STOP VOTING FOR NEO-LIBERALS WHO WILL CONTINUE TO HAND ALL THAT IS PUBLIC TO GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.
I am going to use this weekend to talk about my fellow democratic candidates for governor. Why they are running as democrats I'll never know!!
Heather Mizeur plans to continue O’Malley’s relentless privatization of all that is public with public private partnerships with global corporations taking over all our public sector. Killing the people’s ability to control public policy, union busting public sector unions, driving wages to the lowest point. What is progressive about all of this? Between these goals of public private partnership and Wall Street leveraging Heather Mizeur plans to super-size global corporate rule in Maryland.
MARYLAND IS DOING JUST WHAT THIS ARTICLE SHOWS HAPPENING IN VIRGINIA----BECAUSE WE HAVE NEO-LIBERALS AND NOT DEMOCRATS.
A bad track record for privatizing infrastructure
By Cate Long
April 4, 2013 REUTERS
public private partnerships
The poster boy for privatizing U.S. public infrastructure has been Virginia’s governor Bob McDonnell. I wrote last June about McDonnell:
Governor Bob McDonnell might as well have put a for-sale sign on Virginia’s front lawn when he announced that the state’s Office of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships (OTP3) has a ‘pipeline’ of potential privatization projects. The governor and Sean Connaughton, the head of the Department of Transportation, appear to be racing to move as many of Virginia’s public assets into private hands as possible.
How was McDonnell doing this? The Bond Buyer had the story:
In a move that is likely to make Virginia the leading state for public-private partnerships, Gov. Robert McDonnell has announced 22 transportation and infrastructure projects that may be developed as P3s.
The governor is asking for public input on the projects, which include highway, seaport and spaceport projects that are either under active consideration or flagged as possible candidates for P3s.
‘It’s a fairly major step forward for P3s in Virginia,’ said Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton.
Virginia’s 1995 legislation enabling P3s allows private companies to submit unsolicited proposals that meet certain guidelines, and that is how most of the commonwealth’s P3 projects have emerged, Connaughton said.
In April, APM Terminals Inc. submitted such a proposal to operate the Port of Virginia as a P3. That project is among those announced by McDonnell. Virginia is now making an effort to harness more interest from the private sector, said Connaughton.
McDonnell basically put the public assets of Virginia up for sale. One of the governor’s biggest disappointments was the privatization of the Ports of Virginia, which was being operated by the non-profit Virginia International Terminals Inc. The board of the Virginia Port Authority rejected bids from private operators to take control of the ports. The Virginian-Pilot said in an Op-Ed:
In 2011, McDonnell fired 10 of 11 members of the port authority’s board of commissioners. And by year’s end, he and Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton had offered, on the state’s behalf, to purchase APM’s Portsmouth terminal outright. APM declined the offer, but in April 2012, countered with its own bid to resume operations at its terminal and replace VIT at the state-owned terminals in Norfolk, Newport News and Portsmouth. The proposal was valued at up to $3.9 billion over a 48-year term.
That offer seemed to dazzle Connaughton and other state officials, who set an absurdly short period – less than 60 days – for others to present competing proposals under the state’s Public-Private Transportation Act. Public outcry ensued. Legislators criticized the use of the PPTA to bypass the General Assembly and conclude the transaction before they could return to Richmond and interfere during the legislative session.
The political process was a disaster. More from the The Virginian-Pilot:
Those actions were a clear message that it would take a substantially better, and better-vetted, offer before Virginia’s leaders even considered selling a state asset as critical as the port, which supports some 340,000 jobs and has an estimated annual economic impact of $41 billion.
The episode also stands as a caution to state officials about cherry-picking numbers to make a point. Despite its repetition in the cause of forcing a deal, reports of VIT’s financial difficulties were found to be unsubstantiated and overstated. Criticism of the port’s performance under VIT ignored the variables affecting global maritime commerce, much less the role of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Fitch Ratings commented on how the failed Virginia deal will weaken interest in other big infrastructure privatization deals:
Virginia Port Authority’s decision to discontinue negotiations with two potential lessors of its ocean terminals may create negative momentum for other large port privatization projects because of the length of the negotiation, the strong brand names of the bidders, and the meaningful pricing that was considered. It would have been the first privatization of a major U.S. port facility. In our view, the privatization of smaller, individual terminals is less likely to be affected.
