We will end this week's discussion about public policy tied to citizens' voice and space and our duty as 99% WE THE PEOPLE to hold accountable with oversight and justice those elected politicians and their appointments----that is what CITIZENSHIP entails. It is enshrined in our US Constitution and Bill of Rights and any policies or laws that BLOCK AND MAKE IMPOSSIBLE that civic duty is ILLEGAL and can be VOIDED. MOVING FORWARD US CITIES as FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and its goals are just that ILLEGAL BLOCKING of our civic duties.


We always try to bring our global banking 1% FREEMASON STARS this time literary Dan Brown to see the patterns by CREATIVE ARTS controlled by global banking 1% set the societal FADS decades before the policies start to fall into place. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand the goals of SMART CITY are TOTALITARIAN and REPRESSIVE. We can understand that placing all that is CIVIC-----government, business and economic development, education, communications and media all online and digital at the same time building ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID in ways that will make it impossible for any 99% of WE THE PEOPLE to access it-----one snap of the fingers and global Google and internet are gone with the wind for all but the global 1%.

One thing our national and international media send out as news over and over is -------nations all around the world are becoming more far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty -----you know FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.   Indeed, global banking 1% have Russia, China and Asian nations, Arabic and African nations, Latin America and US/Canada/Europe all becoming AUTHORITARIAN.  This article wants to pretend that misogyny is coming from this Chinese leader when in fact the far-right wing authoritarian militaristic dictatorships are ALWAYS SUBJUGATING WOMEN.  That is why CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and global banking are filling our 5% candidates and organization leaders with HILLARY NASTY WOMEN.


China is taking a lead in SMART CITIES because it is DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE perfect with closing 99% of Chinese citizens into DARK AGES authoritarianism---United Nations and CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have these few decades been BFF to these global 1% Chinese loving that ONE PARTY AUTHORITARIAN RULE. Really think US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE SMART CITIES will be different?   


Global Opinions

Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rise in China has been powered by sexism


by Leta Hong Fincher by Leta Hong Fincher
Global Opinions
March 1

Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Aug. 1, 2017. (Andy Wong/AP)Leta Hong Fincher is the author of “Leftover Women: The Resurgence of Gender Inequality” and the forthcoming “Betraying Big Brother: The Feminist Awakening in China.”



China’s strongman authoritarianism under President Xi Jinping has taken an alarming turn for the worse. With Sunday’s announcement that China’s Communist Party will abolish presidential term limits, Xi is poised to stay in office beyond the end of his second term and likely be China’s paramount ruler for many years to come.


There are many reasons that China’s modern Communist Party has survived for almost 70 years, in spite of the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. But it is impossible to understand the longevity of China’s Communist Party without recognizing the patriarchal underpinnings of its authoritarianism. In short, China’s ultimate strongman, Xi, like other autocrats around the world, views patriarchal authoritarianism as critical for the survival of the Communist Party.


For the first several years of his presidency (until early 2016), Xi was quite literally called Xi Dada — “Big Daddy Xi” — in the state media, which built up a personality cult around him the likes of which had not been seen since the 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution, under Chairman Mao Zedong. This language celebrates Xi for his manliness and upholds the male-dominated family as the basic foundation of a strong and stable state. Propaganda images depict Xi  as the father of the Chinese nation in a “family-state under heaven” (jia guo tian xia). When Xi became president, pop and hip-hop songs emerged idolizing him not just as a father but as an ideal husband, too, such as “Be a Man Like Xi Dada” and one of the most popular songs of all, “If You Want to Marry, Marry Someone Like Xi Dada.”

The Communist Party aggressively perpetuates traditional gender norms and reduces women to their roles as reproductive tools for the state, dutiful wives, mothers and baby breeders in the home, in order to minimize social unrest and give birth to future generations of skilled workers. The party also is carrying out an unprecedented crackdown on feminist activists because China’s all-male rulers seem to think that China’s entire security state would collapse were it not for the subjugation of women.


Xi’s hypermasculine personality cult became so extreme that some Communist Party officials felt it had gone too far and in 2016 urged the state media to drop the term “Xi Dada.” Nonetheless, Chinese state media continue to present the nation as one big family, which needs strong, manly leadership in the form of Xi, the paternalistic patriarch.


Yet just how strong is this strongman in reality? Behind macho propaganda videos, Xi’s hold on power is much more fragile than it appears.


The Chinese government’s backlash against feminism, ever since the arrest of five women known as the Feminist Five in 2015, is a form of state-level, fragile masculinity, terrified at the prospect of emancipated women rising up to challenge the Communist Party’s political legitimacy. Under Xi’s leadership, Chinese authorities have carried out an unprecedented crackdown on feminist activists, making “feminism” a politically sensitive word and even making the #MeToo hashtag against sexual harassment subject to frequent censorship.

China’s economy has entered a protracted slowdown just as the country is beginning to face the severe demographic crisis of an aging population and a shrinking workforce. By most accounts, China’s decades-long “economic miracle” of double-digit growth rates is over. In response to the slowdown, Chinese propaganda under Xi’s leadership has revived sexist elements of Confucianism, in particular trying to push the notion that a traditional family (based on marriage between a man and a virtuous, obedient woman) is the foundation of a stable government.

For example, the official Xinhua news agency ran a long article last year about Xi and traditional “family values” (jiafeng). The article points out that the Chinese word for family (jia) is also part of the compound word for nation (guojia): “Xi Jinping has often stressed the importance of family values. He says ‘little family’ but he has in mind the ‘big family’ [the nation],”  Xinhua said.



Meanwhile, in almost 70 years of Chinese Communist history, there has never been a single woman on the Politburo’s elite Standing Committee. Why? I believe that China’s all-male rulers have decided that the systematic subjugation of women is essential to maintaining Communist Party survival. As this battle for party survival becomes even more intense, the crackdown on feminism and women’s rights — indeed, on all of civil society — is likely to intensify.

This trend is very dangerous for the rest of the world as well, since it is already happening in other authoritarian countries such as the Philippines, Russia, Iran and Turkey, with misogynistic “strongmen” who are rolling back women’s rights as an integral part of their authoritarian repression. We see it even in the United States, with rising authoritarianism and the undermining of long-established democratic norms wrapped up in a strong backlash against feminism.


How do we fight rising authoritarianism in China and around the world? By fighting the patriarchy. Supporting feminist activists and promoting women’s rights are the most effective way to stop the growing, misogynistic assault on democratic freedoms globally.

__________________________________________


We have to give the #1 OLD WORLD GLOBAL BANKING 1% journal TIME MAGAZINE credit for consistency------China does capitalism better than US. China's global 1% are millionaires now billionaires because CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA moved our US corporations to Foreign Economic Zones and created artificial 'capitalism' -----this was not built by Chinese communists. US 99% WE THE PEOPLE know last century's thriving best in world history real free market capitalism was driven by left social progressive capitalism----what was built in America was taken to China to make China appear to have a functioning authoritarian capitalism.

We want to simply make clear---MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----is MADE IN CHINA MADE IN AMERICA. There is no intention of democratizing or liberalizing China---China is going to extreme authoritarianism ---extreme wealth and extreme poverty. Chinese news say the 99% just love that COMMUNISM----same as North Korean news----just as 99% WE THE PEOPLE have loved CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----same FAKE POLLING.


Moving hundreds of trillions of US wealth to Chinese Foreign Economic Zones with massive and systemic frauds----oh, yeah that's the best kind of capitalism.

Why China Does Capitalism Better than the U.S.
By Tony Karon Thursday, Jan. 20, 2011


One of the great ironies revealed by the global recession that began in 2008 is that Communist Party–ruled China may be doing a better job managing capitalism's crisis than the democratically elected U.S. government. Beijing's stimulus spending was larger, infinitely more effective at overcoming the slowdown and directed at laying the infrastructural tracks for further economic expansion.


DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT?????  OH, REALLY??????  WHO BELIEVES THAT BESIDES TIME MAGAZINE?

As Western democracies shuffle wheezily forward, China's economy roars along at a steady clip, having lifted some half a billion people out of poverty over the past three decades and rapidly created the world's largest middle class to provide an engine for long-term domestic consumer demand. Sure, there's massive social inequality, but there always is in a capitalist system. (Income inequality rates in the U.S. are some of the worst in the industrialized world, and more Americans are falling into poverty than are being raised out of it. The number of Americans officially designated as living in poverty in 2009 — 43 million — was the highest in the 51 years that records have been kept.)
(See TIME's photo-essay "The Rise of Hu Jintao.")

Beijing is also doing a far more effective job than Washington of tooling its economy to meet future challenges — at least according to historian Francis Fukuyama, erstwhile neoconservative intellectual heavyweight. "President Hu Jintao's rare state visit to Washington this week comes at a time when many Chinese see their weathering of the financial crisis as a vindication of their own system, and the beginning of an era in which U.S.-style liberal ideas will no longer be dominant," wrote Fukuyama in Monday's Financial Times under a headline stating that the U.S. had little to teach China. "State-owned enterprises are back in vogue, and were the chosen mechanism through which Beijing administered its massive stimulus."

Today Chinese leaders are more inclined to scold the U.S. — its debtor to the tune of close to a trillion dollars — than to emulate it, and Fukuyama noted that polls show that a larger percentage of Chinese believe their country is headed in the right direction, compared with Americans. China's success in navigating the economic crisis, wrote Fukuyama, was based on the ability of its authoritarian political system to "make large, complex decisions quickly, and ... make them relatively well, at least in economic policy."


These are startling observations from a writer who, 19 years ago, famously proclaimed that the collapse of the Soviet Union heralded "the end of history as such ... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."
(See TIME's video "An Eye on China, Old and New.")

Fukuyama has had the good grace and intellectual honesty to admit he was wrong. And he's no apologist for Chinese authoritarianism, calling out its abuses and corruption, and making clear that he believes the absence of democracy will eventually hobble China's progress. Still, as he noted in the Financial Times, while they don't hold elections, China's communist leaders are nonetheless responsive to public opinion. (Of course they are! A party brought to power by a peasant rebellion knows full well the destructive potential of the rage of working people.) But the regime claims solid support from the Chinese middle class, and hedges against social explosion by directing resources and investment to more marginal parts of the country.


China's leaders, of course, never subscribed to Fukuyama's "end of history" maxim; the Marxism on which they were reared would have taught them that there is no contingent relationship between capitalism and democracy, and they only had to look at neighbors such as Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore to see economic success stories under authoritarian rule — although the prosperity thus achieved played a major role in transforming Taiwan and South Korea into the noisy democracies they are today. Nor were Beijing's leaders under any illusions that the free market could take care of such basic needs as education, health care and infrastructure necessary to keep the system as a whole growing.


But Fukuyama also made a point about the comparative inability of the U.S. system to respond decisively to a long-term crisis. "China adapts quickly, making difficult decisions and implementing them effectively," Fukuyama wrote. "Americans pride themselves on constitutional checks and balances, based on a political culture that distrusts centralised government. This system has ensured individual liberty and a vibrant private sector, but it has now become polarised and ideologically rigid. At present it shows little appetite for dealing with the long-term fiscal challenges the U.S. faces. Democracy in America may have an inherent legitimacy that the Chinese system lacks, but it will not be much of a model to anyone if the government is divided against itself and cannot govern."

LET'S SEE---CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ARE THE SAME GLOBAL BANKING 1% PARTY----MOVING FORWARD SAME AGENDA WHILE MANUFACTURING CRISES ----POLARIZED? 

Money has emerged as the electoral trump card in the U.S. political system, and corporations have a Supreme Court–recognized right to use their considerable financial muscle to promote candidates and policies favorable to their business operations and to resist policies and shut out candidates deemed inimical to their business interests. So whether it's health reform or the stimulus package, the power of special interests in the U.S. system invariably produces either gridlock or mishmash legislation crafted to please the narrow interests of a variety of competing interests rather than the aggregated interests of the economy and society as a whole. Efficient and rational decisionmaking it's not. Nor does it appear capable of tackling long-term problems.

THE 99% WE THE PEOPLE WILL FIX ALL THAT BAD DECISION-MAKING BY GETTING RID OF GLOBAL BANKING PLAYERS WHOSE ONLY TALENT IS LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING.


China is the extreme opposite, of course. It can ride roughshod over the lives of its citizens (e.g., building a dam that requires the forced relocation of 1.5 million people who have no channels through which to protest). But China's system is unlikely to give corporations the power to veto or shape government decisionmaking to suit their bottom lines at the expense of the needs of the system as a whole in the way that, to choose but one example, U.S. pharmaceutical companies are able to wield political influence to deny the government the right to negotiate drug prices for the public health system. Fukuyama seems to be warning that, in Darwinian terms, the Chinese system may be more adaptive than the land of the free.

_________________________________________________

We always like to include in our public policy discussions how global banking 1% use those freemason STARS to sell their societal fads. There are two reasons DAN BROWN --ORIGIN is appropriate to discussions tied to civic voice/duty/oversight and accountability. First, the description of the anti-hero's conditions for announcing his BEST IN WORLD HISTORY discoveries are so contrived, contained, totally virtual allowing no outside communications to a presentation orchestrated... to a tee-------it gives a perfect description of how SMART CITIES will operate if allowed to MOVE FORWARD. Sociopaths have such a need to promote themselves as EXCEPTIONAL because they are not exceptional....these real technology advances are not exceptional and they are definitely not needed and mostly not wanted.

The second thing DAN BROWN was told to include in ORIGINS is the idea that anyone fighting against ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID and SMART technology advances must do so because of RELIGIOUS reasons---it could not possibly be that 99% of WE THE PEOPLE do not want our lives and rights as citizens taken away.
THE DARK AGES BATTLE BETWEEN OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS USING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION---THEY WANTED THOSE INVENTIONS --THEY WANTED TO CONTROL THE INFORMATION AROUND THESE INVENTIONS----
This is exactly what Brown sells in ORIGIN. Remember, those CATHOLIC KINGS AND QUEENS----not religious.


Lifestyle
October 12, 2017 / 8:04 AM / 6 months ago


Collective consciousness to replace God: author Dan Brown

Douglas Busvine

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Humanity no longer needs God but may with the help of artificial intelligence develop a new form of collective consciousness that fulfils the role of religion, U.S. author Dan Brown said on Thursday.

Brown made the provocative remark at the Frankfurt Book Fair where he was promoting his new novel, “Origin”, the fifth outing for Harvard “symbology” professor Robert Langdon, the protagonist of “The Da Vinci Code”, a book that questioned the history of Christianity.
“Origin” was inspired by the question “Will God survive science?”, said Brown, adding that this had never happened in the history of humanity.
Sponsored
“Are we naive today to believe that the gods of the present will survive and be here in a hundred years?” Brown, 53, told a packed news conference.

Set in Spain, “Origin” opens with Langdon arriving at the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao for an announcement by a reclusive billionaire futurist that promises to “change the face of science forever”.

Events quickly take an unexpected turn, providing a plot vehicle for Langdon to visit the historic sites of Spain - including Barcelona, capital of the northern region of Catalonia that is now in the grip of a secession crisis.

Brown, who studied art history in Seville, expressed his concern and sympathy for both sides in the political stand-off.

“I love Catalonia. I love Spain. I hope they work it out. It’s a heartbreaking situation, but it’s also a sign of the times,” said Brown, adding the crisis also reflected the tension in society between the ancient and the modern.

Brown, who has sold 200 million books in 56 languages, admitted to not having read a novel in five years. But he investigated deeply and spent a lot of time talking to futurists to come up with the storyline for “Origin”.

He recognized that his views may not be welcomed by clerics, but called for greater harmony between the world’s great religions and those who profess no faith.

“Christianity, Judaism and Islam all share a gospel, loosely, and it’s important that we all realize that,” he said. “Our religions are much more similar than they are different.”
Turning to the future, Brown said technological change and the development of artificial intelligence would transform the concept of the divine.
“We will start to find our spiritual experiences through our interconnections with each other,” he said, forecasting the emergence of “some form of global consciousness that we perceive and that becomes our divine”.
“Our need for that exterior god, that sits up there and judges us ... will diminish and eventually disappear.”

_______________________________________

East India becoming quite the TOTALITARIAN STATE MOVING FORWARD.

'Other critics have also warned of this potential for exclusion in smart cities. Well-known smart city critic Adam Greenfield poignantly asks, “What role will the citizen play [in the smart city]? Is the city-dweller best visualised as a smoothly moving pixel, travelling to work, shops and home again, on a colourful 3D graphic display? Or is the citizen rightfully an unpredictable source of obstreperous demand...s and assertions of rights?”'

Global Google does not allow many searchs to give SMART CITY critics unless it is those FAKE Clinton neo-liberal 'populist' outlets. There is actually thousands of academic articles written AGAINST SMART CITIES for the same reasons REAL left social progressive give. It is clear these SMART CITIES having in mind the DARK AGES MEDIEVAL CASTLES protecting those global 1% and their 2% from the 99% MASSES. We read where the Chinese LEADER FOR LIFE is taking China back to a CLOSED SOCIETY far more authoritarian then ever while the great leader allows he and Chinese 1% partner with global neo-liberalism ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE.

We try to make clear for those US citizens black, white, and brown feeling they must be PLAYERS in order to get into these CASTLES......the goals of SMART CITY and technology with artificial intelligence and robotics to to replace ALL 99% OF CITIZENS....no 10% winners---no 5% winners---even those global 2% once these structures are built are no longer needed or wanted by global 1%.


Where the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE protest MOVING FORWARD for civil reasons-----there is no way MOVING FORWARD should have ANY RELIGIOUS supporters-----only 5% FAKE religious players would want these kinds of extremist deep state structures.

Who Is the Smart City for?
Stephen Assink

Wikipedia Commons
The Beautiful
The Prosperous


The Just and Well-Ordered

Who doesn’t love a good dystopian thriller? With unforgettable characters and edge-of-your-seat chase scenes, these movies are entertaining, exciting, and extremely lucrative. From Blade Runner and The Matrix trilogy to Elysium and the Hunger Games series, these movies have defined our conception of a post-apocalyptic world. But the real power of this genre lies not in its special effects but in its creative baring of social tensions in futuristic megacities that today no longer look so far-fetched.


From lack of infrastructure to concentrated poverty, megacities—urban areas of 10 million or more people—present significant challenges for any local government. Concerns over social inequality have also long been a fixture of the discourse around megacities, especially so in India where there are six such metropolitan areas amid a culture defined by the hierarchies of the caste system. At the moment, however, the issue of urban exclusion in India is now coalescing around that nation’s burgeoning smart city movement.


Smart cities, according to the Indian government’s website, “are those cities which have smart (intelligent) physical, social, institutional, and economic infrastructure while ensuring centrality of citizens in a sustainable environment. It is expected that such a Smart City will generate options for all residents to pursue their livelihoods and interests meaningfully and with joy.” The impetus for India’s smart city building is largely urbanization demographics. Currently, 31 precent of India’s population is urban. That is projected to increase to 65 percent over the next decades. India has set a goal of 100 smart cities to meet the challenge of settling its growing urban migration in decent and humane ways.



Smart cities employ new technologies that integrate urban infrastructure with powerful data analytics, a trend has already hit Chicago, New York, and Rio de Janeiro, cities with significant investment in advanced urban technology. A goal of this movement as Noah Toly argues here on the Thriving Cities blog, “is to make the whole city more responsive, giving us instant access to information we can hold in one hand, turning the city into a device. By harnessing big data, we suppose we may harness the power of urbanization and the city itself—a force with few rivals in history.” Supported by powerful advocates such as Michael Bloomberg and companies such as IBM, smart cities are poised to become a dominant form of urban settlement in the twenty-first century.


Although most cities around the world are incorporating smart technology into the existing urban fabric, India aims to build its smart cities from scratch—thanks to more than $1.18 billion committed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. The city of Palava is a prime example. Considered Mumbai’s sister city, Palava is the largest privately planned city in India. Through partnering with IBM, Palava will have cutting-edge technology that will help the city government guide and manage its population. Branded as a “city of opportunity,” Palava offers residents a community that boasts lush green spaces and immaculate apartments—according to its website, “Palava isn’t just a new place to live, it’s a new way to live.”


In a country where more than 300 million people live without electricity or access to basic services, smart cities, at least on paper, seem to offer a solution combining sound infrastructure and an improved quality of life. However, critics allege that smart cities will in fact exclude those most in need of what they offer. In a recent Guardian article, journalist Shruti Ravindran highlights the growing concerns about exclusion in India’s new smart cities. In particular, Ravindran points to recent comments made by Indian economist Laveesh Bhandari:
In a monograph for a conference on smart cities in Mumbai in January, the economist and consultant Laveesh Bhandari described smart cities as “special enclaves” that would use prohibitive prices and harsh policing to prevent “millions of poor Indians” from “enjoying the privileges of such great infrastructure”. “This is the natural way of things,” he noted, “for if we do not keep them out, they will override our ability to maintain such infrastructure.” Bhandari’s bald statements sparked social-media pandemonium, and the economist is now at pains to assert he is far from uncritical of such plans.


In the United States, discourse on urban exclusion usually centers on affordable housing and how factors such as public policy or market forces have often resulted in limited availability. In India, the land sought for smart city construction could lead to the razing of poor districts, the forced removal of the poor, and their subsequent exclusion from new communities. As Ravindran reports, “Smart cities remain a key justification for a controversial land-acquisition ordinance the government is aiming to enact, which does away with mandatory consent and social safeguards for those whose lands are forcibly acquired.” Once built, smart cities could be “governed by powerful corporate entities that could override local laws and governments to ‘keep out’ the poor.” Ravindran notes that “To make sure that no one trespasses on its immaculate privatopia, Palava plans to issue its residents with ‘smart identity cards’, and will watch over them through a system of ‘smart surveillance’.”


