In their zest for privatizing all Federal agencies universities were first in line. What is the front-line of democratic political discussion and dissent----holding power accountable? Universities----especially public universities. This is why in a march to autocratic corporate control you silence universities by privatizing them to corporate campuses. It was this building of 'public private partnerships'----tying corporate research and development facilities, national institutions like NIH and NCI to these campuses that gave us the university administration hierarchy that led to this increase in university tuition -----there is absolutely no need for any of this---they simply wanted to create a public subsidy for all corporate R and D.
Add to this hike in tuition to pay for administrative structure the goal of bringing THE BEST OF THE BEST IN THE WORLD to American campuses----all this means is 'we are going to bring the rich of the world who will pay more and more tuition to attend an American university. So, now we need to have university amenities to attract these wealthy foreign students and again tuition and student costs soar. This happened from the 1990s just to create this corporate structure having more to do with wealth and profit then a university of free thought, democratic ideals, and available to all American citizens.
THIS WAS BILL AND HILLARY IN THE 1990S.
At the same time they sent huge Federal funding to build the structures for this charter and school choice that with today's Race to the Top has a goal of corporatized K-12. They are the face of making our public education into global corporate education. Below you see a Republican pushing what the Clinton's had as a goal -----and it will continue if global pols are left in office.
THIS IS NOT A 'RADICAL IDEA'----AUSTERITY FROM MASSIVE CORPORATE FRAUD CREATED THE REASON TO INSTALL WHAT HAS BEEN THE GOAL FROM REAGAN/CLINTON.
A 'radical' idea for difficult times? Education leaders float idea of privatizing some public universities
Jindal’s budget suggests $211M higher ed cut
BY Elizabeth Crisp| email@example.com
March 1, 2015; 4:38 p.m.
78 CommentsYears of deep cuts to state funding for Louisiana’s colleges and universities — and the threat of even further reductions in the near future — have some leaders looking at drastic measures that could change the face of Louisiana higher education.
One idea that has recently been floated: Why not encourage some of the state’s public schools to go private?
The idea, which experts agree is radical and may not ever be feasible, came up during a recent meeting of the state Board of Regents, a group appointed by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, whose administration has led the charge for recent state budgets that have left Louisiana with some of the nation’s most severe cuts to higher education funding. Regents board members have instructed state higher education staff members to examine the concept and report back on whether the plan would work and what it would take.
“You look at some areas of the state, there may be a university or a college inside of a university that could do better as a private entity,” Board of Regents Chairman Roy Martin said in a follow-up interview with The Advocate.
Martin stressed that he was speaking as an individual, not for the board.
Board of Regents member Bill Fenstermaker, who first brought up the idea during the recent board meeting, questioned whether the state could give colleges their buildings and campuses in exchange for severing state funding ties.
“I would think we ought to look at this at least,” he said. “I know this is radical, and it changes maybe some of the model, but it also could free up a lot of money for the other institutions.”
In a follow-up interview, Fenstermaker, too, stressed that he was not speaking on behalf of the board and was just trying to float creative suggestions amid widespread budget concerns.
“It may be that when they look at it, it’s not a very good idea,” he said. “I don’t even have a position right now, but I’d like to see the Board of Regents ferret it out.”
The Jindal administration’s budget recommendation for the coming year calls for a $211 million hit to higher education. That figure relies heavily on a tax credit scheme that is not set in stone and has already drawn backlash from the business community, though. If that plan doesn’t work out, the cut could balloon to a devastating $567 million — about 78 percent of the state’s funding for higher education.
“I think looking at the sheer magnitude of these proposed cuts really represents a dismantling of the state’s public higher education system. There’s no other way to put it,” said Daniel Hurley, associate vice president for state policy at the Washington, D.C.-based American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
A group of political scientists discussed the dire situation during a meeting in Lafayette over the weekend — just a day after the budget’s release.
“I will call it a crisis,” said Ed Chervenak, a professor at the University of New Orleans.
But it’s a story that has become familiar for higher education here. Louisiana has cut per-student funding more than any other state since 2008.
“All of us on the Board of Regents, we’re trying to make it work any way we can,” Fenstermaker said. “I don’t see it getting better. I just hope we can do something to protect and preserve higher education in this state.”