I never saw the cost benefit analysis of the Virginia port deal, but my rough math shows that it short-changed the state. Those in authority seem to have determined the same thing.
The momentum is shifting away from privatization deals for infrastructure. The new Tappan Zee bridge in New York that spans the Hudson River was instead contracted as a design-build project. In this arrangement a joint venture called the Tappan Zee Constructors, consisting of Fluor Enterprises, Inc., American Bridge Company, Granite Construction Northeast, Inc., and Traylor Bros., Inc., was chosen to design and build the bridge under contract to the state. From The Journal News:
‘(This) action is also amplified by the fact that, under design-build, the selected bridge plan came in $1 billion under the expected price, maximizing the impact of this major financial support,’ he said.
Proponents of privatization cite the financial advantages of private investors taking control of public assets. But when you look at the financial performance of many of these projects, the initial projections are not realized. In January I summarized the failure of seven U.S. infrastructure privatization projects, many of which relied on wildly optimistic financial projections, and many of which defaulted on their bonds.
There are plenty of promises from investors, but very little real analysis of privatization deals. I hope this paradigm of infrastructure will fade away and be buried with the other overblown and underperforming financial schemes.
Heather Mizeur for Governor of Maryland is running as a 'progressive democrat' and yet she is joining Obama in pushing a myRA privatization platform on a state level. WOW----privatization of both Social Security and Medicare? SEE HOW NEO-LIBERALS RUNNING AS PROGRESSIVES ARE TAKING OVER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?
The Truth About Social Security and Privatization
Our Social Security System vs. "Privatization"
Social Security is a successful intergenerational program that has served this country well. Yet some groups want to "privatize" Social Security by taking payroll tax money that now goes into the Social Security trust funds and investing it instead in private investment accounts.
Under Social Security, people earn the right to participate by working and contributing. The program was never intended to be an investment program. With broader policy goals than private retirement plans, its intent is to provide guaranteed income to seniors, disabled citizens, survivors, and their families. Privatization would severely undermine this system.
The arguments for privatization can seem persuasive at first, but they are all hollow and easily disproved. Following are five simple rebuttals to many common and misleading claims being spread by the privatization movement. When you hear any of the pro-privatization claims, refer to the facts provided here.
When They Say , "Privatization Will Fix Social Security for Future Generations," The TRUTH is...
Privatization is not a plan to save Social Security; it is a plan to dismantle Social Security. Privatization means increased retirement risks, severe cuts in Social Security benefits, and a multi-trillion dollar increase in the federal debt.
Privatization diverts money out of Social Security into individual accounts leaving an even larger solvency problem. Privatizers fill this funding gap by dramatically cutting Social Security benefits. They cover the rest by borrowing money, thereby increasing the debt burden on all taxpayers by trillions of dollars over the next half century. With market-based accounts, the risk of an adequate retirement is placed entirely on the individual.
When They Say, "Social Security will soon go bankrupt," The TRUTH is...
If Congress does nothing - makes no changes or "reforms" - Social Security is projected to deliver full guaranteed benefits until at least 2037. Even after 2037, again without any changes, the trust funds will continue to pay 76 percent of benefits for years after that.
It's true, the aging baby boom generation will strain Social Security in the future. However, if Congress enacts modest changes, Social Security should be able to meet 100% of its benefit obligations for many decades to come.
When They Say, "Workers could get a better return by investing in the Stock Market," The TRUTH is...
Right now, Social Security provides a guaranteed income, paying benefits every month for life, with increases for inflation. After adjusting for risk, Social Security has a rate of return equal to that of any mix of financial assets in private accounts.
And risk must be taken into account, because stock market returns are never guaranteed! As we've seen in recent years, returns can fluctuate wildly. One need only be reminded that between 2001 and 2003, the NASDAQ lost 75% of its value. And the market took a major downturn again in 2008. Nest eggs can disappear in an instant - and take months, if not years, to rebuild.