Other critics have also warned of this potential for exclusion in smart cities. Well-known smart city critic Adam Greenfield poignantly asks, “What role will the citizen play [in the smart city]? Is the city-dweller best visualised as a smoothly moving pixel, travelling to work, shops and home again, on a colourful 3D graphic display? Or is the citizen rightfully an unpredictable source of obstreperous demands and assertions of rights?”


Like every other form of urban settlement, the smart city is a value-laden human creation enmeshed in cultural norms and political forces. Without hard work and attention to justice, this model could end up excluding those who would most benefit from it, or worse, divert funds from other distressed places. In India’s rush to transform, build, and even engineer entire new cities, critics are right to raise concerns about citizenship and access.


Even in US cities, especially places like Baltimore and Ferguson, we are confronting some of these same issues. In the same way India is wrestling with the social and ethical dynamics of the smart city, we need to equally be self-reflective about the ways we seek to improve our own cities. Every policy and plan for urban improvement need to be accompanied by difficult questions. And none are as pressing as the one confronting India at this moment: “Who is the smart city for?”

We drink one cup of coffee in morning watching CNN just to educate on latest global banking 1% propaganda so we can then REALLY EDUCATE on what global 1% are hiding with this FAKE NEWS.


CNN as we said has an OLD WORLD global banking freemason CUOMO who, while giving this report told listeners THIS WILL NOT STOP SMART CITIES DRIVERLESS VEHICLES. This policy is PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION and as US public transportation is enfolded into PORT OF BALTIMORE PRIVATE AUTHORITIES promoting only SMART CITIES TECHNOLOGY----UBER and self-driving vehicles will keep MOVING FORWARD. Baltimore is the same test site as this Arizona site---no mention of stopping for public safety here in Baltimore---we have no PUBLIC SAFETY.


The goal of MOVING FORWARD transportation as we said is driverless vehicles that move people within global corporate campuses and transport between campuses eliminating the need for personal cars----for public buses---you know, all of what gives 99% WE THE PEOPLE freedom of movement.


UBER/DRIVERLESS VEHICLES MILLIONS OF SATELLITES CIRCLING EARTH TAKING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY TO CONTROL THESE TECHNOLOGY OF MOVEMENT AND POPULATION CONTAINMENT.

There is no need for a RED LINE LIGHT RAIL when the goal is massive global corporate campuses and global factories in East and West Baltimore and Baltimore Co with driverless vehicles the only way to move around....nothing more global corporate PROPRIETARY with no transparency then 'public' transportation tied to SMART TECHNOLOGY.

Here is that ANNE ARUNDEL community college and its AFFINITY GROUP tied to SMART TECHNOLOGY driving the kinds of courses, job training-----all silencing any public discussion AGAINST MOVING FORWARD SMART CITIES


'The Affinity Group and SMART are two organizations that help "connect the dots" between education and Port related jobs and careers'.


Uber self-driving car kills pedestrian in first fatal autonomous crash


by Matt McFarland   @mattmcfarland March 19, 2018: 1:40 PM ET

Uber has removed its self-driving cars from the roads following what is believed to be the first fatality involving a fully autonomous car.


A self-driving Uber SUV struck and killed 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg as she walked her bicycle across a street in Tempe, Arizona, Sunday night, according to the Tempe police. The department is investigating the crash.
Rafael Vasquez, a 44-year-old test driver from Uber, was behind the wheel of the Volvo XC90 SUV at the time, the police said.



Based on preliminary information, the car was going approximately 40 mph in a 35 mph zone, according to Tempe Police Detective Lily Duran.

Police say the investigation does not at this time show significant signs of the SUV slowing before the crash. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office will determine whether charges will be filed.


"The vehicle involved is one of Uber's self-driving vehicles," the Tempe police said in a statement. "It was in autonomous mode at the time of the collision, with a vehicle operator behind the wheel."
Autonomous mode means the car is driving on its own. During tests, a person sits behind the wheel as a safeguard.


Uber is conducting tests of autonomous vehicles in Arizona, Pittsburgh, Toronto and other areas. Uber said it has stopped testing the vehicles throughout the United States and Canada.


Uber said it is "fully cooperating" with local officials. "Our hearts go out to the victim's family," Uber said in a statement.
The National Transportation Safety Board said it is launching an investigation.
For self-driving cars, dealing with pedestrians and bicyclists is a challenging task. The self-driving industry has found quicker success with highway driving, which is a less complicated environment.


Uber has previously grounded its vehicles while investigating a crash. In 2017, Uber briefly pulled its vehicles from roads after an Uber self-driving vehicle in Tempe landed on its side.

Arizona is a hotbed of self-driving car development. Earlier this month, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey updated an executive order to allow self-driving cars to drive on state roads without a test driver behind the wheel.


Meanwhile, Waymo, the self-driving arm of Google's parent company, is launching a public self-driving car service this year in the Phoenix, Arizona, area. Companies such as GM's Cruise and Intel are also testing in the state.

Arizona has little inclement weather. This makes it more appealing for self-driving cars, which can struggle in rain or during snowfall.

This isn't the first futuristic car involved in a fatal crash. In 2016, a man driving a Tesla was killed while its autopilot system was activated. But Tesla Autopilot is partially autonomous. A human driver is required to handle much of the driving.

However, Uber's system is designed to fully replace a human driver.
____________________________________________
Third world developing nations have CIVILIAN review boards because they have no public sector and they are not CITIZENS.


The US does not need CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS because we have 3 branches of government, strong US Rule of Law, 99% of WE THE PEOPLE elect politicians to represent us---and we the public have the right of oversight and accountability of all public agencies---local, state, and Federal.

When did these CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS for policing especially start being created?  During CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.  Who installs these in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES?  Well, below we see OAKLAND------we have them installed in BALTIMORE-----they are installed in NYC-----Hmmmm, wasn't POLICE COMMISSIONER BATTS in all these departments just as US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT released a DECREE OF REFORM?  Indeed.

We have shouted these few decades that a Clinton/Bush/Obama US Justice Department wasn't dishing out US 99% justice---it was using FAKE social  justice in pretending to help in policing justice while MOVING FORWARD DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE global militarized corporate policing in all US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.

CITIZENS OVERSIGHT MODEL------and yet we have watched these few decades as only 5% to the 1% freemason/Greek players find their way to these PUBLIC BOARDS.





'BART Police Citizen Review Board Overview

The BART Police Citizen Review Board shall have the authority to exercise its duties and responsibilities as outlined in the BART Citizen Oversight Model, with regard to law enforcement and police activities or personnel operating under the authority of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District'.


Third world developing nations having no system of government use CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS. These are replacing the strongest in world history US public government 3 branches with checks and balances government.




Civilian Complaint Review Board
- Welcome to NYC.govwww1.nyc.gov/site/ccrb/index.page


Police officers should always treat you with respect. If you want to learn more about the types of misconduct the Civilian Complaint Review Board pursues, or if you ...



Filing a Complaint


The Citizens’ Police Review Board (CPRB) was disbanded on December 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 604, Police Commission, subsection (e)3, Budget and Staffing, of the Charter for the City of Oakland, and the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) was created in its place.
 
Oakland City Charter, Section 604(f)(1) states: "The Agency shall receive, review and prioritize all public complaints concerning the alleged misconduct or failure to act of all Department sworn employees, including complaints from Department non-sworn employees. The Agency shall not be required to investigate each public complaint it receives, beyond the initial intake procedure, but shall investigate public complaints involving uses of force, in-custody deaths, profiling based on any of the protected characteristics identified by federal, state or local law, and First Amendment Assemblies. The Agency shall also investigate any other possible misconduct or failure to act of a Department sworn employee, whether or not the subject of a public complaint, as directed by the Commission. The Agency shall forward a copy of each complaint received to the Internal Affairs Division of the Oakland Police Department within one business day of receipt."
 
The CPRA operates under the direction of the Oakland Police Commission, which was created by Measure LL, and replaces the CPRB which was phased out by that measure.  
The CPRA’s website is currently under construction, however, the CPRA will still accept and investigate complaints of police misconduct committed by Oakland Police officers. 
 
You may submit a completed complaint form to our office.
Community Police Review Agency
City of Oakland - Dalziel Building
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 6302 (Floor 6)
Oakland, CA 94612
Fax: (510) 238-6834
or
 
You may also request a complaint form from the CPRA office by calling 510-238-3159 or by downloading a form from the following links:
__________________________________________________

We are not discussing police brutality or injustice this week ---we are discussing PUBLIC AGENCIES, CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS to hold our public officials and agencies accountable with oversight.

We shouted during the OBAMA era against POLICE BODY CAMERAS because we KNEW this policy was not about justice for the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE---it was always a global militarized police and security corporation policy being used in overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----where PRIVACY LAWS regarding individual citizens' rights to privacy inside their owned-home or business.  Overseas there are no laws protecting citizens' privacy----here in US we have 300 years of citizens' rights to privacy in their own home or business.

POLICE BODY CAMERAS WERE ABOUT SKIRTING THOSE US PRIVACY LAWS TIED TO HELPING THE POOR WITH JUSTICE.

This same goal is tied to POLICE REVIEW BOARDS------CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS.  There is no intent of these boards helping to protect the poor.  The goal is loading these civilian boards with PLAYERS that protect the illegal actions of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE.

We discussed how in Baltimore media presented a FALSE FLAG news article pretending police cameras were being used to stop corruption in drug and gun planting and home invasion theft of money from Baltimore citizens.  We shouted the terms of these cameras---as below we see now police are allowed to turn cameras and sound off for this reason or that reason----and VOILA----there is no 99% WE THE PEOPLE protection from police corruption from these cameras.

The 5% to the 1% pols and players pushing these laws as LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE KNOW the goals are far-right, authoritarian, militaristic repressive. Global banking 1% will MUTE police cameras---they will ERASE footage at will----they will swear there is no footage to protect MOVING FORWARD global militarized police and security trained not to serve and protect the 99%---but to do what they are told.



Why did Sacramento officers who shot Stephon Clark mute their bodycams?

The unanswered questions about the muted cams have stoked suspicion among Clark's family and protesters.by Jon Schuppe / Mar.26.2018 / 6:52 PM ET / Updated Mar.27.2018 / 10:52 AM ET



Police officials in Sacramento, California, boast about their use of body cameras, and the quick release of the footage they capture, as centerpieces of a larger effort to improve the public's trust.


But the fatal shooting by police officers last week of an unarmed black man, Stephon Clark, has exposed a potential flaw in that effort and opened up a new front in the national debate over body cameras: officers' ability to turn off the microphone on the device.

Body cam footage from the two officers who shot Clark in a residential backyard after dark on March 18 includes the chase, one officer shouting "gun" in a mistaken belief that Clark was armed, then the gunfire. It also covers the aftermath, as backup arrives and the officers walk to the street. During their exit, one officer says, "Hey, mute." Then the audio on both cameras goes silent while the video continues to show authorities responding to the scene.


Why the officers muted their body cameras remains unclear. Police Chief Daniel Hahn said last week that he could not explain it. He said there were "various reasons" why officers would turn off their cameras' audio, but he would not say if the Clark shooting was one of them. The muting, he said, would be part of his agency's investigation of the shooting.


The unanswered questions about the muted cams have stoked suspicion among Clark's family and protesters, who have criticized the shooting as an illegal use of force.


"When I heard [about the muted cameras] I felt it was intentional," Sonia Lewis, a cousin of Clark's, said last week. "You're muting something you don't want the public to hear what you're saying, and that means that if you don't want the truth to come out then all of it is a lie."


The family's attorney, Benjamin Crump, plans to file a wrongful-death lawsuit, he told the Daily Beast. Crump said in a statement to NBC News that "we're exploring every legal remedy possible to get justice for Stephon Clark." He also said that Clark's family "feels that the muting of the mics suggests they were up to something nefarious; to them it suggests they were conspiring to be deceitful."


Betty Williams, president of the Sacramento branch of the NAACP, said at a Monday news conference that she had demanded that the police department share its protocol for muting body cams, and consider changes.



The mute function on body cams is a relatively recent development. Axon, the company that makes the cameras used in Sacramento, said its "second generation" cameras are delivered without the mute function active, but it is "provided as an option for the agencies if they want to use it."


Sgt. Vance Chandler, a Sacramento police spokesman, declined on Monday to say why the department decided to activate the mute function on their cameras. He said officers are taught during body-cam training "to utilize mute" in certain situations, but would not say what they were.


"That's part of what we are looking at in this incident," he said. He added, "We want to determine if this was an appropriate time for them to mute it or not."


The city's body-cam policy, which is posted online, does not mention muting at all. It says that officers should record "any enforcement or investigative activity" until that operation has "reasonably concluded." The policy adds that officers may deactivate their cameras under some circumstances, including talking about confidential or tactical matters, or for privacy concerns, as long as the reason is documented afterward

__________________________________________
MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS HAVE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS.

'The request came as an independent review panel prepared to release the results of its investigation into revelations that Maryland State Police operatives posed as activists while conducting surveillance in 2005 and 2006 on war protesters and death penalty opponents, The Washington Post reported Wednesday'.

The US has in modern history policing policy keeping our police from spying and collecting photographs of US 99% of citizens going about the business of CITIZENSHIP ACTIVISM.  Police have not been allowed to keep files on what are ordinary PUBLIC AFFINITY groups------and MD was openly MOVING FORWARD with police intimidation as regards these kinds of citizen political meetings.

What did far-right wing global banking 5% pols and players do?  They placed police cameras on officers recording and photographing continually every citizen activity complete with photos and ability to send to FILES------all under the guise of protecting 99% WE THE PEOPLE from police corruption.

'NOOR: Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and Councilman Brandon Scott agree the board needs to be revamped, but say this needs to happen with a change in state law in Annapolis'.


RAWLINGS-BLAKE AND BRANDON SCOTT ARE TWO GREAT BIG GLOBAL BANKING 5% PLAYERS PUSHING FOR MORE LAWS JUST TO HAVE OUR PUBLIC OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THIS PUBLIC AGENCY.

Our right wing 99% loving authoritarian structures ---better WAKE UP to what MOVING FORWARD DEEP STATE will look like. Here is our FAKE ALT RIGHT MD ACLU-----tell us this ACLU? US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES policy designed to allow these regions operate independent of any US Rule of Law, US Constitutional right, any Bill of Right----don't you think that is a ACLU GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM ISSUE?

Md. ACLU seeks state police spy files
Oct. 1, 2008 at 8:32 AMFollow @upi


ANNAPOLIS, Md., Oct. 1 (UPI) --



Dozens of activist groups say they want Maryland authorities to release information on spying activities by the state police.


The request came as an independent review panel prepared to release the results of its investigation into revelations that Maryland State Police operatives posed as activists while conducting surveillance in 2005 and 2006 on war protesters and death penalty opponents, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a freedom of information request on behalf of such groups as Progressive Maryland, which promotes liberal causes, and Defend Life, a Washington-area anti-abortion coalition, the newspaper said. The groups want to see government files to determine if they were among those infiltrated by state police.


The state probe is expected to determine why officers assigned to the state's Division of Homeland Security and Intelligence infiltrated meetings and rallies and if they broke any laws, the Post said.


"The police said they were spying because they were worried about disruptive or violent anti-death penalty protests," ACLU staff attorney David Rocah told the newspaper. "If that worry was the true motive, it could exist with respect to any and all of the groups we are filing for."
____________________________________

'Yet that policy risks encouraging Egypt to become another Pakistan — where an unaccountable military deals directly with Washington, while elected civilians are sidelined'.


MAO'S GREAT LEAP FORWARD is today's global banking 1% MOVING FORWARD with goals of global militarized security and policing with 5% to the 1% candidates for local, state, and Federal office more and more being former military players. Egypt and Pakistan are those MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS where the military generals are those global banking 1% BILLIONAIRES making any civilian elected government MOOT.
We all know the Middle-East ARAB SPRING was global banking civil unrest and we know that Egypt and Pakistan military generals were installed by global banking 1%.
Here in US MOVING FORWARD has goals of installing these same global banking militarized and security structures to SUPERSEDE anything an elected group of officials would do even if they were not 5% TO THE 1% PLAYERS black, white, and brown freemason/Greeks.
MOVING FORWARD IN US CITIES LIKE BALTIMORE-----PRIVATIZATION OF YET ANOTHER PUBLIC AGENCY TO QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES-----CIVILIAN POLICE BOARDS.


The Post's View


A bad decision on Egypt

By Editorial Board March 17, 2012



WHEN HALF a dozen Americans were allowed to leave Egypt on March 1 despite being criminally charged with illegal political activity, the Obama administration insisted that its concern about the case — which it had warned could jeopardize military aid to Egypt — was not limited to the U.S. citizens.



Yet now the administration is considering going forward with military aid to Egypt — even though the criminal case in Cairo proceeds against more than two dozen Egyptians and civil society remains under assault. It’s hard to imagine another move that could do more damage to U.S. interests and the cause of democracy.


The trial is due to resume April 10. The nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and Freedom House, have not been registered, and property seized in a December raid against them has not been returned. Some 400 other NGOs in Egypt are under official investigation. More broadly, Egypt’s ruling military council continues to violate basic norms of democracy and human rights.


To provide aid under these circumstances, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton likely would issue a “national security waiver” exempting the administration from a congressional requirement that the State Department certify that Egypt is “implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association, and religion, and due process of law.”



After a year of turmoil, U.S. relations with Egypt’s political actors — from the military to the secular elite to the ascendant Islamist political parties — are shaky. A waiver would send the wrong message to all of them. It would confirm the widespread suspicion in Cairo that Washington cared only about its own citizens, not the underlying democratic principles in the NGO case. It would tell the military that, provided Americans are not harmed, it is free to persecute peaceful citizen activists and subvert the democratic transition. It would cruelly break faith with those Egyptians who went to work in U.S.-funded democracy and human rights programs and now will face an unjust trial alone.


There is no legitimate national security reason why a decision on military aid cannot be made after July 1, when Egypt should have completed a transition to a new democratic government. That transition should mandate an across-the-board rethinking of aid and a discussion with the new civilian authorities in Cairo about what is appropriate. Administration officials say that they plan such a review and that the purpose of resuming aid now would be to avoid a crisis with the outgoing regime. Yet that policy risks encouraging Egypt to become another Pakistan — where an unaccountable military deals directly with Washington, while elected civilians are sidelined.



Sources suggest that the administration is also worried that a production line of F-16s, which Egypt is using the aid to purchase, might have to shut if aid is suspended. That might be an election-year jobs issue, but it is not a national security issue. The real threat to U.S. security is that the transition in Egypt will end in a disaster: The military will refuse to yield power, or a democratic government will be forced by a popular backlash to rupture relations with the United States. By handing the generals money when they have failed to meet basic democratic tests, the administration would make each of those outcomes more likely.
____________________________________________

Here is captured national media selling the idea that CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS are populist protecting US citizens from police corruption when the goal of global banking 1% policy is the OPPOSITE.


Here is GATEWAY PUNDIT------making 99% of WE THE PEOPLE believe this is civil rights in the making-----GATEWAY is of course a term for MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE. Forget that St Louis arch.


US CITIZENS DO NOT FIGHT FOR GLOBAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS FOR GOODNESS SAKE.


We KNOW any citizen or group supporting these quasi-governmental structures are 5% TO THE 1% GLOBAL BANKING POLS AND PLAYERS



Surprise! RIOT BREAKS OUT at St. Louis Civilian Review Board Meeting #Ferguson (VIDEO)

by Jim Hoft January 28, 2015

What a shock.
Tonight a riot broke out at the Civilian Review Board meeting at St. Louis City Hall.

KMOV reported:

An altercation broke out at St. Louis City Hall during a meeting Thursday to discuss the possibility of creating a civilian review board so citizens could have a more direct line to police.



Witnesses told News 4 the fight began when a woman who was getting ready to leave was pushed aside by the Business Manager of the St. Louis Police Officers Association, Jeff Roorda. Roorda was addressing 18th Ward Alderman Terry Kennedy.


“I was literally just trying to leave the meeting and I got caught in whatever Roorda and Kennedy had going on in their exchange,” said Cachet Currie, the woman who was pushed. “Roorda just jumped out into the aisle, pushed me over, and tried to get to Kennedy. I’m like ‘wait a minute, don’t push me.’ Then he started going off on me, pushing me.”


Roorda called the hearing a “sham” that lacked any type of order. Roorda wore a bracelet that had words “I am Darren Wilson” written on it.
___________________________________________


Modern day GENERALS in third world dictatorships-----from MAO/STALIN/HITLER/MUSSOLINI/PINOCHET/Musharraf now MYANMAR generals all have one thing in common------they are billionaires because they work for global banking 1% pushing global naked neo-liberal capitalism. National media always makes it seem these generals are protecting US interests-----but they have always been protecting the global 1% and their corporations.



MOVING FORWARD INSTALLS THESE STRUCTURES IN OUR US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES COMPLETE WITH CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARDS. FORGET CITIZENSHIP AND PUBLIC VOICE FOR A US 99% WE THE PEOPLE.


Arab Spring was simply global banking 1% cleaning out those global 2% players allowed to have some power and wealth for a few decades.


MEDIEVAL PRAETORIAN GUARD NO DOUBT


We do not want these quasi-agencies expanding to take every US public agency ====local, state , and Federal.


Hmmmm, looks like far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.