Louisiana is home to one of the nation’s few universities that has successfully transitioned from public to private status. Though it was 130 years ago, both Martin and Fenstermaker mentioned Tulane University in New Orleans in discussing the privatization model.
Elsewhere, the University of Maryland’s University College reportedly has weighed privatization recently, and Wisconsin, facing its own possible $300 million cut to higher education funding in the coming year, is moving toward some private-like ideas at the urging of Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who, like Jindal, is considering a run for president in 2016.
Pearson Cross, a political scientist at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, said the state’s share of higher education funding in Louisiana has made up a shrinking piece of the overall funding pie for some time.
“The colleges and universities are financing what they do now more on the backs of their students and donors. On the backs of other people,” he said.
Hurley said state disinvestment in higher education is on a 30-year national trend that was exacerbated in the most recent decade.
“Certainly there were some dramatic cuts during and after the Great Recession,” he said. “However, the vast majority of states have begun the process of reinvestment in higher education.”
Hurley said the latest idea being floated — encouraging state schools to go private — is radical and rare.
“It’s a rather extreme concept,” he said. “Traditionally in this country, public higher education has been publicly funded, good for all the state’s citizens to have access to. When you’re talking about privatizing higher education ... that, I think, anyone would argue is not good for the health of any economy or society.”
Fewer options for public, subsidized education would mean higher costs and fewer options for low-income and some middle-class families, he argued.
The leaders who are talking privatization see it as an alternative to school closures or mergers, which have been the fear as the state continues to pare back funding.
Chervenak noted that even Florida, a state with a population nearly five times that of Louisiana, has fewer four-year public universities than Louisiana.
But he said closures are still costly and politically difficult — colleges often are points of pride for areas and economic centers. Legislators who feel the threat to their area are unlikely to go along with plans.
“I think it often costs more money to do that than go along with the status quo,” Chervenak said. “It becomes a financial and political difficulty.”
College and university system leaders are pushing for more autonomy — a less severe step toward a privatization, of sorts. Across the country, schools have done this in exchange for less funding from the state, Hurley noted.
“Certainly, the institutions will need tremendous flexibility if these cuts were to be realized,” he said, noting that another key component would be creating a financial aid system to help students who can’t afford the additional fees.
Cross also noted how restrictive state government can be in higher education — including setting arbitrary numbers of employees that a campus can have.
“It’s really outrageous, and it doesn’t answer anything,” he said. “Maybe being private would be better.”
Bill and Hillary started the process of breaking down academic structures for professors as academics and replaced them with business adjuncts just so the tenure of professors could not keep them silenced------a tenured professor creates data and research and uses a voice to hold power accountable----business adjuncts just want to earn more money.
That is why today, all over the world---universities are rolling over neo-liberal global economic policies coming to Europe and the world while in US citizens don't even know what is happening. All of this is deliberate and violates all of the US Constitutional protections of all citizens having access to a good, democratic public education and higher education.
Below you see an article written in Canada stating the same conditions here in the US----but you will not see a US university writing this kind of article----you have ME as a progressive academic doing outside this corporate university structure with mainstream media making sure you do not read it.
Bill and Hillary not only defunded public education at all levels---they started the dismantling of the Department of Education and outsourced Federal Student Loans just so Wall Street could use it for the $1 trillion for-profit higher education student loan fraud. The Clinton's brought these for-profit higher education corporations to 'compete' with academic campuses and subprimed and privatized the student loan process just to implode these Federal progressive education agencies into the mess we have today. Now, of course the answer is to close and privatize all public universities and K-12.
The Quiet Campus: The Anatomy of Dissent at Canadian Universities
By: Ken Coates | From the November 2012 Issue
The remarkable—a word that can be read in many different ways—2012 student protests in Quebec have stirred memories of the activist campuses of yesteryear. For faculty members introduced to the academy in the era of student activism, anti-Vietnam War protests, and general social unrest, the recent quietude of the Canadian university system has been disturbing. Universities had been transformed in the 1960s from comfortable retreats into agents of intellectual foment, social change, and political action. For a time, it appeared that the imperatives of the academy had aligned with a commitment to social justice to create a system almost ideally set to lead Canada’s transformation.