With privatization, some might do well, many might lose - but our society would lose the benefit of the sound, basic income security provided by Social Security retirement, disability and survivor benefits.
When They Say, "Social Security is unfair because tomorrow's workers will have to support the Baby Boomers' retirement," The TRUTH is...
In fact, the Boomers have helped pre-fund part of their benefits by building a huge surplus that should keep Social Security alive and well for many years. With privatization, however, workers would end up in a double bind - paying taxes to support the Boomers' retirement plus investing money in their own individual accounts, in hopes of building retirement funds for themselves.
To make matters even worse, today's workers would have to bear the transition costs of switching to privatization, estimated at nearly $5 trillion over just the first twenty years- a cost that would fall on today's young people.
When They Say, "Privatization gets rid of the inefficiency of big government," The TRUTH is...
Administrative costs for Social Security are very low - less than 1% of the program's budget. Diverting money to the stock market would incur the very high costs of brokers' commissions, mutual fund management fees, and other expenses inherent in buying and selling stocks and bonds.
Small investment accounts are very expensive to administer. Commissions and fees could easily burn up as much as 15 cents out of every dollar of a worker's annual investment as they do in some countries with privatized systems.
Wall Street brokers and fund managers would stand to make billions of dollars a year thanks to privatization, so it's no surprise that they strongly support the privatization movement!
Conclusion: Privatization is NOT the Answer!
Unfortunately, exaggerated media coverage regarding Social Security's finances has contributed to the illusion that Social Security is in immediate trouble. And the pro-privatization movement has spent millions of dollars promoting that illusion.
That's why the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is spreading the truth, through education material like the booklet you're reading right now. And that's why NCPSSM remains committed to blocking any effort to privatize Social Security.
By using these facts, you can help the truth - and Social Security - win! Thank you for supporting Social Security for the benefit of every generation of Americans!
Heather Mizeur is gung-ho on all that is Wall Street financial leverage and state partnerships with Wall Street! She is silent on the fact that Wall Street is systemically criminal and still owes the American people trillions of dollars and the State of Maryland tens of billions of dollars from the last frauds. Neo-liberals in Maryland are deliberately soaking the state with debt knowing we are heading for an economic collapse that will have all levels of government defaulting on these deals-----handing all these public projects----especially our schools----to private investors. That is exactly what neo-liberals want after all----they intend to end public education!
HEATHER SUGGESTED THAT UNIONS GIVE UP PART OF THEIR PENSIONS TO PAY FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE STATE BEING RANKED AT THE BOTTOM FOR FRAUD AND CORRUPTION LOSING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO CORPORATE FRAUD.
Next `Big Crisis' Is Unfolding in Muni-Bond Market: Joe Mysak By Joe Mysak Apr 8, 2010 9:01 PM ET
Look to municipal bonds for the next big disaster.
That’s the advice of Richard Bookstaber, a senior policy adviser at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Writing on his blog this past week, Bookstaber said the next big crisis looked a lot like the last big crisis, in housing and credit.
Conditions in the municipal-bond market match almost exactly the conditions that existed for the blowup that sparked the worst recession since the Great Depression, he said.
I would agree with him up to this point. What he then predicts seems rather unlikely to happen.
The muni market is leveraged and opaque, in terms of pension obligations. It is a big market, and problems can “go systemic,” he writes. Much of the tax base, things like toll revenue, is already mortgaged. Once a few municipalities default on their debt, “there is a risk of a widespread cascade because the opprobrium will be lessened.”
Finally, those investors who seek salvation in geographic diversification may be disappointed, just as those in the housing market were. That’s “because similar methods of leveraging were being employed throughout the country.”
Bookstaber is a serious, smart fellow, a hedge-fund and Wall Street securities firm veteran. What he says can’t be dismissed as the usual headline-grabbing bloggery hysteria.
Los Angeles, Detroit
Bookstaber also works for the SEC. So he may have some special insights (he noted that his blog post is his personal opinion and not the views of the SEC or its staff).