Egypt’s army

Ambitious men in uniform


The generals who deposed the Muslim Brotherhood are keener on power than they let on. Will Egypt return to military rule?

ONCE reluctant to appear in the media, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt’s top general (pictured), is now very much seeking the limelight, perhaps because he would like to run for president. A recent video of him addressing army officers appeared to be shot for public consumption and duly went viral. His spokesman has said that although the general was not yet standing for office there was nothing to prevent him from so doing if he retired from the army.


Egypt’s press has started comparing Mr Sisi to Gamal Abdul Nasser, the hero-general who eventually became president after deposing the country’s last monarch in 1952. Protesters who helped the army to end the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood last month have plastered the streets with posters of the army chief. Many see him as a font of the dignity and security which they feel Egypt has lacked since Nasser’s time. “It is very clear he is entertaining the idea of the presidency,” says Robert Springborg, an expert in the Egyptian armed forces at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.


In his politics, the general appears to mix nationalism and Islam. He frequently inserts Koranic verses into conversation and is a more pious man than his predecessor, Hussein Tantawi, who was army chief from 1991 to 2012. During part of this time Mr Sisi was a military attaché in Saudi Arabia. He also studied at the US Army War College in Pennsylvania for a year. Sherifa Zuhur, who taught him, says that one of his daughters wore the niqab, the full face veil, and another wore the hijab, covering her hair, but not her face.


Mr Sisi’s image is tainted by the uproar he caused in 2012 when he was the military spy chief and publicly defended members of the army who had subjected female protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square to virginity tests “to protect the girls from rape as well as to protect the soldiers and officers from rape accusations”.

At the war college in America, Mr Sisi expressed a belief that the army must be above politics. Ms Zuhur remembers having the impression that Mr Sisi agreed that Egypt should gradually become a more pluralist state. “But [he] was also cognisant of all the difficulties that entailed for a population which had not ever participated, at that time, in an open election,” she adds.


Until recently, observers saw this opinion as typical of younger and more enlightened officers. The army “displays little interest in governing, wishing instead to protect privileges,” says a 2012 report by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think-tank. The generals’ experience of governing during the first year after the Arab spring seemed to bolster this preference. Being in charge brought untold difficulties and undermined popular support for the men in uniform.


Still, the generals acquired an appetite for power. They initially considered having Mr Tantawi elected as president—a non-starter. In the 2012 presidential election, won by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi, the army leant towards supporting Ahmed Shafik, a former air-force commander who was runner-up.


Following the election, the generals formed an alliance of sorts with the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr Sisi was appointed defence minister last August and purged the army of dozens of officers closely linked to his unpopular predecessor. He cautioned against interfering in politics, warning that interventions such as that which followed the ousting of Hosni Mubarak in 2011 could turn Egypt into Afghanistan or Somalia.



At the same time Mr Sisi shored up his support in the ranks. He handpicked the members of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. “Hady”, an ordinary soldier who declined to be named, says that unlike Mr Tantawi, Mr Sisi stressed decent treatment for conscripts. “The ministry of defence became more serious about any complaint from a soldier against an officer,” he says. “The ministry now seriously punishes any officer who is proved to be abusing soldiers.”


However, as the Muslim Brotherhood grabbed more power and simultaneously lost popularity, the generals’ ambitions as well as their interests led them to revise their pledge to stay out of politics. Following last month’s coup, Mr Sisi made himself first deputy prime minister in addition to his post as defence minister. He did also promise to hold elections quickly and appointed Adly Mansour, a judge, as president, but he has done little to suggest a return to the pluralism of the past two years. Scores of Brotherhood leaders have been detained and it looks as if they will be tried. More than 100 of their supporters have been shot by security forces during protests.



The generals’ long-term intentions are hard to make out. Perhaps even they themselves are unsure what they want. Observers see the top brass as surprisingly inept strategists. Yezid Sayigh, a senior associate at the Carnegie Middle East Center, a think-tank in Beirut, says that the Egyptian army has asserted its right to intervene in the political process. That has set it on course for more intervention. But, unlike the Turkish army, it has no real concept of state-building. “They beat the nationalist drum,” says Mr Sayigh, “they talk about fighting terrorism, but none of this is an agenda, none of this is a policy for reform.”
Looking east

For inspiration the generals seem to look to Pakistan, where officers feed off a vast business empire and pay lip service to Islam and helping the poor—while in reality they line their own pockets and rule from behind a protective shield with the help of pliable civilian leaders. And if the civilians get uppity, the army simply resets the political clock.


But the Egyptian armed forces are not even as able as their chaotic Pakistani counterparts. They reached their peak military effectiveness in the 1980s when memories of their wars with Israel were still fresh. A 2008 cable from the American embassy in Cairo obtained by WikiLeaks cites analysts and former officers as saying that the armed forces were no longer capable of combat. For evidence, look to the army’s failure to quell an Islamist insurgency in the Sinai peninsula in the past two years.


According to Mr Springborg, the Sinai shows that the army is not equipped for counter-insurgency or peacekeeping—vital roles for a modern army—because neither Mr Mubarak nor General Tantawi wanted that. Instead they have thousands of tanks and 240 F-16 jets that are, he says, “basically useless. The pilots are lousy, too.” The army is the 14th-largest in the world and has a budget of $4.21 billion in 2012. It also has four museums.



The army often treats civilian institutions with disdain and at times thinks it knows better than ordinary Egyptians what is good for the country. When the armed forces build roads, they are referred to as “gifts to the people of Egypt”. In the Nasser era, propaganda murals showed soldiers marching into the future hand in hand with peasants, workers, teachers and intellectuals. Today similar posters show a soldier in combat gear cradling a baby that is meant to represent the people.


In the 1990s other security forces gained ground and seemed to compete with the army. The interior ministry gained more sway over domestic law and order. The army initially regarded the other security forces as a threat but over time inserted its men into their bureaucracies. Since the ousting of the old regime this development has come full circle. The army once again has the upper hand. The current interior minister is a general, Muhammad Ibrahim. He is resurrecting several notorious units dissolved following the Arab spring, including departments dedicated to monitoring “extremism”, religious groups and political parties. He said he would reinstate officials who had been dismissed since 2011. It was interior ministry forces that committed most of the recent deadly attacks against pro-Brotherhood protests. Mr Ibrahim and the army have denied that they used live ammunition, but that is contradicted by video footage.


As a whole, Egypt’s army is far more than a fighting force. Indeed, combat is perhaps its least developed facility. During the three-decade Mubarak era soldiers became involved in civil administration. Senior officers began to crop up everywhere in the state apparatus as well as in the economy. They wielded power not so much explicitly—unlike under Nasser the cabinet was mostly civilian—as by bureaucratic penetration. Officers sat in monitoring and administrative agencies as well as in local government. Since the 1990s, more than half of the regional governors have been drawn from the army. Meanwhile, buoyed by a privatisation programme, the officer corps captured large chunks of the economy. This provided post-retirement careers and financial security.


OMG----SOUNDS JUST LIKE THESE FEW DECADES OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA

Today tax holdings amount to a business empire. It generates income that bypasses public scrutiny and ranges from defence manufacturing to consumer goods. Army-owned firms dominate the markets for water, olive oil, cement, construction, hotels and gasoline. Estimates as to their size vary from 8% to as much as 40% of GDP. Army families also inhabit a parallel universe. They mainly live in separate military cities and go to shops, buy fuel at petrol stations and socialise in clubs run by the army. How sure can they be of hanging on to such privileges?


The army relies on support from civilians who are willing to govern alongside it. Without them, the impression of outright military rule would be overwhelming. Following the ousting of the Brothers, political heavyweights such as Mohamed ElBaradei, the former presidential candidate, and Ziad Bahaa el-Din, a lawyer, lent their support. It is too early to tell if they are puppets or wield real influence. But some have already voiced unease. Mr Bahaa el-Din said the new government should not copy the “oppressive and exclusionary policies” of its foes.
Waxing and waning

For the moment, the army remains remarkably popular. A poll in May gave it a 94% approval rating—compared with around 30% for then-President Morsi and the opposition. But Egyptians have short memories. The army was extolled in the wake of the Mubarak uprising as the protector of the revolution, but later came to be seen as working against revolutionary aspirations. A video from December 2011 of soldiers dragging the “blue bra woman” through the streets of Cairo marked a turning point. Today, in the wake of what Egyptians regard as a second revolution, many once again cheer the army regardless of its past abuses. But for how long? Since Mr Mubarak’s fall the army has tried hard to rebrand itself as the people’s friend rather than a protector of the regime. It is more reliant on public support than ever.

Opinions may turn against the army once again if it cannot fix the broken economy. The Brothers, too, were popular when they came to power, only to find that the people expected them to provide jobs and services that never materialised. For the army to do better, it will have to bring about reforms that the Brotherhood and Mr Mubarak shied away from—or get civilians to do so. But that would threaten its own business empire. It is, after all, a beneficiary of Egypt’s restrictive and anti-competitive practices. Mr Sisi may want to sweep these away, but many of his fellow officers are unlikely to see it like that. He could argue that an unshackled and therefore booming economy would benefit all. But lazy rent-seekers will know better. At least that is what Mr Sisi’s predecessors found.

'Exercising our Civil Right (…and Civic Responsibility) to VOTE! - by President Terri Lee Freeman

Terri Lee Freeman, Museum President'


No one knows better than our national NGO leaders that our 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE cannot do our civic duty when all public agencies are deliberately, willfully, and with malice being held captive by corporate boards now becoming GLOBAL CORPORATE 1% BOARDS. EXERCISING OUR CIVIL RIGHT TO VOTE is MOOT if we are not CITIZENS holding our elected officials accountable with oversight and justice.

CIVIC DUTY STARTS WITH BEING EDUCATED AND EMPOWERED AS CITIZENS. BEING FED PROPAGANDA AND MYTH-MAKING IN ALL MEDIA AND CORPORATE K-UNIVERSITY IS NOT BUILDING CITIZENSHIP EMPOWERMENT.
Any US NGO allowing this dialogue of RUSSIA and election fraud everyone knows has been happening these few decades by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----is not working for 99% of citizens, black, white, or brown citizens.

American Alliance of Museums
Accredited by the American Alliance of Museums
Designated a World Peace Flame Monument Site
Designated a World Peace Flame Monument Site
Member of the worldwide network of over 300 historic sites
Member of the worldwide network of over 300 historic sites



Exercising our Civil Right (…and Civic Responsibility) to VOTE!
- by President Terri Lee Freeman
Terri Lee Freeman, Museum President


November 4, 2014


It is a privilege and honor to be the new President of the National Civil Rights Museum. And what better time to introduce myself than Election Day 2014.


It’s been stated over and over during this election season that mid-term elections are just as important, if not more so, than the presidential elections. What’s up for grabs? Frankly, the future. While it sounds cliché, it is so very true -- the future is in our hands IF we exercise our right to vote.


I’m a mother of three daughters with two who are young adults that I’m sure will vote today. However, I’ve had the unfortunate opportunity to overhear their conversations with their well-educated friends about how their single vote, really doesn’t make a difference. Such comments make the hair on the back of my neck stand at attention, though I do understand where they are coming from. What they are actually saying is, “I understand that I have a civic duty to vote, but why when nothing changes?” Well, my answer to that question is, “it doesn’t stop in the voting booth.”


Your civic responsibility requires far more than simply pulling a lever, or hitting a touchscreen ballot. Your responsibility requires community engagement – understanding the issues facing your community, getting to know the folks who represent your community and holding them accountable for doing their job which is to serve the people. Too often we forget that they work for us. We must exercise our franchise and take advantage of the right that so many before us died for to make sure we could be included in this process called democracy.


So while I recognize that I’m likely preaching to the choir, we must do the right thing and take the time to vote. I practice what I preach, I did early voting. And, after we vote, we must then engage in the hard work of not just pontificating about what we don’t like, but work to be the change we want to see. Vote, yes, but let’s also use our voices to let our elected officials know that we are counting on them to “serve the people.” And the people are US!


_______________________________________________

“The development of a comprehensive, efficient and effective mass transit system is essential to the City of Baltimore’s long-term sustainability, prosperity and relevance,” said Jimmy Rouse, a founding member of Transit Choices'.



The GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM issue for 99% of Baltimore citizens and indeed the entire state in transportation is the fact that MARYLAND GOV LARRY HOGAN further consolidated Maryland and Baltimore's public transit under the umbrella of PORT OF BALTIMORE/BWI QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY. This means our MTA, subway, light rail, and MARC TRAIN will be VEILED behind yet another PRIVATIZATED QUASI-BOARD.


We KNOW HOGAN is MOVING FORWARD the high-speed HYPER-LOOP train that will be privately operated and replace MARC yet media is telling us HOGAN is adding one more MARC car on weekends. That is our 99% GIFT.


No one knows better than NAACP the goals of MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----with global corporate campuses and global factories and infrastructure geared to massive movement of cargo to PORT OF BALTIMORE. Can we really build transportation infrastructure before all those global corporate campuses are built? OF COURSE NOT. Is there any intention of building strong PUBLIC transit in Baltimore City Center? OF COURSE NOT.


MARYLAND GOV O'MALLEY enfolded our PORT OF BALTIMORE into all kinds of global corporate investment firms and foreign global operational corporations----HOGAN is simply MOVING FORWARD by enfolding our state public MTA/MDOT/MARC into this same quasi-authority that no 99% of WE THE PEOPLE can control or have oversight and accountability.


O'MALLEY WAS FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL---HOGAN IS FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% BUSH NEO-CON----SAME ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE 5% POLS APPOINTING 5% PLAYERS TO BOARDS.

NAACP is of course filled with 5% black global banking players pretending to work for public interest just as all global Wall Street Baltimore Development FAKE 'labor and justice' organizations.


 Chronology

In mid-October 2005, DP World approached the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to clear regulatory hurdles for a possible acquisition of the British firm P&O. The CFIUS is the multi-agency federal panel that passes judgment on deals with foreign corporations that raise antitrust or national security questions, Soon after, DPW began negotiating the terms of the takeover with P&O.[1] They were advised by former President Bill Clinton to submit to a 45-day review of the acquisition.[2]

In December 2005, Coast Guard intelligence officials raised the possibility of significant security risks associated with the management of some U.S. port operations by a Dubai company, stating in a report that broad intelligence gaps prevented them from assessing the risks.[3]

In February 2006, the stockholders of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British firm, agreed to a sale of that company to DPW over a bid by PSA International of Singapore. As part of the sale, DPW would assume the leases of P&O to manage major U.S. facilities at the Port of New York and New Jersey, Port of Philadelphia, Port of Baltimore, Port of New Orleans, and the Port of Miami, as well as operations in 16 other ports.

After P&O stockholders approved the deal, the arrangement was reviewed by the CFIUS headed by the U.S. Treasury Department. The transfer of leases was approved.



 HOGAN enfolds our MTA bus, subway, light rail, MARC train into the same QUASI-AUTHORITY as PORT OF BALTIMORE operated by global foreign corporations 99% of Baltimore citizens have no ability to control, provide oversight and accountability and to create public policy THEY AS WE THE PEOPLE want.



NAACP Files Lawsuit Over Maryland Governor’s Decision to Reject Urban Mass Transit System in Favor of Road Projects Serving Suburban, Rural Residents

By
Manny Otiko
-
December 23, 2015

Local civil rights groups are up in arms over Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s decision to scrap plans for an urban mass transit system in favor funding road projects that would benefit white suburban and rural residents.

According to The Guardian, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) has filed a civil rights lawsuit over Hogan’s decision. The LDF say Hogan’s plan discriminates against Baltimore’s Black residents.


Transportation is a major issue in Black neighborhoods. Many low-income residents don’t own cars and rely on public transportation. But if they don’t have an effective public transportation system, they can’t get to higher-paying jobs which are often located far from their homes.


The Guardian said Baltimore’s public transit system is so bad the city offered Amazon a $100,000 forgivable loan to help pay for it’s fleet of private shuttles. Susan Yum, a spokesperson for the Baltimore Development Corp, told The Baltimore Sun, the city’s bus system “does not provide access to where the jobs are available now.”


“From some parts of the city, the commute to some areas where there are jobs can be as long as 90 minutes each way,” Yum said.
The proposed rail system, known as the Red Line, would have helped many Black residents get to work.
“The lack of mobility, long commuter times, have critical implications for families in Baltimore,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel for LDF. “We regard the cancellation of the Red Line as a critically important moment that must be addressed and must be engaged.”


According to the complaint, a transportation economist said the switch from a subway line to the new highway initiative would cost Black residents about $19 million in user benefits by 2030. White Maryland residents would see a $35 million user benefit over the same period. Sen. Barbara Mikulski said Hogan’s decision to turn down a federally-funded project was baffling.

BARBARA---DO WE THINK THE RED LINE WAS NEVER ABOUT PUBLIC TRANSIT BUT ABOUT OIL AND GAS PIPELINES FROM WVA/PA FOLLOWING I 83?


“I never thought, ever, in my closing year in the U.S. Senate, I would see a letter saying the Baltimore region rejects $900m in federal investment,” Mikulski said.
However the LDF’s complaint says Maryland has a long history of policies that discriminate against Black residents.


“Maryland, including the City of Baltimore, has exhibited a preference for its white residents over its African American residents in highway construction decisions since at least the 1930s,” said the complaint.
According to the complaint, in the 1960s the government proposed a new expressway through the predominately Black Franklin-Mulberry corridor in Baltimore’s Harlem Park neighborhood.


“As a result, Harlem Park residents stopped investing in their homes, and the neighborhood became filled with deteriorating and abandoned buildings,” said the LDF’s complaint.


The Guardian said that Baltimore has used race-based housing covenants to enforce segregated housing. Realtors also practiced “blockbusting,” a tactic where they used fears of Black people moving into a neighborhood, to convince white homeowners to sell for cheaper prices. This practice means that even today, neighborhoods are still largely segregated.


In 1965, residents of predominantly white areas, such as Anne Arundel County, objected to a light rail system because they feared it would bring urban (Black) residents into their neighborhoods. They complained “that the Metro would enable poor, inner-city blacks to travel to the suburbs, steal residents’ TVs and then return to their ghettos in Baltimore.”

THE MASTER PLANS FOR US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES WERE IN PLACE IN 1980S.  THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE BUILT AS GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES ARE BUILT.

According to The Guardian, last year Carroll County introduced a “Mass Transit Protection Resolution,” intended to keep public transit riders from Baltimore out.

“[Mass transportation] led to the breakdown of those two shopping centers (in Baltimore) and we are not going to use mass transit to connect either Baltimore County or Montgomery County [to Carroll],” said county Commissioner Doug Howard in a Carroll County Times article.

______________________________________________

We shared a few days ago a video of a public K-12 school teacher in Arizona protesting against falling wages telling us she has 2 MASTER'S DEGREES in EDUCATION. Now, we have known these few decades of MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL NEO-LIBERAL CORPORATE SCHOOLS that the 'dumbing down' of highly educated public school students during CLINTON'S education reform was to continue until all US public education was dismantled replaced by overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE corporate K-university apprenticeship schools. We have known since OBAMA era that ONE WORLD ONE GLOBAL COMMONER CORE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY was dismantling even our classrooms and teachers replacing them with online lessons, artificial intelligence, and soon to be robotics.

Below we see the EDUCATION STRUCTURE that keeps our 99% of MARYLAND/BALTIMORE citizens in constant job training for employment that we all know will disappear in MOVING FORWARD. This video shows how courses are directly tied to our GLOBAL PORT OF BALTIMORE not educating against these privatizations---not educating against US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE status-----simply doing what global banking tells them.

So, PORT OF BALTIMORE under a global foreign authority has a goal of being almost fully AUTOMATED----in only a few decades eliminating what were strong LONGSHOREMEN JOBS---eliminating what were small transportation and storage businesses tied to cargo transfer---and bringing in global 99% labor pool already trained overseas.





'Chronology

In mid-October 2005, DP World approached the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to clear regulatory hurdles for a possible acquisition of the British firm P&O. The CFIUS is the multi-agency federal panel that passes judgment on deals with foreign corporations that raise antitrust or national security questions, Soon after, DPW began negotiating the terms of the takeover with P&O.[1] They were advised by former President Bill Clinton to submit to a 45-day review of the acquisition.[2]

In December 2005, Coast Guard intelligence officials raised the possibility of significant security risks associated with the management of some U.S. port operations by a Dubai company, stating in a report that broad intelligence gaps prevented them from assessing the risks.[3]

In February 2006, the stockholders of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British firm, agreed to a sale of that company to DPW over a bid by PSA International of Singapore. As part of the sale, DPW would assume the leases of P&O to manage major U.S. facilities at the Port of New York and New Jersey, Port of Philadelphia, Port of Baltimore, Port of New Orleans, and the Port of Miami, as well as operations in 16 other ports.

After P&O stockholders approved the deal, the arrangement was reviewed by the CFIUS headed by the U.S. Treasury Department. The transfer of leases was approved'.



When our 'public' schools in this case county community colleges are not providing CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION but only providing CORPORATE PROPAGANDA AND MYTH-MAKING job training----we have no empowerment as CITIZENS.


Port Education - "Baltimore: Port of Opportunity"

Port of Baltimore
Published on Dec 10, 2014
The Affinity Group and SMART are two organizations that help "connect the dots" between education and Port related jobs and careers.


A conglomerate of education facilities aligned with PORT OF BALTIMORE controlled by global foreign corporations having nothing to do with the public interests of 99% of Baltimore or Maryland citizens. IT'S NOT JUST ANY JOB.



'Affinity group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the organizational model. For the company, see Affinity Group Inc.