Universities had long stood apart intellectually from the Canadian mainstream, but finally, in the1960s, began to reflect society at large. The humanities and social sciences expanded rapidly. Women, minorities, immigrants and working class Canadians came to campuses in record numbers and, later, showed up at the front of the classroom. They brought new perspectives on the issues of the day, challenging the patriarchal, middle-class hegemony that had dominated Canadian universities for generations. With some exceptions, faculty members and administrators stood behind student radicals and protestors. Many faculty members used the classroom and their writing to support hitherto unpopular causes. Universities were often at the vanguard of protests against the Vietnam War and in favour of the rights of women, Aboriginals, LGBT individuals, and minorities.
Academic freedom, although rarely tested in a formal sense, was a right that was taken for granted. Faculty members, graduate students and undergraduates routinely pressed at the boundaries of conventional debate, often taking their commitment to causes, principles and policy matters into the public realm. The public pressed back, complaining about Marxist teachers, feminist “propaganda,” pro-Aboriginal courses, and overt advocacy for causes from environmentalism to homosexual rights. While the academy remained a fairly conservative place—the radicalism of the few did not permeate the entire professoriate or the student body—there was ample room to dissent, to protest and to challenge the status quo. While professors probably devoted too much effort to their university affairs and too little to broader societal debates and issues, the reality was that universities were leading a social revolution, one that had profound implications for Canada and much of the world.
Then the promise of the 1960s and 1970s faded. The heady days of radical thought and public protest slowly declined, at least in part because of the aging of the professors hired in the period of university expansion. Universities found themselves in an interesting and complex situation, expected to respond to the educational needs of historically disadvantaged groups, encouraged to include more professional and career-focused programs, and challenged to provide the scientific and technological know-how needed to underpin the rapidly emerging “new economy.” Meeting these expectations would have been enough of a challenge. But there was more. There were additional government pressures to increase research intensiveness and foster commercialization, a decline in public revenues, rapidly rising costs (not the least for salaries), and a national preoccupation with providing access for as many students as possible. Added to this were myriad regulatory and service requirements associated with freedom of information, disability services, and support for international students. On the positive side, new universities opened, colleges were converted to university colleges and then universities, on-line delivery expanded, more faculty members were hired (but not enough to keep up with enrollment growth), and research funding expanded dramatically. Ethnic diversity on campus also resulted in students taking more of a lead on the controversial topics of the day—witness the regular conflicts between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups at central Canadian universities, advocacy by LGBT student organizations, and outspoken demands for more “green” institutions. Faculty members typically play only a peripheral role in these discussions.
There were other, less recognized changes. Disciplines became an even stronger focus for university professors, many of whom appeared less concerned about external audiences for their work than about the academic colleagues who vetted their papers and grant applications. With the quantification of research results for the purposes of tenure reviews, merit, research grants, and promotion, faculty members quickly learned to follow the incentives. At many universities, the prospect of merit or rapid promotion carried substantial financial and professional returns. With the incredible growth of universities around the world, and the proliferation of academic scholarship to the point where most professors struggled to keep up with work in their subdiscipline (or, typically, sub-sub-sub-discipline), the focus on publications, conference presentations, and research grants assumed a greater role within the university. Having an impact on society at large, while generally applauded, was not seen as truly meritorious within the academy and generally carried few financial rewards. The university, to put it simply, turned sharply inward, focusing on faculty incentives and discipline-based accomplishments rather than the concerns of society at large.
There has been much debate, led by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAU T), about the vulnerability of Canadian universities to external influences. The rise of private and corporate donations and the sharp increase in institutional reliance on industry partnerships and contract research skewed the university further away from cutting edge intellectual work and public engagement. CAU T has focused a great deal of energy on a handful of social science-based donations, challenging what they see as the possibility for interference with academic freedom in terms of faculty hiring and program development. CAU T has been largely silent on the much more widespread integration of faculty research and corporate activities in engineering, the sciences, medical fields, and business schools. Here, close collaboration has almost become the norm, and research and teaching agendas in these areas have long been shaped by contracts, partnerships, and the requirements of external accrediting agencies. If academic freedom is defined, in part, as the ability to pursue research determined entirely by personal interest, the sciences and applied sciences often operate under many more constraints than do social science and humanities professors. But in these fields, there is much greater acceptance among faculty members and institutions of proper and engaged cooperation with the private sector and government agencies.