As if to punctuate the man’s arguments, the city controller of Los Angeles this week said it might go broke in a month; the mayor called for nonessential services to be shut down for two days a week. The Citizens Research Council of Michigan, an independent research organization, released a report on Detroit, and said it might be helpful if the city reorganized under bankruptcy protection.
There’s a lot of bad stuff going on in Muniland right now. Because tax revenue tends to lag behind economic recovery, there’s more gloom on the horizon. The question for bond buyers is whether “things can go systemic,” as Bookstaber puts it.
I don’t think so.
Nor do I think that bond investors are well-served by ignoring the imminent perils their market has to navigate. Perhaps I have received one too many e-mails from readers complaining that I somehow do a disservice to the municipal market by publishing facts about unfunded pension liabilities, rising default rates, and public officials who are looking into the possibility of Chapter 9 bankruptcy.
Still, systemic? Really? What would that mean? The $2.8 trillion municipal market is enormous. First there’s the number of governmental units, including things such as school districts and authorities: 89,526 at last count, which was in 2007. There are probably more today.
So how would you quantify “systemic” default? If we say only half of the governments sold bonds, that’s about 45,000. The figure is probably higher, though, because so many small issuers sell bonds once every few years.
Is systemic, then, 10,000 defaults? Maybe it’s 20,000? The record year in recent history for defaults was 1991, when 259 bond issues either failed to make debt-service payments or violated covenants, according to the Distressed Debt Securities newsletter of Miami Lakes, Florida.
During the Great Depression, from 1930 to 1939, 4,770 municipal-bond issues defaulted, according to George H. Hempel’s book “The Postwar Quality of State and Local Debt” (1971). More than 60 percent occurred in the South or the Midwest.
I don’t buy the idea of a mass meltdown. The municipal market is too specific and too particular. It resists categorization and generalization.
Not all states and localities are alike, when it comes to their budgets or pension liabilities. Some are on the brink, others are courting disaster, and still others are managing. Tax revenue and investment returns are already coming back.
What will we see instead? It will be bad enough. There will be more defaults, yes, and possibly a few high-profile bankruptcies that will shock the system. The really bad news will probably be concentrated in a number of states, the same way most of the housing collapse was.
The best thing about these “crisis” calls is that they focus states’ and municipalities’ attention on their pension shortfalls and their intractable public labor unions.
The backlash against ever more lavish public pensions has begun, and it won’t be pretty.
Heather Mizeur is running for Governor of Maryland as a 'progressive democratic candidate' supporting labor issues like sick days.
Did you know Maryland ranks at the top for wage theft and workplace abuse because there is no oversight protecting these workers. Did you know that Maryland leads in illegal designation of workers as independent contractors? Did you know that if Trans Pacific Trade Pact is passed all these labor laws will be ignored? ALL MARYLAND CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR ARE NEO-LIBERALS READY TO PUSH FOR TPP.
Why do you think Heather does not mention all the abuses and lack of public justice but pretends to support labor protections? That is what neo-liberals do-----they throw progressive bones they don’t intend to support.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO PROPOSE MORE LABOR LAW PROTECTIONS TRY ENFORCING THE ONES ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. IF A POL IS NOT SHOUTING ABOUT THE SUSPENSION OF RULE OF LAW IN MARYLAND THEY ARE NOT PROTECTING LABOR!
Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 12:32 PM PDT
Wage theft: abusive employers fuel nationwide epidemic
by Paddy Ryan Daily KOS
Wage theft - the non-payment or the under-payment of an agreed upon wage - has been a growing problem across the country, seen in every industry from retail and service to manufacturing and construction. Wage theft primarily affects low-wage unskilled workers, forcing most families who rely on minimum wage below the federal poverty line. Unfortunately the issue has been widely under-publicized and, therefore, vastly unknown to a majority of the American public.
But many recent studies have been conducted over the past few years that are now shining a beacon of light on how bad the growing epidemic of wage theft has become. Universities, labor organizations, community groups, non-profits, and others have been collecting data on the subject for long enough now that a lot of valuable new information has been discovered.