An affinity group is a group formed around a shared interest or common goal, to which individuals formally or informally belong. Affinity groups are generally precluded from being under the aegis of any governmental agency, and their purposes must be primarily non-commercial. Examples of affinity groups include private social clubs, fraternities, writing or reading circles, hobby clubs, and groups engaged in political activism'.

_______________________________________________

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand to where these STAKEHOLDER GROUPS have become AFFINITY GROUPS which are MOVING FORWARD to being only that 5% player group working only for those global 1%.


Having AFFINITY GROUPS tied to our public university systems as community colleges and county 4 year universities----now expanding to our public K-12 is simply a FAKE appearance of PUBLIC INTEREST PUBLIC OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.  We can be sure these AFFINITY GROUPS are filled with 5% freemason/Greeks moving public policy written by global banking at the local level under the guise of public education.  This has led to our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE strongly educated in broad citizenship education being 'dumbed down' exposed to crumbling schools tied to endless job training.

We heard a citizen shouting he had job training across every industry certification not finding a job.

WHEN WE EDUCATE ON PUBLIC POLICY AND WE KNOW WHO THOSE 5% PLAYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS ARE----WE CAN FIX BALTIMORE MOVING AWAY FROM DARK AGES AND INTO 20TH CENTURY.

No amount of TALKING POINTS pretending these groups are equal opportunity----having any intention of bringing value economics and employment to our local communities hides the fact these are 5% players doing ANYTHING GLOBAL BANKING 1% tells them.

We are not a set of special interests----US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS-----we all have expectations of public officials creating LOCAL ECONOMIES fully employing ALL CITIZENS black, white, and brown citizens.


The enforcement of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND BILL OF RIGHTS is done by our local government officials and corporations design their HUMAN RESOURCES around that public enforcement.  This is the opposite.  We are told these corporations are SELF-REGULATING with these FAKE POLICIES.


Global corporations SELF-REGULATING in meeting the US Rule of Law, US Constitutional rights, Bill of Rights ignoring and replacing our DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING, AND REGULATIONS is not empowering 99% of citizens ----

These are the societal structures installed these few decades of ROBBER BARON MOVING FORWARD that have taken away the public space from where 99% WE THE PEOPLE do our duty as CITIZENS.



Magazine article HRMagazine


Affinity Group Danger Zones

By Segal, Jonathan A.
Read previewArticle excerpt


Structure affinity groups so they are lawful.

Smart organizations want to increase employee engagement and inclusion. One way to do that is through affinity groups.


What are affinity groups? They are groups of employees who have a common interest or characteristic. Sometimes the commonality is based on a factor that is not protected under equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws, such as the employees' position. Usually, however, affinity groups are built around EEO-protected characteristics, such as race, gender and sexual orientation, and are supported financially by the organization.


There are obvious benefits to having affinity groups. They can increase morale, retention and innovation, as well as business, because of greater inclusion of diverse perspectives.

In some organizations, an affinity group may be seen as the antidote to marginalization of certain groups of employees. Affinity group meetings provide a place to experience business and social inclusion for those who are or feel marginalized.


Yet, these groups, if not structured properly, can have divisive and exclusionary effects. Moreover, there are legal risks that need to be navigated. Just because the goal of the affinity group is laudable does not mean that the group is lawful

.
The following four hypotheticals highlight some of the legal and business risks of affinity groups, with recommendations on how to manage them.


Affinity Group For White Men


Employer ABC has affinity groups for women; people of color; and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. The employer provides financial and other support for these groups so that they legally would be characterized as benefits of employment.


A group of white men asks to form an affinity group. The HR leader considers saying, "You don't need one. You already have one; it's called the senior leadership team," which is made up of white men but for one exception.


The emotion behind the fantasy response may be understandable, but the response is, of course, inappropriate because legal risk would accompany it. Title VII's prohibition on gender bias knows no gender. The same is true of racial bias. Denying a benefit to employees because they are white and male is, well, discrimination. But that does not mean that the request necessarily needs to be honored.


The key for an organization is to develop upfront nondiscriminatory criteria in determining whether it will provide financial or other support for a proposed affinity group. Among the criteria an organization may consider are the following:


* How will the proposed affinity group help its members achieve the company's mission and goals?
* How will the proposed affinity group increase inclusion and business development among the individuals in the group (as opposed to employees generally)?
* Are other affinity groups or mechanisms already in place that serve the need addressed by the request?
Making decisions about proposed affinity groups based on the answers to these kinds of questions doesn't eliminate all legal risks, but it does minimize them.


Let's return to the white men at Employer ABC. If the organization's power circle is dominated by white men, the white men seeking to form an affinity group may have an uphill battle. But would that be true for a group of entrylevel employees in human resources?


There is no clear-cut answer; rather, it depends on applying legitimate nondiscriminatory factors.
If Employer ABC has an affinity group for women and not one for men, it might consider including men in a broader affinity group on gender that would focus, although not exclusively, on issues women face that men don't.


It is not that you need men to be part of the group for legitimacy. You don't. But men can learn from being included, and men who are enlightened about the obstacles that women often face are more likely to become mentors and sponsors for female colleagues.

________________________________________

Southern California Grantmakers
----AFFINITY GROUPS
Join Now

• Home
• Contact Us
• Log In

Southern California Grantmakers----same as Baltimore Association of Grantmakers-----patronage NGOs channeling global corporate donations to their own public policy goals.

This is the structure from where that 5% to the 1% is made a non-profit DIRECTOR leading that group towards the goals of global banking 1% no matter what the goal of grassroots 99% who may join intend.  It is the mirror of global Wall Street Baltimore Development controlling all economic and development in Baltimore----only it is tied to societal structures which our 99% of citizens want to control for themselves and their individual communities.

THIS IS THE DOUBLE-WHAMMY OF MOVING FORWARD THESE FEW DECADES----CONSOLIDATING OUR PUBLIC VOICES ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PUBLIC POLICY.

So, we have an AFFINITY GROUP calling itself SMART tied to PORT OF BALTIMORE controlling education policies at our local public community colleges leading to absolutely no future in employment and no local economic development tied to community small businesses creating LIFE-LONG CAREERS.

THIS IS WHAT GLOBAL BANKING 1% ARE TELLING US IS OUR LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL ARM----AND NONE OF THIS ENDS BEING LEFT----IT IS ALL MOVING FORWARD FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% POLICY AGENDA.

When US 99% WE THE PEOPLE allow ourselves to be HERDED into these FAKE citizen action groups controlled by global banking ----we have lost our PUBLIC SPACE----CITIZENSHIP VOICE.


Southern California Grantmakers
Join Now

• Home
• Contact Us
• Log In

Search formSearch

• About Us
  • Board of Directors
  • Our Staff
  • Core Operating Funders
  • Our History
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact Us
• Programs & Resources
  • SCG Programs Calendar
    • SCG Programs
    • Events in the Field
    • Webinars
  • Resources
    • Search Resources
    • SCG Program Materials
    • Fiscal Sponsorship
    • Member Publications
    • Consultants
    • Public Policy
    • Job Board
  • By Category
    • By Funding Area
    • Capacity Building
    • Impact Investing
    • Corporate Giving
    • Family Foundations
    • Professional Development
    • View All
  • Featured
    • Philanthropy California
    • 2020 Census
    • Foundation Maps - California / Get on the Map
    • Full Cost Project
    • Center for Strategic Public-Private Partnerships
• Membership
  • Update Your Profile
  • Join SCG
  • Membership Directory
  • Member Benefits
• Public Policy
  • Policy Updates
  • Policy Resources
  • 2020 Census
• Peer Groups
  • Peer Groups Directory
  • Add Your Group
  • Online Communities
• News
  • President's Blog
  • Regional Philanthropy News
  • SCG in the News
  • Press Room

• Home
• Committees/Groups
• Affinity Group

Affinity Group


Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy (AAPIP)Group Type: 


Affinity Group


Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy (AAPIP) is a national membership organization dedicated to increasing charitable investments for underserved AAPI communities.

WebsiteSCG LGBTQ Professionals Network

Group Type: 
Affinity GroupSouthern California CHANGE Philanthropy LeadersGroup Type: 
Affinity GroupSCG Southern California Latinos in PhilanthropyGroup Type: 
Affinity GroupCHANGE PhilanthropyGroup Type: 
Affinity Groupformerly Join Affinity Group (JAG)

WebsiteEmerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP)Group Type: 


Affinity Group

Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP) is a national network of foundation professionals and social entrepreneurs who strive for excellence in the practice of philanthropy. Our mission is to develop emerging leaders committed to building a just, equitable, and sustainable society. EPIP exists to ensure that emerging foundation professionals are effective stewards of philanthropic resources and all social entrepreneurs reach their potential as leaders.

WebsiteFunders for LGBTQ IssuesGroup Type: 
Affinity Group
Funding Areas 
LGBTQ+
Website
Focus Area: 
LGBTQ+;POPULATIONS & COMMUNITIESHispanics in Philanthropy (HIP)Group Type: 
Affinity Group
WebsiteVentura County Funders Forum

Group Type: 
Affinity Group

Southern California Grantmakers and First 5 Ventura County are pleased to sponsor the Ventura County Funders Forum, a forum for foundations, grant makers and funders who support charitable organizations in Ventura County, advancing the public good and the work of nonprofits. All organizations that provide grants to nonprofit organizations in Ventura County are welcome to attend and participate in a forum designed to educate, inform, share and collaborate where similar goals, charitable intent, multiple visions, dedicated philanthropy and informed experience can find common ground.

Membership Criteria: 
Open only to grantmakers
Meeting Schedule: 
Quarterly
Contact This Group

The Communications Network – LA ChapterGroup Type: 


Affinity Group

The Communications Network is a nonprofit organization comprised of social sector leaders from foundations, nonprofits and consulting firms across the globe who share the belief that smart strategic communications have the power to transform society and improve lives. Founded nearly 30 years ago by the late Frank Karel of The Robert Wood Johnson and Rockefeller Foundations to help social change leaders improve their work and “get the word out”, today The Network is the premier leadership organization for nonprofit communications professionals.

Funding Areas 
COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA & JOURNALISM
Website
Membership Criteria: 
Local foundation and nonprofit communications professionals as well as consultants and professionals in related fields who are interested in social sector communications.
Meeting Schedule: 
Quarterly
Contact This GroupSouthern California Blacks in Philanthropy (SCBIP)

Group Type: 
Affinity GroupSouthern California Blacks in Philanthropy (SCBIP) is a professional membership organization that connects African-American philanthropists in the greater Los Angeles area to each other and to opportunities to advance change.
Please contact Kameron Green, Kameron@socalgrantmakers.org, for more information on joining.

Website
Membership Criteria: 
Open only to grantmakers; Paid membership required
Meeting Schedule: 
Other
___________________________________________

'Affinity Groups

Edyth Bush Institute members'




When US 99% WE THE PEOPLE allow ourselves to be HERDED into these FAKE citizen action groups controlled by global banking ----we have lost our PUBLIC SPACE----CITIZENSHIP VOICE.


'Website
Membership Criteria:
Open only to grantmakers; Paid membership required'



 Our local US media selects public voice from these NGOs tied to AFFINITY GROUPS tied to PATRONAGE CORPORATE GRANTMAKERS.

REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES do not fit in any of these groups because the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM policy issues are not found in GBLT RIGHTS while the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM issues kill 99% of GBLT citizens.

GLOBAL CORPORATIONS DONATING AS PATRONS TO MARYLAND/BALTIMORE GRANTMAKERS ARE NOT GOING TO CREATE NGOS ADDRESSING GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM ISSUES.

Our 99% of new immigrant citizens need to know these few decades of ROBBER BARON fleecing of America MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% never had these captured citizen structures replacing public space and local public agencies allowing our 99% in each community to affect their own community policies regardless of economic, development, or social.

AFFINITY GROUPS tied to STATE GRANTMAKERS are MOVING FORWARD only ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE United Nations policies---economic and social and 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are allowing ourselves to simply follow these protests disregarding GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM ISSUES for both 99% right wing and 99% of left wing US citizens.


Affinity Groups

Edyth Bush Institute members have the opportunity to join a number of local affinity groups. Each group is centered around a particular area of specialization (marketing, human resources, young professionals, etc.) that meet occasionally to discuss topics relevant to the field. If you are a current member and you would like to join an affinity group, please contact the group administrators listed below.
  
Edyth Bush Institute Affinity Groups


Nonprofit Seasoned CEO Affinity Group

About: The Seasoned CEO Affinity Group is a free resource to CEOs/Executive Directors of Edyth Bush Institute member organizations that have five or more years in their current leadership position. Seasoned leaders discuss trends, best practices, and other timely topics among a trusted peer group who can offer insight, perspective, and support into nonprofit leadership challenges.



Meetings:
Date: The second Tuesday of every month
Time: 8:30 – 9:30 a.m.
Location: Rollins College, Edyth Bush Insititute
Contact: If you are interested in joining this affinity group, please contact Margaret Linnane at mlinnane@rollins.edu. 


Grant Professionals Affinity Group (GPAG)



About: The Edyth Bush Institute (EBI) is pleased to welcome the Grant Professionals Affinity Group! We invite all grant writers and managers to attend! A free resource to members and non-members of EBI, our monthly meetings will offer a space to network, collaborate, and hear from funders, thought leaders, and peers in the sector.


Meetings:
Date: Last Wednesday of the month
Time: 8:30 – 10:00 a.m.
Location: Heart of Florida United Way
Contact: If you are interested in joining this affinity group, please contact Min Sun Kim at mkim@rollins.edu. 


Nonprofit Human Resource Affinity Group of Central Florida

About: The Nonprofit HR Affinity Group is a free resource to nonprofit Human Resources professionals of Edyth Bush Institute member organizations.  The purpose of this group is to provide a forum for nonprofit human resource professionals to share and gain best practices, knowledge, resources and networking.

Meetings:
Date: Quarterly
Time: 8:30 – 10:00 a.m.
Contact: If you are interested in joining the affinity group please contact the group coordinator, Karen Revels, Rollins College krevels@rollins.edu.
  
Nonprofit Marketing & Communications Affinity Group


About: The Marketing and Communications Affinity Group serves as a free resource to Edyth Bush Institute member organizations to discuss trends, best practices and other important topics among peers who can help offer insight and perspective into ideas and projects.
Meetings:Date: Every other month
Time: 8:30 – 10:00 a.m.
Location: Rollins College, Edyth Bush Institute
Contact: If you are interested in joining the affinity group please contact the group coordinator, Brian Schulte at bschulte@rollins.edu.
  
Community Affinity Groups




Council of Volunteer Management of Central Florida
The mission of the Council of Volunteer Management (CVM) of Central Florida is to enhance the volunteer programs of non-profit organizations in the Central Florida area by assisting in the development and growth of volunteer services with a focus on networking, marketing and recruiting within the community. Launched in 1974, as the United Effort Volunteer Association, today's CVM provides a vital forum for information exchange and training for volunteer coordinators at non-profit agencies.


For more information please visit CVM's Facebook Page.




YNPN Orlando (Young Nonprofit Professionals Network)


YNPN Orlando empowers young nonprofit professionals with the skills and resources to become dynamic community leaders.


YNPN chapters around the county are building stronger young leaders through programming, education, and networking that provides a career pathway for nonprofit professionals. Through our national network, YNPN works to advocate for a sector that is more sustainable and effective in its talent recruitment, retention and development practices. YNPN is building a network of leaders around the country who can design, advocate for and lead this more sustainable and effective nonprofit sector.
We are a member-driven organization run completely by volunteers.

If you are a young professional new to the nonprofit sector or are thinking about a job in the nonprofit sector and would like to learn more about your career opportunities and to meet nonprofit professionals, please join our email list or become a member by visiting the YNPN Orlando local website or the chapter's Facebook page.

________________________________________

'Rachel works closely with the National Council and Affinity Group leadership to implement the strategic direction of UNA-USA'.

Hmmmm, here is RACHEL------graduated from global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE Johns Hopkins-----raging far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty ROBBER BARON top gun OLD WORLD DARK AGES KINGS AND QUEENS------organizing those AFFINITY GROUPS from United Nations down to our US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----from where FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 99% social progressive issue support unfolds.

NO GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM ISSUES WILL EVER BE ORGANIZED OR PROTESTED THROUGH THIS CAPTURE OF OUR US CITIZEN VOICE------NO HOLDING LOCAL 5% PLAYERS ACCOUNTABLE---

Seems RACHEL is interested in MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD to create maximized GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY.

The same ROBBER BARON GLOBAL BANKING fleecing our wealth killing our freedom, liberty, justice, pursuit of happiness being allowed to tie to all our US 99% and global labor pool 99% of students ----

WORKING FOR THE STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF UNITED NATIONS IN USA.


Connecting You with the United Nations
WORKING WITH THE UN | DONATE NOW | BLOG

Who We Are
What We Do
How To Help

JOIN US

Who We Are:

Rachel Pittman

Board Experts Leaders Careers Financial Information Impact News & Media

Connecting You with the UN to Solve Global Problems
www.unfoundation.org > Who We Are > Experts

Rachel Pittman

As the Sr. Director of Membership and Programs, Rachel Bowen Pittman manages programs for UNA-USA’s network of 20,000+ members and its 150 chapters to cultivate membership, youth engagement, advocacy efforts and public awareness. She coordinates UNA-USA national programs, including Members’ Day at the UN, the Leadership Summit and UN Day events, and manages the Adopt-A-Future refugee education fundraising campaign. Rachel works closely with the National Council and Affinity Group leadership to implement the strategic direction of UNA-USA.

Prior to joining UNA-USA, Rachel served as a Membership Director to several professional associations that represent lawyers, surgeons, regulators and engineers. In her many accomplishments, Rachel increased membership programs by over 15% and secured agreements with national associations representing China, Korea, Argentina, India, Peru, Egypt and Mexico.

Rachel holds a B.S.B.A in International Business from American University and an MBA in Marketing from Johns Hopkins University.​

We want to discuss public policy being installed with a goal of killing opportunity and access for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE needed to be CITIZENS-----we started by showing how Congress, state assemblies, and our local county councils CAN install laws that are ILLEGAL and violate our US Constitutional rights. Allowing policies of charging huge amounts of money to attain public documents that not even a media corporation can afford in trying to provide oversight and accountability is PROHIBITIVE and done deliberately, willfully, and with malice to keep 99% of WE THE PEOPLE from our rights to know what our public agencies are doing.  We showed the same with global banking policies deregulation of Wall Street that allowed INVESTMENT FIRMS to create structures designed to deliberately stage operations that 99% of WE THE PEOPLE as stock and bond holders have no way of knowing or accessing the information we need to be educated INVESTORS.  These are not LEGAL LAWS=====our US Constitution and Bill of Rights makes 99% of WE THE PEOPLE---CITIZENS having the rights to control public policy and oversee our public agencies.

One example of how US courts used to affirm that stance was VOTING RIGHTS ACT.  Right wing states deliberately placed laws surrounding voting meant to exclude ever-more population groups DENYING equal opportunity and access to all having the right to VOTE.  The courts placed those right wing states under court oversight to assure no LAWS installed to prohibit equal opportunity to vote were installed.

WHETHER OUR 99% ARE RIGHT WING OR LEFT WING----THESE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LAWS TIED TO US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OPENED THE DOOR TO WHITE 99% AS MUCH AS BLACK AND BROWN 99% TO CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.

Today's stance of public agencies being shrouded in secrecy because of private partnerships and quasi-government status are the same kinds of policies keeping US citizens from their rights---as was those VOTING RIGHTS 'poll taxes' et al.


Texas Republicans call for repealing the Voting Rights Act


06/18/14 03:52 PM--Updated 06/25/14 05:07 PM
By Zachary Roth


When the Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act last year, it allowed Texas to implement what is perhaps the nation’s strictest photo ID law. But according to the state’s Republicans, the federal government still has too much influence on how it runs elections.


The Texas GOP platform, released Thursday, calls for the repeal of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, the most successful civil-rights law in the nation’s history. It also supports scrapping the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which has helped millions register to vote. And it advocates making voters re-register every four years, among other restrictive policies.


In sum, the party wants to get the federal government out of the business of overseeing state elections—returning voting law to where it was before the civil rights movement.
“We urge that the Voter [sic] Rights Act of 1965, codified and updated in 1973, be repealed and not reauthorized,” the platform says. 


These aren’t new positions—the platform’s section on voting issues is largely unchanged from 2012. But circumstances have changed. Last year, the Supreme Court badly weakened the VRA by invalidating the provision that required certain states with a history of discrimination, including Texas, to get federal approval before making changes to their voting systems. That allowed Texas to put into effect its strict voter ID law, which had been blocked by a court under the VRA. 


The Justice Department is continuing to challenge Texas’s voter ID law under a different provision of the VRA that still exists, and which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.
Without the VRA, the only bar on racial discrimination in voting would be the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. These weren’t enough to stop a century of Jim Crow, which used tactics like literacy tests to get around the prohibition on explicitly denying the right to vote on account of race. It was only thanks to the VRA, which took a broader view of what constitutes racial discrimination in voting, that the right to vote for all Americans was meaningfully assured.


Voting rights advocates are currently pushing Congress—with little success—to advance a bill that would strengthen the VRA in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Texas Republicans’ stance is a reminder that many conservatives want to go in the opposite direction.


A spokesman for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott—who has fought for the ID law in court and who supported the legal effort to weaken the VRA—did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether he supports repealing the VRA entirely. 
The GOP platform also calls for repeal of the 2002 Help America Vote Act—which has made it easier for millions of Americans to cast a ballot—calling the law “unconstitutional.” And it explicitly says states have the right to disenfranchise ex-felons.