Of course, university faculty members who work with companies, government agencies, external organizations, and who accept funding from private sources, are exercising their freedom as academics. Few, if any, faculty members have been forced to accept funding or other logistical support for their research and writing, and yet many do. University faculty members work with trade unions and environmental groups, First Nations and immigrant communities, professional organizations, and corporations. They develop market-ready products that have turned some university faculty into millionaires, assist disadvantaged groups to gain public attention, and work on public policy instruments that shape government and society. In some instances they get paid (and often paid very well) for this work; in other instances, particularly with community and not-for-profit groups, their contributions are pro bono, with some pay-off in terms of peer-reviewed publications and merit pay. With so many applied researchers and teachers on campus—from engineering to accounting, from nursing to marketing—it only follows logically that the campus life would tip away from “pure” research to more practical, externally connected activity. The idea that universities are now (if they ever were) places where faculty members and their students explored the world of ideas unfettered by interference or influence from external agencies and organizations has been sharply diminished.
While it is wrong to idealize the “old days” into some form of intellectual paradise, the reality is that there used to be a greater connection with the world at large, less preoccupation with collecting the accolades of the international academic profession, and (but only for a few decades) more willingness to speak truth to power, or at least to the powers out of favour with the academy. The old idea of the university as the moral conscience of society, while significantly true intellectually, has only episodically been true in practical terms. Indeed, universities have been training grounds for the status quo for much of their history, reinforcing the values of the dominant society, supporting the aspirations of the middle and upper middle class. Individual faculty members spoke out, in the past as in the present, but the campuses as a whole were quiet and comfortable places.
Two influences—the shift toward disciplinary priorities and growing engagement with external actors—now dominate the Canadian academy. While Canadian faculty members may chafe a little under the constraints of the current regime, there is an upside to all of this. Canadian universities have gained substantial federal and provincial financial support, and faculty enjoy the second-highest average salaries in the world and enviable working conditions on most campuses. The prestige of the profession appears to have taken a knock in recent years, due largely to the proliferation of campuses and the ubiquity of a university university education, but for those who manage to secure a tenure stream job at a Canadian institution the career and professional opportunities are first-rate. Some faculty members routinely adjust their research plans to secure funding, be it in the form of government research grants, foundation support, or private sector support, but rarely have to accept overt control over their work.
At the same time, universities have become less dynamic places. Careerism among students, graduate students, and faculty members has replaced genuine engagement with contemporary issues. Only a handful of public intellectuals hold forth on regional or national matters—where would the universities be in terms of public profile without the journalism-friendly faculty in Political Science?—and the vast majority are content to work at the ever-narrowing frontiers of knowledge and discovery. There are times when advocacy groups in the community carry their issues onto campus—again the Israel-Palestinian tensions are a good case in point—but genuine, open-ended debates about the most crucial issues of our time are few. There are more practical and logistical causes of these problems. Some faculty members come to campus only sporadically and a high percentage of students are preoccupied with part-time jobs due to rising tuition fees. Sadly, most members of the public find the nuances of scholarly debate either obscure or irrelevant. The now common phrase—distressingly unchallenged by members of the academy—that something is “only academic” is one of the great put-downs of modern times. The exceptions—a visit from a brilliant guest lecturer, a tense debate about a highly politicized or controversial topic, the emergence of a new and high energy research group—serve as a reminder of what universities could—and should—be.
What is the effect of all of this? First, Canadian universities are not particularly exciting centres of critical thought, if they ever were. The research shows students come to university primarily in pursuit of a high-wage job. (Anticipating the criticism, suffice it to say that on the other hand, a minority of university students are idea-driven, idealistic and highly motivated to learn and change the world for the better. They are a joy to have on campus and in the classroom.) Governments want highly qualified personnel. Businesses want top-notch employees. Parents want their children launched into adulthood and their careers. Faculty members, in the main, are focused on their research and professional engagements. There is not a great deal of room in this mélange of interests for exciting debates about social change, cultural revolutions, and transformative action.
