial return, the foundation making it would not necessarily be any worse off than had it made a grant for research that didn't pan out.
However, if a foundation makes an investment in a successful commercial venture, it wins doubly. Imagine that an Alzheimer's foundation's investment leads to a blockbuster drug. That drug would improve the lives of Alzheimer's patients, and the foundation would realize a return that would replenish and grow its endowment.
Investments must meet two main criteria to qualify as a PRI according to existing Treasury rules. First, the primary purpose must be to carry out the foundation's charitable purpose. This means that foundations must monitor their investment targets—much as they would a recipient of a grant—to ensure that the company remains focused on research and development that is relevant to the charity's mission.
Second, "no significant purpose" of the investment may be to generate income or capital appreciation. In practice, this generally means that the investment must be on terms that would not be attractive to an investor purely motivated by profit.
A below-market-rate loan, or an equity investment that generates below-market expected returns, would fit this criterion. (There is also a third requirement, that such an investment may not be designed primarily to influence legislation or support a political campaign.)
Though the Treasury's recent clarification should make PRIs more attractive, foundations must still be careful in selecting investments to avoid creating any potential conflict of interest. For example, a foundation should avoid investing in a company controlled by an officer or director of the foundation.
Despite the limitations, foundations now have significant new ways to advance their purposes and serve the public through investments in innovative, for-profit enterprise. In this manner, they will increase the likelihood of making scientific breakthroughs, help create more jobs, and bolster small businesses with good ideas that cannot easily get private funding.