Below is the full voting section of the platform, which appears not to have been updated since 2012:


Voter Registration- We support restoring integrity to the voter registration rolls and reducing voter fraud. We support repeal of all motor voter laws; re-registering voters every four years; requiring photo ID of all registrants; proof of residency and citizenship, along with voter registration application; retention of the 30-day registration deadline; and requiring that a list of certified deaths be provided to the Secretary of State in order that the names of deceased voters be removed from the list of registered voters. 


Selection of Primary Candidates- The SREC should study the Utah model for selecting primary
candidates.
Electoral College- We strongly support the Electoral College.
Voting Rights- We support equal suffrage for all United States citizens of voting age who are not felons. We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, or creed and oppose use of any such identification for purposes of creating voting districts.
Voter Rights Act- We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965, codified and updated in 1973, be repealed and not reauthorized.


Felon Voting- We affirm the constitutional authority of state legislatures to regulate voting, including disenfranchisement of convicted felons.
Protecting Active Military Personnel’s Right to Vote- We urge the Texas Secretary of State and the United States Attorney General to ensure that voting rights of our armed forces will neither be denied nor obstructed, and all valid absentee votes shall be counted.


Fair Election Procedures- We support modifications and strengthening of election laws to ensure ballot integrity and fair elections. We strongly urge the Texas Attorney General to litigate the previously passed Voter ID legislation. We support increased scrutiny and security in balloting by mail, prohibition of internet voting and any electronic voting lacking a verifiable paper trail, prohibition of mobile voting, prosecution for election fraud with jail sentences, repeal of the unconstitutional “Help America Vote Act”, and assurance that each polling place has a distinctly marked, and if possible, separate location for Republican and Democrat primary voting.

___________________________________________

'a SIMPLE IRA that allows for employer contributions into participating worker’s accounts, a payroll-deduction IRA that does not allow employer contributions, and the myRA, the retirement savings vehicle proposed by the Obama administration that is backed by Treasury bonds'.



Again, this week we are looking broadly across public policy to remember what CITIZENSHIP POLICY brought US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE in protections tied to opportunity and access needed for anyone to be a CITIZEN.

We mentioned pensions---public pensions for example because like our payroll taxes for SS and Medicare Trusts----these deductions occur AUTOMATICALLY and we are told DON'T WORRY this is good for your retirement.  Fast-forward to today when CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are being allowed to pass policy and allowing government to act without transparency-----and we have US citizens having money deducted while losing all ability to KNOW how that county, state, national government is investing these funds.

Here is the STATE taking over as a private pension deduction provider-----tying those deductions to global banking structures.   OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberals created myRA directed temporarily as 'voluntary' but with a goal of mandating deductions from low-income workers to be sent to these same global banking investment structures.

'Arizona

On January 22, 2014, Rep. Martin Quezada introduced HB 2063, the Arizona Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, a mandatory system of payroll deposit individual retirement savings arrangements (IRAs) for private employers in Arizona that have five or more employees and that do not offer other retirement plans to their workers. The bill was assigned to the House Appropriations and Rules Committees, and no further action was taken in the 2013-2014 legislative session'.



No doubt MARTIN QUEZADA is selling this as good for poor workers------when in fact MOVING FORWARD going strong in Arizona will have ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global 1% and corporations controlling those deductions----NOT US PUBLIC AGENCIES. 

'Maryland


On May 10, 2016, Governor Lawrence Hogan signed into law HB 1378, a law establishing the Maryland Small Business Retirement Savings Program and Trust. HB 1378 was introduced by Delegate William Frick , and its counterpart SB 1007 was introduced by Senator Douglas J. J. Peters. The new law went into effect on July 1, 2016'. 




THIS IS THE STATE VERSION OF OBAMA'S MY RA-----TARGETING LOW-INCOME WORKERS WITH WHAT WILL BE A TAXATION STRUCTURE PRETENDING TO BE 'RETIREMENT'


But this is STATE'S RIGHTS say 5% to the 1% right wing global banking pols and players! NO, states have no sovereignty when those same global banking 1% declare those states SANCTUARY STATES----meaning US Foreign Economic Zones operating independently of US Federal, state, and local laws.

PLEASE GLANCE THROUGH A LONG ARTICLE JUST TO SEE BOTH RIGHT WING AND FAR-RIGHT WING NEO-LIBERAL STATES HAVE ADOPTED THESE PRIVATE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS DUE TO REPLACE OUR FEDERAL SS, MEDICARE, AND BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WORKER 401Ks.


State-based retirement plans for the private sector


States around the country are looking into ways of using the efficiencies of public retirement systems to administer new types of pension plans for private-sector workers. Below are brief summaries of plans that have either passed or are being considered. States whose names are highlighed below have introduced or enacted legislation to provide retirement plans for private-sector workers. 





Alabama | Alaska | Arizona |Arkansas | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maine | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota | Mississippi | Missouri | Montana | Nebraska | Nevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New Mexico | New York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming





In addition to the below summaries, AARP’s Public Policy Institute has established a State Retirement Savings Resource Center, a library of policy papers, key facts, opinion pieces, and studies related to state-based plans for private-sector workers. The Pension Rights Center authored two papers -- one on consumer protections in such plans and one on the advantages of pooled accounts.


In September 2015, the Government Accountability Office published a report, Federal Action Could Help State Efforts to Expand Private Sector Coverage, which looks at coverage rates, efforts by states and other countries to expand coverage, and the obstacles states face in implementing new state-based plans.



Arizona

On January 22, 2014, Rep. Martin Quezada introduced HB 2063, the Arizona Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, a mandatory system of payroll deposit individual retirement savings arrangements (IRAs) for private employers in Arizona that have five or more employees and that do not offer other retirement plans to their workers. The bill was assigned to the House Appropriations and Rules Committees, and no further action was taken in the 2013-2014 legislative session.


California

On September 28, 2012, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law S.B. 1234, the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust Act. The bill, which was sponsored by Senator Kevin de Leόn, will eventually require that all businesses with five or more employees that do not already offer a retirement plan enroll their workers in a new type of savings plan based on IRAs. Before this can occur, a number of steps need to be taken, including passage by the California legislature of subsequent implementing legislation. 


To date, the State has established the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board and the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust, as required by the statute. The Board has been meeting monthly since 2013, collected information on retirement issues, and reviewed market and legal analyses of the program. On March 28, 2016, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Program, and sent letters to state leaders outlining the Board’s recommendations for legislation implementing the Secure Choice Program. The Board’s recommendations for inclusion in the legislation include:

• Establishing managed accounts that would be invested in U.S. Treasuries or similarly safe investments within the first three years of the program, with the expectation that during that period the Board would begin to develop investment options that address risk-sharing and smoothing of market losses and gains. Options could include, but not be limited to, custom pooled, professionally managed funds that minimize management costs and feels, the creation of a reserve fund, or the establishment of investment products
• Providing for the Board to conduct an annual peer review to compare California Security Choice funds with similar funds on performance and fees.
• Requiring the Board to seek to minimize participant fees
• Requiring the Board to establish an initial automatic contribution rate of between 2% and 5% of salary
• Allowing the Board to implement automatic escalation of participant’s contribution rates up to 10% of salary, with the option for participants to stop automatic escalation and change their contribution rates.
• Establishing a fiduciary duty in the Board and its contracted administrators and consultants toward the participants of the program. 
• Permitting the inclusion of quasi-public and quasi-private workers to be enrolled if found legally permissible
• Requiring communication and education on the Program, including the inherent risks of its investment strategies, making clear that the state does not have liability for the investment performance or payment of benefits to participants
• Directing that a default payout method to retirees be determined
• Clearly defining the ‘ministerial duties’ expected of employers in the implementation of the program, and limiting liability for all employers if an employer inadvertently provides more than ministerial duties.
• Fully determining all necessary costs for administration of the program and ensuring all investment options are appropriately considered by the Board.
• Making determinations on how to structure the Program to ensure the state is prohibited from incurring liabilities associated with administering the Program.

In February, 2016, Senator Kevin de Leon introduced SB 1234, a bill to legislatively enact the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust Act, the final step required by the original legislation before the Program can be implemented. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Public Employment and Retirement where a hearing was held on April 12, 2016 and the legislation passed the Committee. SB 1234 was subsequently referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations where, on May 27, 2016, the bill was approved by a vote of 5-2. The bill was subsequently sent to the Senate Floor, where on May 31st it was read a second time and amended, and ordered to third reading. On June 2, 2016, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 25-13 and was sent to the Assembly, where it was read a first time and held at the Desk. 



After consideration by the Committees of jurisdiction, the amended bill passed the Assembly on August 25 and was returned to the Senate.  The Senate concurred in the amendments and passed the bill by a vote of 27-12 on August 31, 2016.  The bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor on September 9, 2016.



SB 1234 requires all employers within California with five or more employees who do not offer their employees another retirement savings option to participate in the California Secure Choice Retirement Program. The requirement is phased-in over a three-year period based on the employer’s size. Beginning 3 months after the opening of enrollment, employers of 100 or more employees must have an arrangement to allow employees to participate in the plan. Beginning 6 months after enrollment opens, employers of 50 or more employees must participate, and beginning 9 months after enrollment, the size of employer covered by the mandate drops to those with 5 or more employees.


Employees will be automatically enrolled in the program, with the opportunity to opt-out. If an employee does not select a contribution amount, 3 percent of salary will be contributed to their Secure Choice account. The Board has the authority to change the default contribution from 2 percent of salary to 5 percent. Employee contributions will be subject to automatic escalation of up to 8 percent of salary, with no more than 1 percent of salary increases per year. Employees have the opportunity to opt-out of automatic escalation and to select their own escalation percentage. 


Employers will be allowed to make contributions to the accounts on behalf of their employees but only if these contributions are permitted by the Internal Revenue Code and do not subject the Secure Choice Program to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Board is to evaluate and establish a process by which an employee of a non-participating employer might participate in the Program. 


For up to the first three years of the Program, contributions will be invested in United States Treasury bonds or similarly safe investments. During this time, the Board will develop other options that appropriately balance risk and shall strive to minimize participant fees. During start-up and for the first year of operation, administrative funds will be appropriated from the state’s General Fund. These amounts are to be repaid, with interest, and subsequent costs will be paid from the Program’s administrative account. Administrative expenditures for the program are limited to 1 percent of the program fund. The remaining provisions of the legislation closely track the recommendations of the Secure Choice Board.


The California Security Choice Retirement Program was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 29, 2016 and went go into effect on January 1, 2017.


Colorado


On February 19, 2015, HB 1235 was introduced by Representatives Brittany Pettersen and John Buckner, and State Senators Pat Steadman and Nancy Todd. The bill would establish the Colorado Retirement Security Task Force to research, assess, and report on the factors that affect the retirement security of the citizens of Colorado. The Task Force would also make recommendations on the feasibility of creating a retirement savings plan for private-sector employees who do not otherwise have a retirement plan available through their employers.


The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Business Affairs and Labor, and, on March 24, 2015, it was amended and referred to the Appropriations Committee. This committee reported the bill to the House in April, where it was passed on April 20, 2015. The bill was introduced in the Colorado Senate on April 24 and assigned to the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. On April 29, 2015, the Senate Committee recommended no further action be taken.


Connecticut

On June 2, 2015, Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law Connecticut’s budget implementer bill for 2016, a bill which incorporated Public Act 16-29, an act creating the Connecticut Retirement Security Exchange. Public Act 16-29 was originally House Substitute Bill 5591, which passed the Connecticut House on April 26, 2016 by a vote of 76-63, and passed the Senate on April 30, 2016 by a tie vote of 18-18 when the tie was broken by the vote of Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman. The original bill had been sent to the Governor on May 13, 2016 and was subsequently incorporated into the budget implementer legislation. 


The Connecticut Retirement Security Exchange requires covered employers to automatically enroll their employees into a Roth-IRA arrangement. Covered employers are private employers with five or more employees who received at least $5000 in wages during the previous year, who have been in business for at least one year and who do not offer a qualified retirement plan. Employers with fewer than five employees may participate in the Program voluntarily but their employees are not required to enroll in the Exchange. 


Beginning on January 1, 2017, employees working for covered employers are required to be auto-enrolled into the new Exchange, which will meet the federal requirements for a Roth IRA. Eligible employees must have worked for the covered employer for 120 days, be over age 19, and not be members of an exempt category. Employees may contribute up to the federal limits for a Roth IRA. Employees who do not wish to participate in the Exchange may select a contribution amount of zero, and those who do not select a contribution amount will have a default amount of three percent of their salary contributed to their accounts.  No employer contributions into the accounts are permitted. 


Employees can select among a range of age-appropriate target funds for their contributions, and the funds will be offered by a variety of vendors. Employee contributions must be deposited within ten days of the payroll date in which the contributions are deducted. Once employees reach Normal Retirement Age, one-half of their account balances will be transferred to a lifetime income investment. 


The Exchange will be administered by the Connecticut Retirement Security Authority, which is directed by a Board made up of 15 members appointed to six year terms. Board members must act in the sole interest of participants and beneficiaries, and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and paying administrative expenses. They may not vote on issues in which they have a direct financial interest. The Board may require vendors to meet the same criteria to the extent reasonable and practicable. 


Vendors participating in the Program may include federally regulated retirement sponsors, including investment companies, insurance companies and others. Vendors may not include individual brokers, financial planners or agents. 


The Board will establish criteria and procedures for approving vendors to participate in the Exchange, and is required to establish a cap on annual fees that can be charged by the vendors. After the fourth year of the program, fees will be capped at three-quarters of a percent of the investment amount. The Board also has the authority to make any modifications to the Exchange required to maintain federal tax deductibility and to avoid application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Board is authorized to establish procedures for providing investment and plan information to participants and beneficiaries and to establish a process for receiving complaints. The Board shall establish and operate a website for approved vendors.


The Board shall also conduct a study of the interest in establishing a non-Roth IRA investment option, and may conduct a study of the feasibility of offering a multi-employer or 401k plan or other tax-deferred vehicle.


Illinois


On December 3, 2014, the Illinois General Assembly passed SB 2758, an Act creating the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program, which was introduced by Senator Daniel Biss. The bill was signed into law by Governor Pat Quinn on January 4, 2015. Read our summary of the law.


The Illinois Secure Choice Savings Board held meetings in August, November and December 2015 and its Investment Subcommittee held a meeting on December 9, 2015. The Office of the State Treasurer issued requests for proposals for an External Investment Advisor and for an ERISA Counsel in the fall of 2015. Meetings of the Board are expected to continue in 2016.


SB 2758 establishes a payroll-deduction IRA for workers whose employers do not offer any other retirement savings vehicle. The bill requires all businesses in existence for at least two years with 25 or more employees to automatically enroll their employees in the Secure Choice Savings Program unless they offer another retirement option to their workers.


Employees can determine a contribution level and select among a small number of investment options. A default contribution level of three percent of salary is offered to those who do not select one on their own, as is a default life-cycle investment fund for those who do not choose one from the options offered. Assets are pooled into a single fund and managed by the Illinois Treasurer and a qualified board, providing participants the benefit of low fees and competitive investment performance.Employees can choose to opt out of the program at any time.



The law is to be implemented within 24 months unless enough funds are not made available for the project. The Board must also find that the program is self-sustaining, that it is eligible for favorable federal tax treatment, and that it is not subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).



Indiana

On January 13, 2015, HB 1279 was introduced by Representative Matthew Lehman and a companion bill, SB 555 was introduced by Senator Greg Walker into the Senate on January 20, 2015. The bills would create the Hoosier Employee Retirement Option (HERO) plan, which are portable IRAs for employees who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employers. Employers with at least one employee and self-employed individuals would be eligible to participate, and participation by either the employer or the employees would be voluntary. Contributions to the accounts would be in post-tax dollars, and contribution amounts would be selected by the employee. If no selection is made, the default contribution rate is set at 3 percent of salary. Employers are not permitted to make any contributions into the accounts, including matching contributions.


The legislation would establish a board to design and implement the HERO program. The board is required to include at least one target-date fund and seven other diversified investment funds as investment options, and to establish a default fund if the employee fails to make a choice. Investment options must also include low-fee funds. Neither the state nor employers are liable for any investment performance.


The House bill was referred to the House Employment, Labor and Pensions Committee, and the Senate bill to the Committee on Pensions and Labor. No action has been taken on either bill.


Iowa


On February 16, 2016, SSB 3164 was introduced into the Iowa Senate by State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald, and a companion bill, HF 2417, was introduced into the House on February 16, 2016 by Representative Bruce Hunter (D-34) and others. This bill creates the Iowa Retirement Savings Plan Trust under the Office of Treasurer of State for the purpose of helping Iowans save for retirement. The bill provides that the trust be operated so that, for federal tax purposes, it meets the requirements of a retirement plan as provided by the Internal Revenue Code. The state treasurer is the trustee of the trust and has numerous powers, as specified in the bill, for the purpose of carrying out the purpose of the trust, including entering into agreements with trust participants and employers, investing moneys in the trust, and entering into any agreements or contracts necessary to carry out the purposes of the trust. The bill provides that the state, the treasurer of state, and the trust may not guarantee any rate of return on any contributions to the trust and are not liable for any loss incurred by any person as a result of participating in the trust. The bill requires the treasurer to submit an annual audited financial report on the operations of the trust. The bill provides an appropriation to the treasurer of state for FY 2016-2017 for the purposes of establishing and managing the Iowa retirement savings plan trust.



The bill provides that when the requirements of the bill are enacted, the treasurer shall not allow individuals to make contributions to the trust earlier than July 1, 2018. The bill provides that the it will go into effect no earlier than July 1, 2017, and only on the date the treasurer of state notifies the Code editor, in writing, that no less than $1.5 million has been appropriated to the treasurer of state for the purpose of the bill and that establishing an Iowa retirement savings plan trust is feasible, and applicable federal requirements make establishing the trust favorable for Iowans contributing to the trust. 


SSB 3164 was referred to a Senate Ways and Means Subcommittee chaired by Senator Janet Petersen (D-18) on February 22, 2016 and a meeting was held on the bill on February 29, 2016. HF 2417 was referred to the House Commerce Committee and no further action has been taken.


Kentucky


On February 3, 2015, HR 261 was introduced by a bi-partisan group of state legislators. The bill would establish the Kentucky Retirement Account Program, a state-sponsored retirement program for private sector workers. Employers with five or more employees would be required to participate, unless they receive a hardship exemption. Employers with fewer employees are allowed to participate on a voluntary basis.



The bill would create a governing board to design and implement the program, which would be established as an automatic enrollment payroll deduction Roth IRA program. The board would be required to implement the program within 24 months of enactment, unless insufficient funds are made available. The bill permits the board to seek an opinion as to the applicability and impact of ERISA.


On February 9, 2015, the bill was referred to the Agriculture and Small Business Committee, which held a hearing on the bill on February 25. No further action was taken on the bill prior to the end of the legislative session.


Louisiana


On March 10, 2014, SB 283 was introduced into the 2014 regular legislative session by Senator Troy E. Brown. The bill was referred to the Committee on Retirement, where it was considered on April 28, 2014. No further action has been taken.


The bill would establish the Louisiana Retirement Savings Plan, a state-sponsored retirement plan for private-sector workers who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employers. Churches and new businesses are permitted to participate on a voluntary basis.


The plan would be established as an automatic payroll-deduction IRA, though employees could opt out at any time. The plan provides for an automatic contribution rate of 3 percent of salary and permits employer contributions up to a maximum of $5,000 per year per employee. Assets would be pooled and professionally managed. Benefits would be payable in the form of an annuity, and would become available at the earliest at age 69 and the latest at age 72. Neither the state nor employers are liable for investment performance.



Maine


On March 5, 2015, LD 768 was introduced by Representative Diane Russell. This bill is modeled after California’s legislation and would create the Maine Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board, which would administer the Maine Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program. The program would be a state-sponsored payroll-deduction IRA for workers who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employers. Employers with five or more employees are required to participate.


Employees could select their contribution rate into the accounts, though a three percent of salary contribution would be set for those who do not select their own rate. Employees could opt-out at any time.


Assets would be pooled and professionally managed, and a minimum rate of return would be guaranteed through private insurance. Neither the state nor employers would be subject to any liability for fund performance. The program would only be established if the Board finds that it will be self-sustaining, qualifies for favorable federal tax treatment, and is not subject to ERISA.


On March 9, 2015, the bill was referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development, where it was voted “ought not to pass” on April 14, 2015.


LD 1473 was introduced by Representative Diane Russell on April 30, 2013. It is also modeled after California’s SB 1234 and was not voted out of the House Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee on January 23, 2014. No further action has been taken.


Maryland

On May 10, 2016, Governor Lawrence Hogan signed into law HB 1378, a law establishing the Maryland Small Business Retirement Savings Program and Trust. HB 1378 was introduced by Delegate William Frick , and its counterpart SB 1007 was introduced by Senator Douglas J. J. Peters. The new law went into effect on July 1, 2016. 


As signed into law, HB 1378 establishes a retirement savings program for employees working for companies who do not offer another qualified retirement program. The law creates an 11 member Board (with a four-year term) and gives it the authority to design the new retirement program.  