For generations, universities have promoted the educational and intellectual benefits derived from a post-secondary education, as well they should. Confronting ideas, especially those that disturb and provoke, is a central part of the university experience for all students. From this, we have long believed, come young adults who understand their country and their world, who have learned about injustice and inhumanity, and who are well positioned to serve as the kind of engaged and informed citizens that every society needs and wants. Canadian universities still provide excellent opportunities for just such personal and collective development. Students who are engaged inside and outside the classrooms, professors who build bridges between scholarship and public debate, and institutions that do not shy away from controversial subjects contribute to a vital process of collective education and empowerment. Is it wrong to simply wish that we had much more of this on Canadian campuses?
Canadian campuses have become distressingly quiet. It is not that the universities are without dissenters from all points on political and social spectrums. Many of the country’s most radical, creative, and outspoken commentators work or study at universities and use the campus as a pulpit. This is how it should be. But the preoccupation with practicalities—work, careers, salaries, and the commercialization of research—has transformed Canadian universities into calm, largely dissent-free places, with the greatest debates often saved for battles between faculty and students and the campus administrators. There are no structural or legal impediments to greater engagement. There is nothing stopping students and faculty from speaking out, no grand tribunals determined to impose punishments on those who challenge the status quo. We have self-regulated ourselves into nearsilence, and our students and the country suffer from the quiet as much as university faculty. It is more than nostalgia that brings one to yearn for days of activism and protest; it is, instead, the realization that the ideas, talent, energy and resources of the academic could and should be used to change our country and our world for the better.
Ken Coates is Canada Research Chair in Regional Innovation, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan and co-author of Campus Confidential: 100 Startling Things You Need to Know About Canadian Universities.
If you know the Clinton policy from the 1990s involved expanding US corporations overseas to find cheap labor and freedom from US Constitutional restrictions----you understand that Clinton has been committed all these years during and after his Presidency to creating the conditions of people being human capital to be used in any way to maximize corporate profits----ergo, bringing US corporations to slave labor. That is for what the Clinton Intitiative worked. Bill and Hillary ----Hillary as Secretary of State convinced or installed developing nation leadership that agreed to allow US corporations create massive Economic Zones where labor and environment were destroyed in the pursuit of corporate profits. Now, Bill didn't just send US corporations overseas for that ---he started to build in the US the structures to bring these global corporations back to the US to operate the same as overseas----ignoring all US Constitutional law----and as we know the Clintons worked with George Bush all through his terms and then again with Obama to create that structure----Trans Pacific Trade Pact. TPP was more important than Trans Atlantic Trade Pact because it was the conditions in Asia Clinton and Bush wanted back in the US----not the conditions in Europe. TPP places equal footing in all nations for global corporations and you know what?
THESE GLOBAL POLS ARE NOT GOING TO LIFT CONDITIONS IN DEVELOPING NATIONS---THEY ARE GOING TO BRING THE US TO THESE THIRD WORLD CONDITIONS.
This all relates to mass incarceration and the private prison industry in that prisoners work for $2 an hour------about what the developing nations earn----$2 a day to $300-400 a month works out to what US prisoners earned over these few decades since Clinton era. Clinton deliberately created this school to prison pipeline for US corporations to have access to cheap labor in the US. Zero tolerance-----3 strikes------jailing people for no cause----
NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY----ALL OF THIS IS FAR-RIGHT REPUBLICAN
Bill Clinton concedes role in mass incarceration
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Updated 10:15 AM ET, Thu May 7, 2015
Bill Clinton: 'We have too many people in prison' Source: CNN
Bill Clinton: 'We have too many people in prison' 02:26(CNN)President Bill Clinton on Wednesday conceded that over-incarceration in the United States stems in part from policies passed under his administration.
Clinton signed into law an omnibus crime bill in 1994 that included the federal "three strikes" provision, mandating life sentences for criminals convicted of a violent felony after two or more prior convictions, including drug crimes. On Wednesday, Clinton acknowledged that policy's role in over-incarceration in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour.
"The problem is the way it was written and implemented is we cast too wide a net and we had too many people in prison," Clinton said Wednesday. "And we wound up...putting so many people in prison that there wasn't enough money left to educate them, train them for new jobs and increase the chances when they came out so they could live productive lives."
Clinton's comments come on the heels of protests in Baltimore over policing and the death of a young black man there and a week after Hillary Clinton delivered one of the first policy addressees of her presidential campaign on criminal justice reform, saying that the system focuses too much on incarceration.