The most common forms of wage theft: the refusal to pay proper overtime, the refusal to honor the minimum wage, and illegal paycheck deductions like transportation costs. Illegal transportation deductions are most frequently seen in the temporary employment industry, where low-wage 'temp agency' workers are driven to and from the job site.
"Although this practice is of dubious legality, many agency workers have little practical alternative but to accept these [transportation] charges if they hope to have a job."
Studies have been conducted across the United States regarding the wage theft epidemic. An especially disheartening independent study from 2009 - Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers - found that a whopping 76 percent of workers claimed they had been underpaid or not paid at all by their employer. The study – conducted by the National Employment Law Project – surveyed over 4,000 low-wage workers throughout the cities of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
In 2010, the Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice released a report entitled All Work and No Pay, which documented rampant wage theft throughout the low-wage community in New Jersey. According to their survey results, "54% of the workers statewide were paid less money than they were promised by at least one employer."
One of the most recent independent studies was conducted by New Labor - a community outreach & labor organization - along with Jason Rowe of Harvard University. The study surveyed 291 workers in the New Jersey logistics industry and found that over one-third (36.1%) of those surveyed were not paid in full for the wages that they had been promised. That's almost 4 out of 10 low-wage workers that have been underpaid, or even unpaid, by their employer!
Wage theft doesn't only affect low-wage workers either; it affects everyones paycheck by driving down salaries across the economic spectrum.
"There is a cost to our local economies, with fewer dollars circulating to local businesses, stunting economic recovery. And there is a cost to growth and opportunity as generations of workers are trapped in sub-minimum wage jobs."
In 2011, the National Employment Law Project released a guide to combating wage theft entitled Winning Wage Justice, An Advocate's Guide to State and City Policies to Fight Wage Theft.
NELP's guide contains seven basic principles to help stop wage theft:
1. Raise the Cost to Employers for Violating the Law.
2. Make Government Agencies Effective Enforcers of the Law.
3. Better Protect Workers From Retaliation.
4. End the Exclusions in Minimum Wage and Overtime Standards.
5. Stop Independent Contractor Misclassification and Hold Subcontractors Accountable.
6. Ensure Workers Are Paid for All Hours Worked.
7. Guarantee that Workers Can Collect from Their Employers.
NELP was able to publish its suggestions with the help of new information, released by organizations like New Labor and Seton Hall, who have provided a better understanding of the problem, and how to successfully combat it.
However, only a limited number of states are actually listening to these suggestions and trying to do something about the problem.
In both New York and California, Wage Theft Prevention Acts were passed in 2011. The New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, expands the civil and criminal remedies that are available when employers fail to comply with the provisions. The California Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011 differs significantly from the New York law because it requires that notices be given only to non-exempt (hourly) employees. Massachusetts also has wage theft legislation in place, along with Connecticut, Illinois, and (surprisingly) North Carolina.
But all of these state laws need to be strengthened.
According to a new study from the Progressive States Network,
As it turns out, one of the most important findings of this report is that state wage theft laws, in general, are almost universally inadequate. In our scoring system, the two highest-rating states, New York (with an overall grade of C+) and Massachusetts (with a grade of C), only receive 77% and 74% of the total possible points respectively, and it is a steep fall from there: Connecticut, Illinois, North Carolina, and California follow with grades of D, and the other 44 states and Washington, DC receive F’s. Further underscoring the deep drop-off, the tenth-ranked state receives only 52% of the total points, and the bottom eleven states all receive 25% or less. Two states — Alabama and Mississippi — scored zero points.
However, there is some good news. The legislation passed in 2011 has let workers reclaim millions of dollars in stolen wages throughout New York and California.
The National Employment Law Project reports that, "In the past year alone, workers recovered tens of millions of dollars in unpaid wages from their employers in a range of industries. For example, ... New York car wash workers received $3.5 million in unpaid overtime."