The Board is required to establish a process for automatically enrolling employees, establishing default contribution amounts and investment options, a process for employees to opt-out of the program and to opt back in, a process to select approved vendors and to operate the program so that administrative expenses are minimized. Expenses are capped at 0.5 percent of funds under management. The Board is authorized to borrow money to establish the program until such time as it generates enough fees to be self-sustaining. The Board is also tasked with establishing a process by which employees of non-participating employers may participate in the Program if their employer does not offer another retirement option. 
The Board is directed to select a broad range of investment options and vendors, and may include an option that provides lifetime income.



Massachusetts


In March 2012, Massachusetts enacted HR 3754, an Act Providing Retirement Options for Nonprofit Organizations. The new law allows the State Treasurer to sponsor a retirement savings plan for workers at small non-profit organizations in the Commonwealth. Participation by the organizations is voluntary. The retirement plan would be a tax-qualified defined contribution arrangement with various investment options available to employees. Contributions could be made by workers, their employers, or both.



Features of the plan currently include an automatic six percent payroll deduction with an option for the employer to opt for a four percent initial automatic contribution with an escalation of up to 10 percent. Hardship withdrawals will be allowed but specific guidelines for the withdrawals are not yet finalized. A “not-for-profit defined contribution committee” of five members would be established to assist the State Treasurer in developing policy and providing technical advice for the plan. The plan would be marketed particularly to nonprofits with 20 or fewer employees.



The plan will fall under the jurisdiction of ERISA. In June, 2014, the IRS ruled favorably on the proposal and is in the process of reviewing the group trust that the accounts will be pooled with for investment efficiencies. The Massachusetts Treasurer’s Office will formally roll out the plan once the IRS work is completed.


Also, on January 20, 2015, H. 939 was introduced by Representative Angelo Scaccia and referred to the Joint Committee on Financial Services. A joint hearing on H. 939 and H. 924 was held on November 23, 2015.
The bill would establish the Massachusetts Secure Choice Savings Program and is modeled after the Illinois retirement legislation. H. 939 would establish a payroll-deduction IRA for workers whose employers do not offer any other retirement savings vehicle in the workplace. The bill requires all businesses in existence at least two years with 25 or more employees to automatically enroll their employees in the Security Choice Savings Program, unless they offer another retirement option to their workers.


Employees can determine a contribution level and select among a small number of investment options. A default contribution level of three percent of salary is offered to those who do not select one on their own, as is a default life-cycle investment fund for those who do not choose one from the options offered. Assets are pooled into a single fund and managed by the Massachusetts Treasurer and a qualified board, providing participants the benefit of low fees and competitive investment performance.Employees can choose to opt out of the program at any time.



The law is to be implemented within 24 months unless enough funds are not made available for the project. The Board must also find that the program is self-sustaining, that it is eligible for favorable federal tax treatment, and that it is not subject to ERISA.


In addition, on January 20, 2015, H. 924 was introduced by Representative James J. O’Day and referred to the Joint Committee on Financial Services. No further action has been taken on the bill.


H. 924 would establish a Secure Choice Retirement Savings Board to administer two retirement savings trust funds known collectively as the Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trusts. The first of these trusts, named the Secure Choice Multiple-Employer Retirement Trust (MERP), is a profit-sharing defined contribution plan offering individual accounts. The second trust, the Secure Choice Individual Retirement Account Trust (IRAP), would accept individual contributions through payroll deduction and direct payment into IRAs. Assets would be pooled and professionally managed and neither the state nor the employer would be responsible for any liabilities. The Board and Plan administrator shall act as fiduciaries under ERISA for the MERP plan. Employers shall not be considered fiduciaries.


Participation by employers with 10 or more employees is mandatory unless they offer their employees another retirement savings plan. Self-employed individuals and employers with fewer than 10 employees may participate on a voluntary basis. Unless otherwise specified by the employer or directed by the employee, a default contribution of three percent of the employee’s annual salary shall be made to the plan. The board may adjust this default contribution from two to five percent and may vary that amount according to the length of time the employee has contributed to the program.



Benefits to participants in the MERP shall be paid in the form of lifetime annuities. Employees who participate in both the MERP and IRAP have the option of rolling over all or part of their IRAP into their MERP before it is converted into a lifetime annuity. Participants in the MERP have the option of taking up to $20,000 (as long as it is no more than 50 percent of their account balance) in the form of a lump sum.


Minnesota


On February 27, 2014, HF 2419 was introduced by Rep. Patti Fritz and others, and was referred to the Government Operations Committee. Over the following month, the bill was considered by the Commerce and Consumer Protection Finance and Policy Committee, State Government Finance and Veterans Affairs, and the Ways and Means Committee. The bill was subsequently incorporated into HF 2536, the Women’s Economic Security Act, which was considered and reported out of the House on May 7, 2014, and the Senate on May 9, 2014. The bill was signed into law by the Governor on May 11, 2014.



As enacted, the bill required the Commissioner of Management and Budget of the state to provide a report to the legislature by January 15, 2015, evaluating the potential for a state-administered retirement savings plan for workers who do not have access to a retirement plan though their employer. The potential state-administered plan would have to provide for individuals to make contributions to their own accounts which would be pooled and invested by the State Board of Investment. The state would have no liability for investment earnings and losses. The plan should be designed so employers would be discouraged from dropping existing retirement plan options. /p>


The report was required to include a number of items, including estimates of the numbers of Minnesota workers who could be served by the plan, the participation rate that would make the plan self-sustaining, the effect of federal tax laws and ERISA, and the potential use and availability of investment strategies and insurance against loss to limit or eliminate potential state liability and manage risk to the principal. Funds were appropriated to cover the cost of producing the report, and, in December 2014, the Minnesota Management and Budget Commissioner issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct the report. Under the terms of the RFP, the report is to identify at least one option for a state administered retirement savings plan for private sector employees, though it may include other options. Each option is to be fully explained, and include an implementation plan with start-up costs, and outline the pros and cons of each option. A final report has not yet been released.
NebraskaOn December 10, 2013, the Retirement Systems Committee of the Nebraska Legislature held a hearing to discuss LR 344, a resolution calling for an interim study to examine the availability and adequacy of retirement savings for Nebraska’s private-sector workers. The hearing was hosted by Committee Chair Senator Jeremy Nordquist.No further legislative action has been scheduled.



New Hampshire


On January 8, 2015, HB 239 was introduced by Representative David Danielson. The bill would establish the Statutory Commission on Retirement Security to study the creation of a state-sponsored program for workers without access to a retirement plan through their employers. The commission would study a program that would provide for automatic enrollment into a payroll-deduction account, with an option for employees to opt out of the program. No employer contributions would be required. The accounts would be portable, and self-sustaining, and the assets would be pooled and professionally managed. The commission would be required to submit its report by November 1, 2015, and an appropriation of $100,000 would be authorized to support the commission.


HB 239 was voted on in the House on February 11, 2015, and the bill failed to advance.


New Jersey


On March 2, 2015, A 4275 was introduced by Assemblymen Vincent Prieto and others, and was referred to the Assembly Labor Committee on March 9, 2015. On June 18, 2015, the bill was reported out of the Labor Committee with amendments, and was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill was reported out of the Assembly Committee with amendments after a second reading on November 9, 2015 and was passed by the Assembly on December 3, 2015. On December 7, 2015, the bill was referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.


A companion bill, S2831, was introduced by Senator Stephen M. Sweeney on March 16, 2015, and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On October 19, 2015, S2831 was reported from the Senate Committee with amendments after a second reading and was referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee where it was reported out on December 21, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the Senate substituted House bill A4275 for the text of S2831 and passed the bill.
The bill was sent to Governor Chris Christie for consideration and was conditionally vetoed by the Governor, who proposed replacing it with the New Jersey Small Business Retirement Marketplace Act. The legislature replaced the text of the original bill with the Governor’s proposal and enacted the amended bill on January 11, 2016. The bill took effect immediately upon enactment.


Bill A4275 is modeled after the Washington State Small Business Marketplace Retirement Savings Bill and creates a virtual marketplace for small businesses in New Jersey to shop for private retirement plans for their employees. The new portal will be available to businesses with up to 100 employees and is voluntary for both employers and their workers.


The State Treasurer is tasked with designing and implementing a plan for the operation of the new Marketplace, and will contract with private sector entities who will establish a protocol for approving participating financial firms, design and operate a website through which employers may select plans, and develop marketing and educational materials. The private-sector entities shall ensure that licensed professionals who assist their clients to enroll in a plan will receive routine, market-based commissions or other compensation for their services.


The Treasurer shall ensure that the range of investment options offered by the firms is sufficient to meet the needs of savers with various levels of risk tolerance and various ages. The diverse array of private options available are to include life insurance plans that are designed for retirement purposes, and at least two types of plans that include a SIMPLE IRA type plan that provides for employer contributions to participating enrollee accounts and a payroll deduction IRA type plan in which the employer does not make contributions for enrollees.


The financial services firms participating in the Marketplace are to offer a minimum of two product options including a target date or similar fund and a balanced fund. The Marketplace shall also offer a myRA option in addition to any other approved plan. The Marketplace will not operate unless there are at least two financial services firms participating, but there is no limit to the total number of firms that can offer products.


The financial firms participating in the Marketplace shall not charge participating employers fees and shall not charge employees more than 100 basis points in total annual fees. The costs of operating the marketplace may be charged to participating financial firms, private funding sources or federal grants. If sufficient funds are raised, the Treasurer may offer incentive payments to participating employers. The Treasurer shall not expose the State to any liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).


The bill that was vetoed by the Governor would have created the New Jersey Secure Choice Savings Program, modeled after the Illinois Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program. It would have required all businesses with 25 or more employees to automatically enroll their employees in the Secure Choice Savings Program unless they offered another retirement option to their workers. Employees could determine a contribution level, select among a small number of investment options and opt out at any time. A default contribution level of three percent of salary would have been offered to those who did not select one on their own, in addition to a default life-cycle investment fund for those who did not choose one from the options offered. Assets would have been pooled into a single fund and managed by the New Jersey Treasurer and the Board, providing participants the benefit of low fees and competitive investment performance.


Employers who did not enroll eligible employees would have been subject to penalties unless they could show reasonable cause for the failure. They also would have been subject to penalties if they failed to timely deposit employee’s contributions. Investment returns were not guaranteed by the State, and employers were not fiduciaries over the program, bore no responsibility for administration, investment or investment performance of the program, and would not have been liable with respect to investment returns, program design or benefits paid to program participants.



New York

On February 26, 2015, Int 0692-2015 was introduced by Public Advocate Letitia James in the New York City Council. The bill would create a private pension advisory board to study the feasibility of establishing a pension fund for private sector workers in New York City. The board would consist of 11 members who have expertise in pension funds and finance. The bill does not set a deadline for the board to issue its report, but provides for the board’s dissolution upon issuance of the report. On June 23, 2015 a meeting on the bill was held in the Committee on Civil Service and Labor.No further action has been taken on the bill.


On February 27, 2015, New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer announced the creation of a Retirement Security Study Group. The study group is tasked with designing up to three retirement savings options by the fall of 2015 for consideration by a retirement task force. The study group is fully funded through existing resources within the Comptroller’s office.



North Carolina

On April 2, 2015, HB 515 was introduced by Representatives Schaffer, Ross, Glazier and Pierce. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Rules where no further action was taken before the conclusion of the legislative session.



HB 515, the Work and Save Plan Study directs the State Treasurer to study the establishment of a voluntary “Work and Save Plan Study” retirement program aimed at increasing the retirement savings options for private sector workers whose employers do not provide retirement savings plans. Participation in this program would be entirely voluntary and benefits would be portable between employers. In conducting the study, the bill directs the Department to consider the recommendations for such a program that were made by AARP. The State Treasurer is directed to report its findings and recommendations to the 2015 General Assembly when it reconvenes in 2016.


North Dakota

On January 12, 2015, HB 1200 was introduced by Representative George Keiser. The bill was defeated in the House on February 10, 2015.


HR 1200 would have established the Save Toward a Retirement Today retirement savings program administered by the State Treasurer. Employers with no more than 100 workers who do not offer retirement plans to their employees would have been eligible to participate on a voluntary basis. Employees of qualifying employers who opt not to participate could have enrolled on an individual basis.


Contributions by employers were not required, and workers could select their own contribution amounts. Contributions would be tax deferred at both the state and federal levels. The state would not be held liable for investment performance. An appropriation of $100,000 would have been authorized to design and implement the program.


Ohio

On October 2, 2013, SB 199 was introduced by Senator Eric KearneyThe bill was modeled after the California legislation and would establish the Ohio Secure Choice Retirement Savings Board, which would design and administer the Ohio Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program.


The program would be a state-sponsored payroll-deduction IRA for workers who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employers. Employers with five or more employees would be required to participate. Employees could select their contribution rate into the accounts, though a three percent of salary contribution would be set for those who do not select their own rate. Employees could opt-out at any time.
Assets would be pooled and professionally managed, and a minimum rate of return would be guaranteed through private insurance. Neither the state nor employers would be subject to any liability for fund performance. The program would be established only if the board finds that it will be self-sustaining, qualifies for favorable federal tax treatment, and is not subject to ERISA.


SB 199 was assigned to the Senate Finance Committee but did not advance during the 2013-2014 legislative session.


Oregon

On July 7, 2013, Oregon’s state legislature passed HB 3436, which creates a task force to explore options for helping private-sector workers who lack access to a workplace retirement plan save for retirement. The bill was signed into law by Governor John Kitzhaber on August 1, 2013.
The task force issued its report on September 12, 2014. The report found that retirement security in the state had deteriorated since a similar report was issued in 1997. The task force recommended developing and making available a retirement savings plan to all Oregonians who do not have access to a plan through their employer.


The recommendations envision a plan with a minimum employer role, automatic enrollment for the employee (with the ability to opt out), payroll deduction, and automatic annual escalation of contributions (with opt-out). The plan would be part of an overall retirement security program directed by a state board aimed at increasing enrollment in retirement security accounts. The program should include market research, small-business outreach, research into incentives, seeking legal guidance, and efforts to increase financial literacy.
On February 10, 2015, HB 2960 and its counterpart SB 615 were introduced by Senators Beyer, Riley, Roblan, and Rosenbaum and Representatives Williamson and Read and others. Both bills were referred to Committees of jurisdiction in their respective houses, where hearings were held and the bills were amended. HB 2960 passed the Oregon House by a vote of 32-26 on June 10, 2015, and passed the state Senate on June 16, 2015, by a vote of 17-13. The legislation was signed into law by Governor Kate Brown on Julne 25. The Governor named an Executive Director of the Oregon Retirement Savings Program and the Oregon Retirement Savings Board began holding monthly meetings in November, 2015.


The Savings Board has continued monthly meetings in 2016 and has issued an RFP for Market Analysis, Program Design and Financial Feasibility Services with a due date of January 19, 2016. The Board has also developed a detailed implementation timeline for action through 2017 and has created a working group on plan design which meets regularly.


HB 2960/SB 615 would establish a seven-member Oregon Retirement Savings Board in the office of the State Treasurer to administer the Oregon Retirement Savings Plan. The board would develop a defined contribution retirement plan for Oregon workers that would be pooled and professionally managed. Employers who do not provide a retirement savings plan would be required to offer their employees the opportunity to contribute to the Oregon Retirement Savings Plan through payroll deduction. The plan must provide for automatic enrollment with a default contribution level, though workers must be given the option of opting-out of the plan. Account owners would have the ability to maintain the accounts regardless of their place of employment and could roll over funds to other retirement accounts.


Before the plan can be established, the board must conduct a legal and market analysis to assess the feasibility of the plan and the applicability of ERISA. The plan cannot be created if the Board determines it would be subject to ERISA. Otherwise, the bill requires contributions to begin no later than June 16, 2017.


Finally, the Board is required to report to the Legislative Assembly with the results of the market and legal analysis, potential cost to employers, timeline for implementation and other issues, including recommendations regarding ways to increase financial literacy, by December 31, 2016.


Rhode Island

House Bill 6080 was introduced by Representatives Edwards, Blazejewski and others on April 15, 2015. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Labor and a hearing took place on April 30, 2015. The Committee recommended the bill be held for further study and no additional action has been taken.


House Bill 6080 would create an automatic enrollment payroll deduction IRA program for private sector workers that would be administered by the Department of Labor and Training (DLT).Employers who have been in business at least two years and have five or more employees would be required to participate in the program unless they receive a hardship waiver. Smaller employers may participate on a voluntary basis. The Department would be responsible for designing a program that would allow employees to opt out, select a contribution level and investment option, and terminate participation, and would facilitate education and outreach to employers and employees. The default contribution option would be set at three percent, unless the employee chooses a higher rate. Investment options would include a life-cycle fund or target date fund as the default options. Employers would not have fiduciary obligations related to this program, and neither employers nor the state are liable for any investment losses resulting from participation in the program.


Implementation would begin 24 months after enactment and employers would establish a payroll deposit retirement savings option within six months after implementation.


Utah

On January 30, 2015, joint resolution SJR 9 was introduced by Senator Todd Weiler and House Sponsor Jon Cox. The resolution passed the House on March 4, 2015 and was signed by the Senate President on March 9, 2015. It was sent to the office of the Lieutenant Governor for filing on March 18, 2015.


SJR 9 urges Utah’s small business workers and small business community to work with the state’s Legislature and its Treasurer to study and develop a model for saving for retirement through the workplace that is accessible to Utah’s workers. The community is further urged to consider legislation, if necessary, to put the plan into action.


Vermont

On January 7, 2014, Senator Anthony Pollina introduced S 193, a bill creating an interim Public Retirement Plan Study Committee to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a public retirement plan. The Committee would also study whether private-sector employers of a certain size who do not offer an alternative retirement plan should be required to offer the public retirement plan through a voluntary payroll deduction that would be available to private-sector employees who are not covered by an alternative retirement plan.The findings and recommendations of the Committee were due on January 15, 2015, at which point the authority of the Committee would sunset.


The bill was referred to the Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs on January 7, 2014, and was favorably reported to the Committee on Appropriations on March 3, 2014.Key provisions of S 193 were enacted as part of the FY 2015 budget bill on May 10, 2015.


On June 9, 2014, the Governor signed into law H 885 (Act 0179), legislation providing appropriations for Vermont agencies. Included in the bill was an appropriation of $5,000 to conduct an interim study on the feasibility of establishing a public retirement plan.
The Public Retirement Plan Study Committee conducted two meetings between November 26, 2014 and January 14, 2015, and subsequently issued an interim report.Due to the limited timeframe provided to the committee, the report was only able to identify a list of guiding principles that the committee should use to provide a framework for its analysis and to recommend to the General Assembly that the mandate of the committee be extended for a year (to January 16, 2016) to allow it to complete a more comprehensive report. No further action has been taken.


Virginia

On January 14, 2015, HB 1998 was introduced by Delegate Luke Torian. The bill passed the House unanimously on February 10, 2015 and passed the Senate unanimously on February 24, 2015. It was signed by the Governor on March 27, and will go into effect on July 1, 2015.


HB 1998 establishes a Virginia Retirement System working group directed to develop recommendations to encourage and facilitate savings for retirement. The working group will review current state and federal programs that encourage Virginia’s citizens to save for retirement by participating in retirement savings plans. The review will include an examination of retirement savings options for self-employed individuals, part-time workers, full-time workers whose employers do not offer a retirement savings plan, and groups with low rates of savings.


The working group will include representatives of the Virginia Department of Taxation, small business, the self-employed, the Virginia College Savings Plan, and other stakeholders. The working group is directed to report its findings to the Governor and the General Assembly by January 1, 2017. The findings may include recommendations for changes in legislation to achieve its goal of increasing retirement savings.


Washington


On February 4, 2015, SB 5826, the Washington State Small Business Marketplace Retirement Savings Bill, was introduced by Senators Mark Mullet and Don Benton and was assigned to the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance. After public hearings and consideration in a number of Senate committees, an amended version of the bill passed the Senate on April 10, 2015. HB 2109, the House companion bill, was introduced on February 12, 2015, and was referred to the House Committee on Appropriations. The committee passed the bill and referred it to the Rules Committee, and it ultimately passed the House, as amended by the Senate, on April 22, 2015. The Governor signed the bill into law on May 18, 2015. The Department of Commerce in Washington issued a request for proposals in November, 2015 and established a Small Business Marketplace information page on the Department’s website. A draft rule governing the establishment of the Washington State Small Business Marketplace was published for public review and comment in December, 2015. A hearing on the draft rule has been scheduled for March 16, 2016 and the rule’s intended date of adoption is March 25, 2016.


The bill establishes a small-business retirement plan marketplace in the state Department of Commerce. The marketplace would promote participation in low-cost, low-burden retirement savings plans and educate small employers on plan availability. The director of the marketplace would work with the private sector to establish a program that connects eligible employers with qualifying plans. Participation in the marketplace is completely voluntary for both employers and employees, but only those who are self-employed, sole proprietors or employers with fewer than one hundred employees are eligible to participate.


The marketplace director must approve a diverse array of private retirement plan options, including life insurance plans that are designed for retirement purpose, and at least three types of plans: a SIMPLE IRA that allows for employer contributions into participating worker’s accounts, a payroll-deduction IRA that does not allow employer contributions, and the myRA, the retirement savings vehicle proposed by the Obama administration that is backed by Treasury bonds.


The financial services companies approved to participate in the marketplace must offer a minimum of two product options: a target-date or other similar fund which provides asset allocations and maturities designed to coincide with the expected date of retirement of the participant, and a balanced fund.
Plans offered through the marketplace must include the option to roll over contributions to different retirement accounts. Although these plans are subject to ERISA, Washington State is not exposed to ERISA liability.