"Keeping them behind bars does little to reduce crime, but it does a lot to tear apart families," Hillary Clinton said last week. "Our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions."
RELATED: Hillary Clinton calls for mandatory police body cameras, end 'era of mass incarceration'
As first lady, Clinton helped push the omnibus crime bill in public, calling it a "well-thought out crime bill that is both smart and tough" in a 1994 interview.
She said that the crime bill would keep violent offenders locked up "so they could never get out again" and touted the "three strikes" provision specifically.
"We will finally be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders: three strikes and you're out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door," Clinton said in 1994.
On the heels of nationwide protests in Baltimore, Clinton and other politicians are now turning their attention away from "tough on crime" policies to those focused on lowering prison populations and providing more opportunities for low-income areas, where tensions with police have boiled over in Baltimore and other cities.
In the interview Wednesday, the former president didn't completely take the blame for those crime policies, though, pointing to Republicans who strongly pushed the "three strikes" provision.
"But I wanted to pass a bill and so I did go along with it," Clinton said, referencing the legislation that put more police officers on the streets, increased prison funding and banned assault weapons and large ammunition magazines.
RELATED: How 2016 race could boost criminal justice reform
Clinton's administration did attempt to reform the Republican proposal of that policy, but he and his administration touted the benefits of the "three strikes" provision included in the legislation he signed.
Clinton said he agreed with his wife's new bent on criminal justice reform and called bipartisan support for those types of reforms "one of the most hopeful things."
"I mean, going from conservative Republicans to liberal Democrats and the people in between saying there's too many people in jail and we're not doing enough to rehabilitate the ones you could rehabilitate," Clinton said. "We're wasting too much money locking people up who don't need to be there."
No one advanced US global corporations and these US economic zone structures more than Hillary as Secretary of State----her famous meetings with Burmese military junta led to Myanmar citizens being subjected to these FOXCONN corporate campuses. Why is Hillary and all the other Republicans and Clinton neo-liberal candidates NOW SAYING time to end mass incarceration?
BECAUSE TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT IS MAKING ITS WAY THROUGH CONGRESS AND HAS THE GOAL OF CREATING THESE SAME ASIAN ECONOMIC ZONES RIGHT HERE IN THE US......no more need to jail people for cheap labor----TPP policy will bring US workers to that $2 a day----$2 an hour level. That is all this progressive posing is about.....and it should deeply offend everyone falling under labor and justice----which is 99% of Americans.
By Jake Miller CBS News April 29, 2015, 11:33 AM
Hillary Clinton: Time to "end the era of mass incarceration"
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke at length Wednesday about the recent unrest in Baltimore, addressing racial disparities in the criminal justice system, calling for an end to the "era of mass incarceration," and laying out a detailed vision for reform during a speech in New York City.
Though Clinton's speech at the Dinkins Forum at Columbia University had been planned for months, it offered her a timely opportunity to comment on the volatile situation in Baltimore, which has been beset by protests and riots after the death of a young black man in police custody earlier this month.
Freddie Gray, a 25 year old from the Gilmore Homes neighborhood of Baltimore, was detained by police officers on April 12 for possession of a switchblade. He was dragged into a police van and taken to the station. When he arrived 25 minutes later, he was in a coma, his spinal cord 80 percent severed from his neck. A week later, despite extensive surgery, he passed away.
"Yet again, the family of a young black man is grieving a life cut short," Clinton said Wednesday. "Yet again, the streets of an American city are marred by violence, by shattered glass and shouts of anger and shows of force. Yet again, a community is reeling, its fault lines laid bare and its bonds of trust and respect frayed. Yet again, brave police officers have been attacked in the line of duty. What we have seen in Baltimore should, I think does, tear at our soul."
Clinton urged protesters to heed the "pleas of Freddie Gray's family for peace and unity."
"Those who are instigating further violence in Baltimore are disrespecting the Gray family and the community," she said. "The violence has to stop."
But the situation there is hardly unique, Clinton added, noting the heated protests that attended other recent police killings of young black men.
"We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America," Clinton said. "There is something profoundly wrong when African American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts. There is something wrong when a third of all black men face the prospect of prison at some point during their lifetimes."
"We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance, and these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again," she said.