Unfortunately, only six states currently have laws dealing with wage theft, and all of those laws need to be strengthened. The fight against wage theft is just beginning and there is much more to be done. Most workers are not as lucky as those workers who were able to recover millions of dollars in lost wages. Many will continue to suffer from the abuses of wage theft, and still desperately need help. It will take a team effort by the liberal media, an informed and concerned citizenry, community organizations, advocacy groups, Democratic politicians, organized labor and the like, to put an end to wage theft for good.
Heather Mizeur, running for Governor of Maryland as a 'progressive democrat'.....while being a neo-liberal.......is pushing this tired excuse of a corporate tax law that we all know offers no value as this article shows. Why are global corporate pols like Mizeur pretending to be holding corporations accountable with this bogus policy? THEY ARE PROMOTING A cut in CORPORATE TAX RATE with it for goodness sake!
Combine reporting of corporate income taxes isn't a panacea for Maryland
May 31, 2013 Baltimore Sun
Regarding your recent editorial on combined reporting for corporate income tax in Maryland, you argue that a switch to combined reporting in favor of a 0.65 percent decrease in the corporate rate would represent only a temporary "inconvenience" (How to make Md.'s taxes more competitive," May 9).
The Council On State Taxation, a trade association representing almost 600 corporations engaged in interstate commerce, including significant operations in Maryland, has found that combined reporting neither provides the panacea for perceived "hiding" of profits nor provides the "permanent" revenue benefit asserted in the editorial.
The editorial notes that combined reporting is "a decades-old idea that is the law in a majority of states." While it is true that combined reporting has spread from its mainly western confines to some eastern states, with the exception of West Virginia and Washington, D.C., the mid-Atlantic and South are otherwise devoid of this mandatory filing method.
Had the editorial page ever canvassed corporate tax departments, it would have found that combined reporting is not a short-term inconvenience. The definition of a "unitary business," which determines the entities that are part of the combined report, is notoriously imprecise and subject to controversy, resulting in the under-inclusion of entities; prolonged administrative and court disputes; and arbitrariness by the revenue department in seeking to include profitable entities but excluding loss entities.
The editorial cites the current anti-abuse provisions in the Maryland corporate tax law as an example of complexity. Rather, these provisions underscore that every reporting regime will be subject to scrutiny as to whether it creates opportunities for abuse; it is hardly an argument for why including every related entity under the uncertain unitary business standard, and determining taxable income for the "multi-state conglomerate," to use the words of the editorial, is no more difficult than determining the income of a single entity doing business in Maryland.
One need only look to California and Illinois to see prime examples of states with hopelessly complex combined reporting regimes that are constantly seeking revisions in response to other perceived "loopholes" in the law.
The editorial also asserts that combined reporting "seeks to more accurately calculate a corporation's economic activity in a state." This statement may well reflect the intent, but not the reality.
In practice, combined reporting may actually reduce the link between income tax liabilities and where income is earned. Combined reporting regimes vary across the states; it is fair to say that each state's system is unique. Combined reporting variables include what entities are included or excluded from the combined report; how inter-company transactions are handled; treatment of net operating losses and credits among group members; treatment of foreign income and expenses; and many more complex and arcane tax rules.
Perhaps the greatest variable is apportionment. This imprecise gauge of income attributable to the taxing state becomes even more inaccurate in combined reporting states, as states and taxpayers struggle with the proper inclusion of factors of numerous corporate and pass-through entities. Add on the tendency of taxpayers to exclude profitable entities and revenue departments to exclude loss entities and you get a pretty clear picture of how combined reporting works in the real world.
This leads to the main point of the editorial: revenue. The editorial makes the simplistic "trade-off" argument for a modestly lower corporate rate, saying that there would be some immediate and permanent revenue benefit from a combined reporting move.
In bad times, the Maryland Business Tax Reform Commission found, combined reporting would be a revenue loser. As profits continue to grow (hopefully), the Department of Legislative Services projects revenue gains. Ignore the uncertainties mentioned above that make this revenue spike anything but a certainty, especially in the early years after adoption, when compliance and enforcement will be in their fledgling stages.
Do Marylanders really think a demonstrably fluctuating revenue source will fund long-term tax relief for business? Or, more likely, would Maryland be saddled with a complex, anti-competitive, under-performing corporate tax regime the next time trouble approaches and the state looks to raise revenue?