The program designed by the director must:

• Establish a protocol for reviewing and approving the qualifications of private sector financial firms seeking to participate in the marketplace
• Design and operate an internet website that includes information describing how eligible employers can participate in the marketplace
• Develop marketing materials about the marketplace that can be distributed electronically, posted on various agency websites, and inserted in agency mailers
• Identify and promote existing federal and state tax credits and benefits for employers and employees that are related to encouraging retirement savings or participating in retirement plans, and
• Promote the benefits of retirement savings and financial literacy.

Finally, the bill authorizes the appropriation of $100,000 in 2015 and $50,000 in 2016-2018 for implementation of the legislation.



West Virginia


On March 6, 2015, SCR 58 was introduced by Senator Tom Takubo and referred to the Rules Committee. No further action was taken on the bill before the legislative session ended.



The Senate Concurrent Resolution would direct the Joint Committee on Government and Finance to study the need and feasibility of the state creating a cost-effective and portable group retirement savings program for small businesses and their workers. The study would include a comparison of the costs of establishing the program with currently available private sector financial and retirement security opportunities for small business (defined as businesses with 50 or fewer employees).


SCR 58 directed that the report by submitted to the regular session of the legislature in 2016 and include drafts of any legislation that would be needed to implement its recommendations. The funds to conduct the study would be taken from the Joint Committee’s normal appropriations.


WisconsinOn February 24, 2015, SB 45 was introduced by Senator Dave Hansen and others and was referred to the Committee on Labor and Government Reform. The Assembly companion bill, AB 70, was introduced on March 5, 2015 and was referred to the Committee on Financial Institutions. No further action has been taken on either bill.


The bills would establish the Wisconsin Private Retirement Security Board and require the board to design a Wisconsin private retirement security plan. The board is required to study the financial feasibility of such a plan and recommend a design structure that is most reasonable in light of the potential participant population and cost of the plan. The board is also required to hold a minimum of five public hearings within three months on the plan, at least one of which will be held in each of the geographic areas of the State. The board must design the plan so that it mirrors, to the extent possible, the Wisconsin Retirement System.


The board is required to submit its report 18 months after enactment of the legislation. The report is required to include an estimate of the cost of initial establishment and administration of the plan, an estimate of the amount of time necessary to make the plan viable, and a recommendation for any legislation that is necessary to implement the plan. The bill directs the Department of Employee Trust Funds to provide staff and other resources to assist the Board in performing its duties and submit an estimate for the supplemental funds that may be necessary to implement the plan.


Finally, the bill allows the board to charge participants reasonable fees to cover the costs of implementing and administering the plan.


Updated May 2016
_________________________________________________
What we are hearing here in Baltimore and MD are TALKING POINTS from global banking 1% terms like PAYGO.  For those not knowing CHILE was one of the most far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty global banking 1% neo-liberalism installed several decades ago after brutal civil unrest and civil wars------yes, this is a far-right wing PENSION POLICY not meant to create retirement structures for our low-income---only meant to pretend workers were receiving more than they actually did.

We want to be sure US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE understand AARP is working for global banking private insurance and is not pro-seniors.  Here we see AARP morphing from private MEDICARE ADVANTAGE health insurance to privatized 'public' pensions for impoverished workers.

'In addition to the below summaries, AARP’s Public Policy Institute has established a State Retirement Savings Resource Center'

So, Obama and Clinton neo-liberals created the myRA structure at the national level---these are the same structures at state level and all have a goal of ending SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE TRUSTS to revert to these FAR-RIGHT WING pension structures.

PINOCHET AND HIS TEAM OF CHICAGO SCHOOL OF NEO-LIBERALISM ---BOYS.

'Pension reform of 1980-81
Pinochet in 1982.
On November 4, 1980, under the leadership of José Piñera, Secretary of Labor and Pensions under Augusto Pinochet with the collaboration of his team of Chicago Boys, the PAYGO pension system was changed to a capital funded system run by investment funds.[2] José Piñera had the idea of privatizing the pension system for the first time when reading the book Capitalism and Freedom from Milton Friedman'


We see in this article CHILE"S PAYGO was a replacement of SOCIAL SECURITY ------and of course it was 401K tied to global banking.  So, all of Baltimore's Maryland Assembly and city council members and 5% players are all promoting PAYGO---because it is raging global neo-liberal banking 1% more easily used as FODDER than our US public SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

When we ask our local farm team 5% players why they are promoting what was embraced by one of the most brutal, far-right, authoritarian, militaristic extreme wealth extreme poverty neo-liberal regimes----CHILE'S PINOCHET----we are told WE PLEDGED TO DO ANYTHING WE ARE TOLD.

How They Do It Elsewhere


By STEVEN GREENHOUSEMAY 14, 2013

THE United States can boast that it has the world’s best basketball players, fighter jets and country and western singers. But hardly anyone would ever boast that the United States has the world’s best retirement system.


Fifty-eight percent of American workers are not even in a pension or 401(k) plan. The Social Security system faces the threat of a huge shortfall. One-third of America’s retirees get at least 90 percent of their retirement income from Social Security, with annual benefits averaging a modest $15,000 for an individual. And just ask any participant in a 401(k) plan about the scary roller-coaster ride of the last six years.


Scores of other countries have elaborate retirement systems, and some of them avoid the biggest pitfalls of America’s retirement system.
In Australia, there is nearly universal participation among workers in a 401(k)-type retirement plan because of a government mandate. In the Netherlands, pension laws require that workers’ 401(k)-like plans be converted into lifetime annuities to ensure they do not spend down all their savings before they turn 75 or 80.


In Britain, the government has pressed retirement fund managers to keep administrative fees on many plans to less than half the average in the United States.

A new report ranking various countries’ retirement systems gives the United States a C, considerably worse than the A received by Denmark and the B-plus given to the Netherlands and Australia. The study, by the Mercer consulting firm and the Australian Center for Financial Services, weighs adequacy of benefits, breadth of coverage and other factors, and points to numerous weaknesses in the American system.


Those shortcomings include contribution rates too low to assure adequate retirements for middle-class Americans and many workers withdrawing large sums from their 401(k)’s before they retire.


The report also cites poverty-level retirement benefits for many low-income workers and pensions that fail to keep up with inflation. It also points to the common practice of retirees withdrawing large sums from their 401(k)’s soon after retiring, leaving many without an adequate income stream if they live past 80.


Lia van Wijk, 58, the chief financial officer at a policy research center in Amsterdam, praises the Dutch retirement system, which combines a Social Security-like fund with a nearly universal pension system to which employers contribute.


“It’s rather a good system,” she said, noting that she had at first worried that she would not have a large enough pension because she had once spent many years traveling abroad. But now she feels reassured, having steered additional money into her pension fund.
Ms. Van Wijk likes the Dutch system of converting workers’ pension reserves into an annuity upon retirement. “There are real advantages to taking an annuity,” she said.


She complained, however, that the Netherlands had increased its retirement age from 65 to 66 1/2. Fearing budget deficits and large unfunded retirement liabilities, the Netherlands has joined Britain, Italy, the United States and other countries in raising its retirement age, a move that increases contributions to the system while holding down outlays.


“The Dutch realize that there can be too much leakage,” said Peter Kiveron, director of the Holland Financial Center, a research group, insisting that the United States and other countries make it too easy for people to take large amounts out of their 401(k)’s long before they retire and as soon as they retire, causing people to run out of funds well before they turn 75 or 80. “The Dutch have learned their lessons and have a very rigid system.”


Even a cursory study of retirement systems abroad makes clear that many countries are far more willing than the United States to mandate painful steps by employers and workers.


Chile requires workers to contribute 10 percent of each paycheck to a 401(k)-type fund. In Australia, employers must contribute 9 percent of each worker’s salary into a retirement fund, and that contribution is set to rise to 12 percent in 2020. Australia’s politicians, conservative and liberal, concluded that the country’s version of social security was providing retirees with too paltry a basic retirement check.


In the United States, such moves would prompt many to denounce heavy-handed grabs of workers’ pay and expensive burdens on employers. But experts say it would be wise to study other nations’ systems for tips on strengthening America’s system.


John A. Turner, director of the Pension Policy Center in Washington, said some foreign features might not fit American culture, like mandated participation in the pension system as in Australia and Chile. He does not advocate such a mandate.


“We’re quite different from many other countries,” he said. “There’s an emphasis on individual freedoms and rights and responsibilities versus collectivism — although I admit we will never have high pension coverage without some form of mandate.”


“In the United States, collective is a four-letter word,” agreed Harry Smorenberg, head of a Netherlands-based consulting firm on pensions and founder of the World Pension Summit.


The United States does have some mandates, although they are often overlooked. Employers must pay 6.2 percent of each employee’s salary into Social Security, and every employee must also contribute that amount.
A second pillar of America’s retirement system — 401(k)’s — is voluntary, although some employers have embraced automatic enrollment for their employees while giving them the right to opt out. The third pillar is individual savings, including individual retirement accounts or I.R.A.’s. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College warned that 53 percent of American households were at risk of not having enough to maintain their living standards in retirement.
Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School, said America’s voluntary system was badly broken because nearly six out of 10 workers were not in pension or 401(k) plans. She favors an Australia-type mandate.


“We use our tax code far more than other countries to try to encourage socially beneficial behavior,” she said. “We’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars to incent people to save for retirement through 401(k)’s and I.R.A.’s. That costs us a huge amount of money without much effect on getting people to save for retirement.”


Other countries’ systems offer a variety of contrasts:


¶ In France, the retirement age is 60, rising to 62 in 2017. In Britain, it is 67, with some calling that callously high. (Americans born from 1943 to 1959 qualify for full retirement benefits at age 66, and those born in 1960 or later qualify at 67, although people can begin receiving reduced retirement benefits at age 62.)
¶ In Chile, when women give birth, the government makes a special bonus contribution into their 401(k)-type plan to compensate for the months away from their job when they would not be contributing to those plans.


¶ In Sweden, if the nation’s overall social security financing worsens from one year to the next, that country’s fiscal guardians — to prevent huge, unfunded liabilities — set a slightly lower annual retirement benefit for all who reach retirement age that year (remaining unchanged until they die). And if Sweden’s social security finances improve the following year, there is a recalculation, and those who reach retirement age the next year will receive slightly higher benefits throughout retirement.


¶ In Britain, when young workers first sign up for a 401(k)-type plan, the default option in the government’s main new savings plan has them investing mainly in bonds — while in the United States young workers are advised to invest mainly in stocks.


“In the U.K., they say first-time savers are very sensitive to losing money early on, so they put them in bond funds so they’ll have positive returns,” said David C. John, an economist at the AARP’s Public Policy Institute. “As time goes on, they’ll be moved more into equities.”

¶ In the Netherlands, if a company is deemed unable to finance its long-term pension obligations, the central bank can order reduced benefits for current and future retirees to help keep the company afloat. United States law bars companies from reducing pension benefits they have contractually agreed to.


“We took drastic action to get these plans back into a safety zone,” Mr. Smorenberg, the Dutch pension consultant, said.


¶ Singapore requires employees to contribute 20 percent of their pay and employers 16 percent toward a savings fund for retirement, health care and housing. The government guarantees a 2.5 annual return. Despite the high percentage contributed, many Singaporeans end up without enough money for retirement because they withdraw large sums to buy houses.


Despite such disparate strategies, many countries have similar worries. “Every country is worried about workers saving enough and about increasing longevity,” Professor Ghilarducci said. “Every country is worried about investing retirement funds correctly, and every country wants to minimize risks to the taxpayer so there aren’t large, unknown bills in the future.”


In 1986, when Australia’s social security program provided average retirement benefits of just one-third of preretirement pay, Parliament, pushed by labor unions, began requiring employers to contribute 3 percent of employee earnings into a 401(k)-like fund. When that still left many Australians near poverty in retirement, legislators increased the contribution to 9 percent.


Alan Matheson, 75, a retired social worker and minister who lives near Melbourne, said the Australian system had been good to him and his wife, Barbara, 69, a retired nurse. Both receive social security benefits while drawing from their retirement savings. “The system works well if you own a house,” he said. “But if you don’t own your own house or if you’re single, things will be more difficult for you.”


He said Australians backed the plan to raise retirement contributions to 9 percent and then 12 percent because “there’s a widespread acceptance by the population that with the aging of the population, the government is not going to be able to pay its Age Pension,” the Australian name for the social security system.



Australian workers have several investment options, including investment funds set up by companies and unions, and “retail” funds, much like mutual funds. Experts estimated that an Australian worker who contributes for 30 years into such a fund will have retirement income equal to 70 percent of preretirement pay — the percentage that many experts recommend.


“Before compulsion we found that most people didn’t save enough for retirement,” said Ian Silk, chief executive of AustralianSuper, a multi-employer pension fund. He called the mandate “the single most important feature of the Australian system.”



Dana M. Muir, a pension expert at the University of Michigan, opposes a compulsory plan like Australia’s, but she said the United States should borrow one aspect of the Australian system: no legal liability if a company makes imprudent decisions in setting up a 401(k)-type plan. The risk of legal liability, Professor Muir said, is a big reason many American businesses decide not to set up 401(k) plans — and a major reason the American participation rate is so low.


Although Australia’s plan is praised, experts say it has one major flaw. It does not provide an annuity option for most retirees, meaning many run the risk of emptying out their retirement fund long before they die.


In 2007, New Zealand created the world’s first nationwide, government-sponsored savings plan that automatically enrolls workers, while giving them the option not to participate.


The“KiwiSaver” plan — built alongside the basic social security-type system — gives employees the option of contributing 3, 4 or 8 percent of their pay, with employers required to contribute 3 percent. Workers choose which investment funds to put KiwiSaver money in, and those who do not choose are steered into six conservatively invested funds.


To encourage participation, the government provides a $1,000 tax-free “kick-start” contribution for each new participant upon enrollment, as well as a housing down payment of up to $5,000 after someone has participated in the program for three years.


The government determines investment offerings, but there are not dozens, as in the United States. “If you look at the U.S. experience,” said Mr. John of the AARP, “having tons of investment alternatives drives some people away from participating.”



Chile reformed its retirement system during the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet. In 1981, he largely replaced the country’s traditional social security-type plan with a 401(k)-type plan for everyone who entered the work force from that year onward.


Under the plan, 10 percent of each employee’s salary was automatically deposited into a 401(k)-type retirement fund, with workers having a choice of investment options. Today more than 90 percent of Chilean workers are in the system, which resembles, but goes further than, the partial Social Security privatization that President George W. Bush pushed unsuccessfully.


Patricio Navia, a professor of political science at the Diego Portales University in Chile, said the system was effective in getting most Chileans to save significant amounts for retirement. But he said there were shortcomings. The number of major investment funds has shrunk to six, from 15, leaving limited competition that has resulted in high fees.


And those unemployed for long stretches or working in the informal economy often did not save enough for retirement, causing the government to adopt a supplementary system in 2008 to top up the retirement funds of low-income retirees.


Another problem: As many Chileans paid into their new 401(k)-type plans instead of social security, that strained the financing of the pay-as-you-go social security plan. “For the U.S., making such a transition would be extremely costly,” Professor Navia said. “You can’t meet all your obligations in the pay-as-you-go system without receiving the money from people who are still working.”


In Britain, the government long had a voluntary savings program to supplement its main social security system. But officials grew alarmed that just a third of Britain’s workers were participating, so it enacted a 401(k)-type program that all employers must participate in unless they already have pension plans.


Under the program, employers must enroll all their employees in a retirement plan, although workers can opt out. The employer contributes 3 percent of each worker’s pay, the worker contributes 4 percent and the government 1 percent. The goal is to raise the worker participation rate to at least 70 percent.


“So far the opt-out rate is low — that’s very encouraging,” said Jane Vass, director of public policy at Age UK, Britain’s version of the AARP.


Many participants are not even choosing from the array of investment options. “The research shows that many employees didn’t want a large amount of choice because that makes decisions more difficult,” Ms. Vass said. “So the vast bulk of people go for the default scheme,” often a target date fund.


Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, has proposed creating a mandatory retirement savings plan much like Britain’s, with modest contributions by employers and employees. But in a country with a distaste for government mandates, his proposal could face rough going.


Mr. John of AARP said the United States could borrow only so much from other countries’ ideas. “Each country’s retirement system reflects their culture, their identity and their history,” he said. “It would be a mistake to assume that because something works in country ‘X’ it will work in the United States".
______________________________________________

'The Baltimore City Public Schools Construction and Revitalization Act of 2013 passed in the final days of the legislative session'.



We are not discussing this week----VOTING RIGHTS ACT----or PENSIONS made PAYGO-----what we are discussing this week in public policy is the DISAPPEARANCE of our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE's ability to opportunity and access what our public agencies are doing with revenue----with policy-----whether state or county.  Remember, these same policies are MOVING FORWARD in all US states driven by US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.

We shouted several years ago this same problem regarding the $1 BILLION SCHOOL BUILDING BOND here we see it is tied to one of those QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES----MARYLAND STADIUM AUTHORITY.  Our organization asked to see who was tied as investors to these school bonds---we wanted to see the agreements being signed and were told----IT IS PROPRIETARY ---YOU CANNOT SEE THESE DEALS.

Of course we knew why---they are tied to global banking 1% investment firms and global corporations with the goal of enfolding what are PUBLIC K-12 into corporate campuses as corporate schools.

99% WE THE PEOPLE and our new 99% of immigrants citizens need to understand these are ILLEGAL POLICY STANCES-----no laws can be passed to create these proprietary/closed-door secrecy when tied to a PUBLIC AGENCY.  It is the same as creating POLL TAXES/LITERACY TESTS to keep citizens from voting.

Baltimore 99% of citizens not only are being denied PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PUBLIC K-UNIVERSITY SCHOOLS----they are being tied to $1 billion in bond debt that will be soaked in fraud, corruption, cronyism as are all QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.  A US city or state cannot pass laws where the goal is known to be PROPRIETARY AND SECRETIVE actions within public agencies.



21st Century School Buildings Program


The Baltimore City Public Schools Construction and Revitalization Act of 2013 passed in the final days of the legislative session. It authorizes the City of Baltimore, Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners, Interagency Committee on School Construction, and MSA to collaborate on the Plan. The Act authorizes MSA to leverage $60 million dollars into bond money to support an estimated 26-28 school renovation and replacement projects. Construction has begun, and the program is on schedule to be substantially completed by 2021.

The Memorandum of Understanding, approved by the Maryland Board of Public Works October 16, 2013, outlines each party's roles and responsibilities in the multi-faceted project. 


project Summary


Through the collective efforts of Baltimore City Public Schools, the Maryland Stadium Authority, the City of Baltimore, and Maryland’s Interagency Committee on School Construction, the mission of the 21st Century School Buildings Plan is to:

• Build future-focused, adaptable, sustainable and high-quality schools that inspire learning and support the educational success of Baltimore City Public Schools students
• Design schools that allow for recreational opportunities for the community, combined with other cooperative uses and school partnership programs
• Manage the costs of school facility operations by closing under-utilized schools, opening new award-winning education programs and implementing improved facilities maintenance operations
• Execute a cost-effective and timely school design and construction program, integrating local hiring and student-based learning opportunities
• Be good stewards of Maryland taxpayer dollars and champions for education, economic development and neighborhood revitalization in the City of Baltimore

To read more about the 21st Century Schools program, visit their website
__________________________________________

THE MARYLAND STADIUM AUTHORITY is that quasi-governmental agency we are told is allowed to be proprietary and secret because of PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.  The article below states all these concerns----it is not a coincidence that BALTIMORE CITY PAPER was taken over shortly after this article by BALTIMORE SUN ---its hard drives with decades of old articles 'LOST' and now Baltimore City Paper is out of business----consolidated media in Baltimore only allowing PROPAGANDA AND MYTH-MAKING.


'The Baltimore school system's financial advisor is Public Resources Advisory Group (PRAG), a 28-year-old, New York-based company that prides itself on working exclusively for government entities so as to avoid conflicts of interest. PRAG, which also counts the Maryland Stadium Authority among its many clients, has consistently ranked among the top financial advisors in the country'.

As we said last week, these QUASI-AGENCY status were created just before ROBBER BARON few decades to allow this massive and systemic corruption of US government agencies -----MOVING FORWARD ROBBER BARON CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and killing any ability of 99% of WE THE PEOPLE to see what our local and state agencies are doing.

WE ARE DOING ALL THIS FOR THE KIDS------OH, REALLY??????

Oh, yeah MR 5% PLAYER ANDERSON------it is indeed INNOVATIVE as in GLOBAL BANKING COMPLEX FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT----



The Money Pit


Edward Ericson Jr.  March 13, 2013 BALTIMORE CITY PAPER


The Feb. 26 rally on Lawyers Mall in Annapolis made the TV news. Del. Curtis "Curt" Anderson (D-Baltimore), Baltimore City Public Schools CEO Andres Alonso, and Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake were among the officials making the case for guaranteed funding to rebuild the city's public schools.


"We've come up with an innovative way to try to raise money to build schools in Baltimore," Anderson said. "This is exactly what people in Annapolis have been telling us to do for years and years."


Andres Alonso told the crowd, "This is about you. This is about the kids. This is about the buildings they deserve-better buildings now."
"We will not take no for an answer," added Rawlings-Blake.


Viewers of WBAL's nightly news broadcast saw all this, and readers of The Baltimore Sun, The Daily Record, and Patch.com got much the same story. But the details of the city's audacious plan to replace or rebuild 136 public school buildings have garnered scant coverage during the nearly two years the plan has been in motion. And questions remain even as the legislature nears a decision on the matter.