The speech marked Clinton's first detailed policy address since she announced her presidential bid earlier this month. In it, she offered proposals on prison and sentencing reform, probation and drug diversion programs. She called for increased support for mental health and drug treatment, and alternative punishments for lower-level offenses committed by young people.
Clinton noted that many police departments across the country have successfully established trust between officers and the community they serve, "demonstrating how we can protect the public without resorting to the use of excessive force."Going forward, she said, the U.S. should ensure "that federal funds for state and local law enforcement are used to bolster best practices rather than to buy weapons of war that have no place on our streets."
Clinton also called for the use of police body cameras in every jurisdiction across the country. "That will improve transparency and accountability. It will help protect good people on both sides of the lens," she said.
Beyond policing reforms, Clinton added, the U.S. needs to overhaul its approach to sentencing and incarceration.
"One in every 28 children in our country now has a parent in prison," she said. "They're not there to look after their children or bring home a paycheck, and the consequences are profound. Without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions fewer people would be living in poverty."
"We need a true national debate about how to reduce our prison population while keeping our communities safe," she added, calling for alternative sentences for low-level offenders and more probation and drug diversion programs.
She was particularly emphatic on the need to overhaul the justice system's approach to mental health, warning that the current system - in which "our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions" - is flatly unacceptable.
Taking a step back, Clinton warned that it's impossible to separate the problems with today's criminal justice system from more fundamental concerns about race, opportunity, and inequality.
"I don't want the discussion about criminal justice, smart policing to be siloed...the conversation needs to be much broader, because that is a symptom, not a cause for what ails us today," she said. "We can't separate the unrest we see on our streets from the cycles of poverty and despair that hollow out those neighborhoods."
The tone of the speech was particularly noteworthy for Clinton because her husband, former President Bill Clinton, embraced "tough-on-crime" policies during his presidency the 1990s.
Clinton's address reflected a calculation that the pendulum has swung since her husband's tenure - that skyrocketing incarceration rates and falling crime rates have created the political space necessary for policymakers to rethink old approaches to crime and punishment.
Clinton nodded at some recent bipartisan activity in Congress on the issue, commending Republicans like Kentucky's Rand Paul and Utah's Mike Lee for partnering with Democrats on issues like sentencing and prison reform.
"There seems to be a growing bipartisan movement for common sense reforms in our criminal justice system," she said. "It is rare to see Democrats and Republicans agree on anything today. But we're beginning to agree on this."
Bill and Hillary are of course the face of financial deregulation and globalization giving us the mess of Wall Street, all the corporate fraud and government corruption with Wall Street market scams bringing bubble and burst economies to anyone tied to US economy. Well, it would not surprise that these same Clinton's are right there in these secret Trans Pacific Trade Pact negotiations making the same kind of policy that completely deregulates banking globally. So, while Obama is pretending to be posing progressive with Dodd-Frank----they are writing into TPP the same deregulatory laws Clinton installed.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Undermining Wall Street Reform
In the wake of the worst financial crisis and economic recession since the Great Depression, governments around the world are re-regulating financial firms, seeking to reverse the extreme deregulation that led to foreclosed homes, bank bailouts, lost jobs and collapsing economies. Incredibly, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would provide big banks with a backdoor means of watering down such efforts to re-regulate Wall Street.
TPP rules, written under the advisement of banks before the financial crisis, would require domestic law to conform to the now-rejected model of deregulation that led to financial ruin. The TPP would undermine bans on particularly risky financial products, such as the toxic derivatives that led to the $183 billion government bailout of AIG. It would threaten policies to prevent banks from becoming "too big to fail" and the use of "firewalls" to prevent banks that keep our savings accounts from taking hedge-fund-style bets.
The TPP would also restrict capital controls, an essential policy tool to counter destabilizing flows of speculative money. Even the International Monetary Fund has recently endorsed capital controls as legitimate for mitigating or preventing financial crises. And the deal would pose new hurdles to taxes on Wall Street speculation, such as the proposed Robin Hood Tax that would generate billions of dollars' worth of revenue for social, health, or environmental causes.
The TPP would empower foreign financial firms to directly attack these and other financial stability policies in foreign tribunals, demanding taxpayer compensation for regulations that they claim frustrate their expectations and inhibit their profits.