Independent studies have shown that combined reporting at best is an uncertain proposition for raising revenue – it could just as well be a revenue loser (see, for example, the recent University of Tennessee study on the topic, cited in our opposition testimony to SB 469).
Further, the editorialists should remember that any tax increases will ultimately be borne by labor in the state, through fewer jobs (or lower wages over time), or by in-state consumers (through higher prices for goods and services).
The editorial also seems to embrace the idea that Maryland shouldn't try to compete for investment by larger businesses, instead looking to "start-up" companies for its future. Don't throw in the towel, Maryland! Go for both. Improve your business climate, including your tax regime. Demand performance for business tax breaks by all means. But don't embrace combined reporting as the panacea it isn't.
Douglas L. Lindholm, Washington, D.C.
The writer is president and executive director of the Council on State Taxation.
Heather Mizeur is ready to spend that GREEN money for the 'environment' ----do you hear her shout the the entire system is filled with fraud??????
Did you know that ½ of the money designated to GREEN projects is fraud and that many of the corporations designating themselves as b-corporations…….the social good tax write-off are fraud? The entire GREEN system of funding has no oversight and accountability and is full of fraud. Businesses wanting to do the right thing are being forced to join in the fraud-for-all just to stay in business.
Did you know that the wind farm off of Maryland’s coast was handed to a Texas corporation for development and a global corporation to operate and that a California Energy Conglomerate is trying to sign people up for this corporation to receive BGE Green surcharge from this windmill deal? EVEN THE SURCHARGE MARYLAND RATE-PAYERS WILL PAY FOR THIS ‘GREEN PROJECT’ IS ALREADY BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE STATE. Will a global corporation really hire Somerset County workers to build these turbines?????
Below you see an article by businesses trying to do the right thing. They are outing the LEEDS program that is supposed to certify construction as GREEN and getting tax credits and development breaks.
THERE IS TONS OF DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS SYSTEMICALLY FRAUDULENT AND MARYLAND IS GROUND ZERO FOR THE FRAUD. Is it really GREEN to allow ½ of GREEN spending to be stolen????
Is the LEED program a fraud?
March 13th, 2009 in Blogs Kevin Ireton, editor-at-large
Share This The LEED rating system is “a tragedy,” according to Henry Gifford, resulting in buildings that use more energy, not less, and “a fraud perpetrated on U.S. consumers trying their best to achieve true environmental friendliness.” Henry is a mechanical systems specialist in New York City and, apparently, a vocal critic of the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. I heard him make these claims on Tuesday night as he sat next to Brendan Owens, USGBC’s vice president of technical development. The two were part of a public debate that took place in Boston at Building Energy 09, the annual conference of the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association.
The source of the debate is a study released a year ago that compared the energy performance of LEED-certified buildings with that of existing, noncertified buildings. The USGBC claims that the study shows LEED buildings to be 25% to 30% more efficient, but Henry says their methodology is flawed. According to him, the LEED buildings actually use 29% more energy than other buildings. Henry also thinks that “green” buildings ought to be certified based on their performance after a year or two of service and that the energy use for buildings ought to be available to the public on utility Web sites. You can read more about Henry’s views on his Web site and in the latest issue of Northeast Sun. Iconoclastic building scientist Joe Lstiburek has weighed in on this debate (pretty much agreeing with Henry), as has Nadav Malin of Building Green.
I should make it clear at this point that the study and the controversy surrounding LEED deal only with commercial buildings, not houses. The USGBC launched the LEED program for commercial buildings more than 10 years ago, while LEED for Homes is brand new. I hesitate to offer an opinion on all of this because I haven't read the study and don't understand the rating system like these other guys do. But I will venture to say that launching LEED and then waiting 10 years before studying the actual performance of certified buildings hardly qualifies as “leadership.” And I certainly hope that the LEED for Homes program learns from this embarrassment.
OH, LOOK......India is doing exactly what Heather Mizeur and Congressional neo-liberals are doing right now in the US. It looks like both nations have pols working for global corporate tribunals writing these deregulatory laws with TPP!!!!!
Those cumbersome regulations regarding procurement and bidding contracts getting in the way of handing all public operations to corporations. Silly things like low bidder and minority/women contractors or environmental requirements just get in the way of business. So, neo-liberals are pushing all across America a further dismantling of corporate regulation just as has happened at the Federal level with Bush and now Obama. So, you see why Maryland’s Attorney General Gansler served 8 years ‘seeing no fraud and corruption’……..these neo-liberals consider Trans Pacific Trade Pact (TPP) is already in place. Just what we need when US corporations are systemically fraudulent and government is systemically corrupt------REMOVE ALL REMAINING REGULATIONS TO MAKE NAKED CAPITALISM COMPLETE.
What you are seeing is your Congressional and now state-level neo-liberals creating the laws that Trans Pacific Trade Pact require! WHAT????? THESE POLS DON’T KNOW WHAT IS IN THE TPP!!!!!
OH, REALLY???? THEY ARE PASSING ALL THE LAWS THAT MAKE THE US WITHOUT ANY REGULATION OR OVERSIGHT WHICH IS WHAT TPP DOES FOR GOODNESS SAKE!
BUSINESS REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
April 8, 2014
The key objective of streamlining of business activities through regulatory framework should be
- Low compliance cost for doing business in India
- Simple regulatory environment saving time and energy for doing business and
- Ensuring fair competition.
- Weak institutional architecture for business regulation in the country.
- Ambiguous nature and vast scope of business regulations.
- Absence of single repository for business regulations.
- Lack of coherence in business regulatory governance across country.
- Lack of defined mechanism for consultation between government and industry.
- Inherent limitations of regulatory system in the country.
- Regulatory reforms have not been implemented yet due to absence of any one dedicated agency accountable for reforms
- Establishing enabling institutional architecture
- Formulating a national policy on business development and regulation
- Drafting and enacting ‘National Business Development Regulation’ Bill.
- Building institutional architecture for looking after the business regulatory reforms.
- Enabling institutional architecture for ensuring competitiveness in manufacturing.
- Systemization of Business Regulation Governance.
- Mapping and classification of all existing business regulations and procedures and providing one online shop – ‘National Business Facilitation Grid” for all information related to business regulations and procedures.
- A system of mandatory reviews of existing regulations at periodic intervals should be established and operationalised.
- A decentralized single window system should be established with appropriate geographical spread.
- E-Biz Mission Mode Project
- Adopting a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA).
- Making business more responsible towards society.
- Developing an ongoing process of stakeholder consultations.
- Capacity building for carrying out regulatory reforms.
WILL A POLITICIAN SO CONNECTED WITH CORPORATE POLICY REALLY WORK FOR STRONG PUBLIC SCHOOLS? HEATHER MIZEUR WORKS EVERY WAY FOR WALL STREET----WHY NOT SCHOOLS?
If you listened to Heather Mizeur and her debate forum with the Baltimore Education Coalition you would have not known she was addressing the core of education privatization in Maryland. The BEC is a Michelle Rhee K-12 privatization group that has Baltimore well on its way to a privatized K-12 with charter schools, school choice, Teach for America, and school funding by private corporations that has erased equal opportunity and access education. Schools in Baltimore are businesses and are being tied with businesses in a vocational K-career college tracking. This privatized platform will be expanded all across Maryland if allowed to continue and not once did Heather say anything to counter any of this. That is because she intends to continue these policies regardless of those ‘progressive’ policies on testing and public funding of schools with Thornton. A new Thornton? With Mike Miller calling to end state funding of public schools and state and localities ending most corporate and wealth property taxes----the main source of public school funding……and Heather’s commitment to Wall Street financial instruments….I WOULD GIVE THIS A ‘P’ FOR PHOOEY.
Testing and data gathering is central to Bill Gates and privatizers and a neo-liberal will not stop this process.
I would also like to point to Heather’s embracement of private non-profits used in partnership with schools and most people are seeing how these private non-profits are taking control of schools with parents and students having little voice.