The stakes are huge. For more than a decade Baltimore schools could hardly be mentioned without the prefix "crumbling." Studies of the system's facilities needs have estimated the price tag at between $2.4 billion and $2.8 billion.




That's as much as the whole city budget, or two to three years of the school system's operating budget. It's also 50 times the amount of money the school system typically gets for capital improvements in a typical year.


The plan on the table would obligate the state to hand over at least $32 million to the city's schools in each of the next 30 years as a "block grant." Combined with money raised from the city's controversial 5 cent bottle tax, plus several other sources, an estimated annual total of about $68 million would be amassed.


Those dollars would then be handed over to a nonprofit corporation which has not yet been chartered. That corporation, called the School Construction Authority, would then issue bonds, pledging the $68 million to pay them off.
The amount of bonds that could be raised this way: $1.1 billion.


Having a billion dollars available to renovate and build new city schools would be huge. In the words of the Jan. 8 report by the state Interagency Committee on School Construction (IAC), Baltimore City would be "implementing a construction program on a scale that is unprecedented in Maryland and would be one of the largest single-jurisdiction programs in the United States."


But here's the kicker: $1.1 billion is less than half of what the city says it actually needs. Within three years of receiving its unprecedented allotment of guaranteed state money, the Baltimore school system would again have to return to the legislature and other potential funders-this time with an even bigger funding request.
"It's a huge lift, technically-and in terms of the financial thinking. . . and in public education and in the political process," says Michael Sarbanes, executive director of the school system's Engagement Office.



The fact that this enormous, creative, risky push for school financing would deliver just 44 percent of the school system's minimum identified need is obvious to anyone who reads the school system's plan or the IAC report. But it has not been featured in the media coverage of the funding drive.


Nor have these other details:


1. The latest $2.4 billion school building estimate does not include more than $100 million in furniture and fixtures that would be needed.


2. Maintenance of existing buildings during the proposed 10-year new-school build-out is predicated on doubling the school system's bond cap from $100 million to $200 million. It is as yet unclear where the money to service those bonds would come from.


3. Given the 10-year build-out proposed, the 30-year payoff plan under discussion would actually be closer to 40 years.



"I'm not going to give you this as a definite," Sarbanes says when asked how long the total bond payback time would be. "But if the last [bond issue] is eight years out, then. . . the point about it is, this is a long-term commitment."


Sarbanes' reticence is understandable. City and school officials have said little publicly about these challenges. Instead, the focus of the school board, the school superintendent, and the consortium of nonprofits called TransForm Baltimore that has been driving this policy since 2011 has been on the city school stakeholders-parents, students, teachers, and administrators-themselves.


"We asked them what should be taken into account. They told us," says Sarbanes. "So that's what drove it."




This makes sense. Without presenting a united front, the city stands little chance of getting the state legislature to agree to the plan. With the school system's users on board, hundreds of children can be bused to the capital for photo ops; those who oppose the plan can be painted as anti-kid.


And the need is undeniable. The report released last June by Jacobs Project Management, the consultant hired by the city schools to assess the damage, tells a familiar story (familiar because it is the third or fourth comprehensive study of Baltimore school facilities undertaken in the past decade or so):


Nearly a quarter of the city's schools were built before 1946; 69 percent of the system's 182 schools are in "very poor" condition, according to an industry-standard assessment system. Fifty schools should be replaced or scrapped altogether.


When assessed in terms of "educational adequacy," the average city school received a grade of 55 out of 100. Fail.


More than one-third of the district's school space was found to be unused or underutilized. As the IAC review concludes, "In every assessment conducted, City School[s] did not compare favorably with other urban districts or any of the national averages."


As Alonso says, "This is for the kids." And it is.

Given the obvious need to close some schools, Sarbanes says Alonso has taken special care to develop the plan around the people who are here now: "One of the principles that went into the plan, with the guidance of the school board, was that if a community was going to be experiencing the closing of their school-and that's one of the most painful things that can happen, because schools have enormous emotional resonance-then those children would be among the first to experience a new school."


The school system's plan is detailed to the level of each student, and how far he or she would have to walk to school if the plan is implemented. It is a case study in the art of managing tens of thousands of diverse constituents into a broad consensus.


But the parents of city public schoolchildren, upwards of 90 percent of whom receive free or reduced-price lunches, are mostly not the people whose taxes will be tapped to pay for the plan. Those taxpayers live in the counties, where, according to the IAC report, another $12 billion or $13 billion in school building projects are awaiting funding.


Here's what the city is asking for right now:


The "block grant" concept is derived from annual capital improvement funds the state doles out to every jurisdiction each year as the budget allows. Over the past five years, the city's average has been less than $32 million. The legislation-HB 860 and SB 743-would lock in the city's take at $32 million, at least. That would give the buyers of any bonds backed by the grants the assurances they need that the bonds would be paid off.


But, as the IAC notes, the state budget fluctuates with the larger economy. Dedicating $32 million to Baltimore for the next three decades might cause a squeeze if there is another recession. "Within recent memory. . . the capital budget was set at $116.5 million in FY 2004 and at $125.9 million in FY 2005 as a result of severe State fiscal constraints. During those fiscal years, annual funding for even the largest jurisdictions was reduced to well below $15 million and State approvals of planning, which represent a commitment of future funding for approved projects, were also significantly curtailed."


Even the act of dedicating $32 million to Baltimore might cause bond rating agencies to lower the state's own bond rating, the report says.


That brings up the question: If Baltimore's needs are so great, why does the state not simply bond the construction directly? The answer goes to the heart of the city plan's creativity, which is more political than economic. "It doesn't require voter approval," said Frank Patinella, an advocate with the ACLU of Maryland Education Reform Project, which has led the charge for the plan. "It doesn't count against the debt limit."


In effect, the structure of the proposed financing system is designed to mask the size and effect of the borrowing, not from government bond raters but from the taxpayers who would foot the bill.


Besides the $32 million block grant, the city is counting on no less than $8 million annually from the bottle tax, plus its own general fund contribution of $15 million, which is also styled as a block grant. Gambling funds are included at $4 million, even though the casino in question is as yet unbuilt and the existing Hollywood casino in Perryville, citing market conditions, just won the right to reduce the number of slot machines by 23 percent. The final $7 million would come from an accounting change involving city retiree health benefits. The details of this are unclear in the documents City Paper has reviewed. Sarbanes was not able to explain it, except to say that the change will result in an additional $7 million in funding at first, and that will probably increase over time to $11 million.


As late as June of last year, the bottle tax and other city revenue were going to be combined to float a $300 million bond by the city itself to fund school construction. That plan, unveiled in November 2011 by Mayor Rawlings-Blake, was overtaken by the more ambitious-and four-times-more expensive-plan on the table today.


Under the current plan, $66 to $69 million a year would be handed over to the Construction Authority, an entity which does not yet exist. The authority-like the Stadium Authority-would be quasi-governmental, run by political appointees and accountable to the government via annual internal audits and a state legislative audit every six years.


The Authority would implement the school system's 10-year-plan, says Sarbanes, and school system officials would "act as an agent to the Authority." When disputes arise between what the school system wants and what the Authority's bosses think best, someone-it has not yet been decided who-would get to make the decision. "The details have to get worked out," Sarbanes says.


The Construction Authority is part of the system needed to remove these bonds from the state's balance sheet. It would also, in theory, remove direct control of billions of borrowed dollars from the school system itself, which has over decades developed a reputation for incompetence and corruption.



Between 2004 and 2008, 11 city school maintenance and facilities employees were criminally convicted in a corruption scheme that had operated since at least 1991. One contractor, Gilbert Sapperstein of Allstate Boiler Service, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for his part in a bribery and kickback scheme involving Rajiv Dixit, then-head of the school system's facilities maintenance program. Millions of dollars were stolen.



Sapperstein-a longtime vending machine operator and generous political donor-served only one month in prison. The heating and air conditioning systems AllState never fixed have all along been cited as evidence of underfunding and the need for hundreds of millions in repairs and upgrades.



Sarbanes prefers not to dwell on this history. "I don't have a 10-year perspective," he says, stressing the improvements to the city's facilities maintenance section that have been made in recent years. "They do good work and at a high quality. . . the big problem for years and years and years was that we didn't have a strategy that would address the real underlying problem, which was that the buildings were deteriorating."


In its 2006 audit of the city school system, the Office of Legislative Audits made "23 recommendations covering virtually every financial management area reviewed," according to that 109-page document's introduction. "The areas where more significant problems were identified included procurement, facilities, inventory control, transportation services and payroll/human resources," the audit said, adding that the city school system's "management must develop a plan and related strategies for addressing these audit issues, including mechanisms to monitor the progress of implementing corrective actions."


The next audit, released just six months ago, found "Competitive Procurement Policies Were Not Always Followed," continuing problems with procurement procedures on "two large contracts," overpayment for overtime and leave, missing computers, and said the district "Did Not Ensure Contractors Had Properly Completed Maintenance Projects Prior to Payment," among the 26 findings it reported.



And this: "A Long-Term Facilities Master Plan Was Not Prepared."


David G. Lever, executive director of the Interagency Committee on School Construction, says he is confident in the school system's abilities today. "As you know, the school system has improved very much in facilities management since 2005," he says in a phone interview. "With new management-particularly Mr. [J. Keith] Scroggins and his crew-we have seen a significant improvement in the way the facilities are managed."


Lever's confidence had better be well-placed. Under the proposal on the table now, Baltimore City Public Schools would increase its staff of building professionals from the current 14 to about 34. "An additional 5 FTE's [that's full-time employees] would work directly for the Authority," the IAC report says.


Even with all those extra bodies, Baltimore City's staff would number 10 fewer than that of the Montgomery County school system, which manages about $250 million worth of capital projects each year-$20 million less than Baltimore would be handling annually if its plan is approved.


Under the plan, then, Baltimore projects itself to be significantly more competent and efficient than Montgomery County.
"They don't have the breadth or the depth in the system yet," Lever acknowledges. "It will take some time to build up to that level."


Baltimore's plan is modeled on a school building frenzy undertaken last decade by Greenville, S.C., a county of 461,000 souls that in 1993 was blessed by the arrival of a $450 million BMW factory. Tire giant Michelin also expanded there after buying out rival BF Goodrich in 1989. And General Electric, the area's largest employer, builds turbines and aviation equipment there. The well-paying jobs have attracted thousands of young families and the county did not see how its school system could keep up with the demand.


In 1999 the Greenville school board developed a plan to take about $60 million and borrow about $800 million to build or renovate 86 schools in four years. The plan ended up taking about six years and finished 70 schools to serve its 70,000 students-at a cost of $1.06 billion. Despite the overruns, it has been touted as a huge success by the consultants involved -even though the state of South Carolina has, in the words of the IAC report, "modified the conditions for the further use of this method."



Greenville and Baltimore City could hardly have less in common. Greenville is 77 percent white; Baltimore City is 32 percent white. Greenville's household income is 7 percent above the state average; Baltimore City's is 45 percent below. Greenville is a growing county with an expanding industrial base (in 2012, Michelin announced it would build a new $750 million factory nearby); Baltimore is losing population and industrial jobs.



Where Greenville built its schools to keep up with demand, Baltimore wants to build its schools in order to create demand-the construction jobs standing in for the tire and car-making jobs Greenville has. "There would also be a significant impact on these neighborhoods where this construction is going on which will be very helpful to the goal of growing the city," Sarbanes says.


One thing Baltimore does have in common with Greenville is the desire to get around existing laws limiting debt. Greenville's bonding authority had been capped to 8 percent of its tax base by the South Carolina constitution. As one of the Greenville school board members wrote: "The constitutional debt limit does not apply because the nonprofit is an independent legal entity." The structure also sidestepped a law forbidding lease-purchase arrangements.



Brent Jeffcoat, then bond counsel to the Greenville school board, blessed the structure as "legal." Last summer, officials with TransForm Baltimore, the consortium of nonprofits that is nominally driving this process, flew Jeffcoat to Baltimore to solicit his advice. Jeffcoat is one of several consultants that the Baltimore is counting on to help structure the deal.


The Baltimore school system's financial advisor is Public Resources Advisory Group (PRAG), a 28-year-old, New York-based company that prides itself on working exclusively for government entities so as to avoid conflicts of interest. PRAG, which also counts the Maryland Stadium Authority among its many clients, has consistently ranked among the top financial advisors in the country.



In 2010, PRAG managed 172 municipal bond issues totaling over $42 billion.

Every deal PRAG structures is different, but the school bond concept bears similarity to a much smaller deal the company facilitated in 2006-right down to the concern about political fallout.


In 2006, as the facts of the 1990s utility deregulation fad came clear, Baltimore Gas and Electric demanded-and the Public Service Commission approved-a 72 percent rate increase. Collecting it all at once would have caused an electoral revolt, so government and utility officials called on PRAG founders William W. Cobbs and Wesley C. Hough to stamp their approval on some structured finance magic.


Testifying before the PSC, Cobbs and Hough's expertise allowed the PSC to approve the scheme in which BGE would issue the bonds through a shell corporation so as to "insulate the bond investor from the credit risk of the company."



In that deal, BGE "sold" its right to collect the huge rate increase to a new corporate entity-RSB BondCo LLC-which then took the ratepayers' money as collateral for long-term bonds it issued. BondCo then forked over the borrowed cash upfront to the utility.


This way, ratepayers had only to pay a 15 percent increase up front, and BGE still got its windfall. Bond investors got a steady stream of income, and Governor Martin O'Malley was able to claim that he reduced the impact of the unavoidable rate increase.


All this was done and all true, despite the fact that the scheme increased overall costs from about $600 million to more than $800 million, including $11 million paid in "bond issuance fees."


In 2012 Baltimore County called upon PRAG to bless a scheme to finance with bonds a projected $250 million pension shortfall by borrowing that sum at 4.25 to 4.5 percent interest and investing it elsewhere. This is supposedly going to save big money down the line, as the money raised earns a bigger return for years before it is disbursed to retirees.


It's rather like a homeowner taking out a second mortgage to play the stock market: It might get him a big boat or it might put him into foreclosure.

As Keith Dorsey, Baltimore County's director of budget and finance, writes on Baltimore County's website (with Cobbs as a co-author): "In the opinion of the County's financial advisor, Public Resources Advisory Group, based upon preliminary discussions with credit analysts, the POBs [pension obligation bonds] will not negatively impact the County's Triple AAA bond ratings although there has been no formal confirmation from the rating agencies."


PRAG has fewer than 50 people on staff and wears its white hat with pride. As the company boasts on its website: "We are not, and have never been, the subject of an investigation."


About the TransForm Baltimore plan, the first $1.1 billion round of funding still awaits a vote. Much is still to be determined-from the makeup of the proposed Construction Authority, to who makes the decisions when budget and philosophy clash, to the big question of where the second round of financing-at least $1.4 billion-would be found.



"We're gonna have to figure out where does the rest of the money come from," Sarbanes says. "But at that point, we're going to have more experience, we're going to have momentum, and we're going to have a proof that doing [it] this way is good for the kids and good for the city."
"Throughout the construction phase, we're going to see cost escalation," Frank Patinella acknowledges. "We don't know what the bond market is going to look like. But we know that if we wait, it is going to cost more."
"At this point, I would have to say that I don't have a full grasp of the details of how this would be financed," David Lever says. "Stage two is not completely clear to us either."


____________________________________________


There are not many US citizens not understanding that when right wing states were made to eliminate laws blocking EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS to voting------these same states started creating crony, corrupt, and rigged election structures-----sadly, our 1% BLACK BOULE killing those 99% black voter rights with these same corruptions.  That was followed by BUSH-DIEBOLD computer voting with BUILT-IN HACKING of US elections assuring only global banking ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT CLINTON/BUSH neo-liberals and neo-cons won elections.  SOCIOPATHS are indeed hard to stop.

ACLU fighting for the same VOTING RIGHTS as back in 1960s knowing 99% of WE THE PEOPLE cannot even access or have the opportunity to BE CITIZENS. It does no good to vote in rigged, corrupted elections.

Every time we allow CORPORATIONS to come into our PUBLIC AGENCIES---and that is what DIEBOLD was-----a corporate control of US voting that was completely done by our local and state election agencies with paper ballots and citizens watching the entire process.  Today after these few decades of election corruptions----our state and county election boards are filled with 5% players ready to continue these election frauds whether computer or paper ballots.

THE GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM ISSUE ACROSS ALL PUBLIC POLICIES----IS THIS QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL PUBLIC PRIVATE STATUS OF ALL OUR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.  WHETHER RIGHT WING OR LEFT WING----IF A GROUP IS NOT FIGHTING AGAINST THESE STRUCTURES---THEY ARE 5% TO THE 1% GLOBAL BANKING PLAYERS.


If we have no access or opportunity to see what is happening in our US public agencies---no way to hold people accountable---we are NOT CITIZENS and elections have NO EMPOWERMENT.

Voting Rights


Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy and the fundamental right upon which all our civil liberties rest. The ACLU works to protect and expand Americansʼ freedom to vote.

• What's at Stake
• Current Issues
• The Latest
• Act

What's at StakeFollowing the 2016 election, the fight for voting rights remains as critical as ever. Politicians across the country continue to engage in voter suppression, efforts that include additional obstacles to registration, cutbacks on early voting, and strict voter identification requirements. Through litigation and advocacy, the ACLU is fighting back against attempts to curtail an essential right in our democracy, the right to vote. ​
In addition to this litigation, we are working with our affiliates to advocate for policies that make it easier for Americans to vote, such as the expansion of same-day and online voter registration. 

_______________________________________________
Below we see when our US pension was staged for ROBBER BARON global banking 1% use as FODDER.  Here again is that FAKE 5% religious leader--an OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS FREEMASON----Jimmy Carter.  Carter era pushed those QUASI GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY structures at the same time he created the 401K structures that would be open to DEREGULATED BANKING fleecing.



'Legislative history

Revenue Act of 1978.


The Act was passed by the 95th Congress and was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on November 6, 1978'.

This is when corporations were allowed to DEFER contributions and our state and local government officials DEFERRED contributions keeping pensions systems current and fully-funded-----of course it was made to sound like a LEFT social progressive opportunity.  So, US pensions became DEREGULATED and corporations and pols started defunding them and using them as GLOBAL BANKING 1% FODDER.


3. Deferred Compensation and Pension Plans


   * Permits deferral of the lesser of $7500 or 33 1/3% for employees and independent contractors performing services for state or local government or tax-exempt rural electric cooperatives. Extends rules of deductibility to deferred payments for services of independent contractors; * Expands non-taxable aspects of "cafeteria" and deferred profit-sharing plans; * Raises deduction amount to $7500 or 15% for employer contributions to IRA's; * Special breaks for participants in defined benefit plans, and employees of tax-exempt charitable organizations and educational institutions.

Here we see today's media selling the idea that only a few million of citizens were losers in these global banking 1% pensions as FODDER innovative policies.  We KNOW MOVING FORWARD there will be no 99% PENSIONS FOR YOU.  As global investment firms tied to ponzi scheme global banking frauds hiding illegal investments try to make it appear those lower-income US citizens were the losers-----all 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE are losing those pensions and retirements because we have no ability to see what these investment firms are doing with these savings structures.



A historical accident?

It wasn't supposed to work out this way.
The 401(k) account came into being quietly, as a clause in the Revenue Act of 1978.

THE FAILURE OF CHOICE----OH, THAT IS THE PROBLEM!


For millions, 401(k) plans have fallen short


Kelley Holland | @KKelleyHolland


Published 7:02 AM ET Mon, 23 March 2015 Updated 7:27 AM ET Tue, 24 March 2015


You need to know this number: $18,433.


That's the median amount in a 401(k) savings account, according to a recent report by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Almost 40 percent of employees have less than $10,000, even as the proportion of companies offering alternatives like defined benefit pensions continues to drop.


Older workers do tend to have more savings. At Vanguard, for example, the median for savers aged 55 to 64 in 2013 was $76,381. But even at that level, millions of workers nearing retirement are on track to leave the workforce with savings that do not even approach what they will need for health care, let alone daily living. Not surprisingly, retirement is now Americans' top financial worry, according to a recent Gallup poll.



To be sure, tax-advantaged 401(k) plans have provided a means for millions of retirement savers to build a nest egg. More than three-quarters of employers use such defined contribution plans as the main retirement income plan option for employees, and the vast majority of them offer matching contribution programs, which further enhance employees' ability to accumulate wealth.


But shifting the responsibility for growing retirement income from employers to individuals has proved problematic for many American workers, particularly in the face of wage stagnation and a lack of investment expertise. For them, the grand 401(k) experiment has been a failure.


"In America, when we had disability and defined benefit plans, you actually had an equality of retirement period. Now the rich can retire and workers have to work until they die," said Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist at the New School for Social Research who has proposed eliminating the tax breaks for 401(k)s and using the money saved to create government-run retirement plans.

A historical accident?It wasn't supposed to work out this way.


The 401(k) account came into being quietly, as a clause in the Revenue Act of 1978. The clause said employees could choose to defer some compensation until retirement, and they would not be taxed until that time. (Companies had long offered deferred compensation arrangements, but employers and the IRS had been going back and forth about their tax treatment.)



"401(k)s were never designed as the nation's primary retirement system," said Anthony Webb, a research economist at the Center for Retirement Research. "They came to be that as a historical accident."


History has it that a benefits consultant named Ted Benna realized the provision could be used as a retirement savings vehicle for all employees. In 1981, the IRS clarified that 401(k) plan participants could defer regular wages, not just bonuses, and the plans began to proliferate.




By 1985, there were 30,000 401(k) plans in existence, and 10 years later that figure topped 200,000. As of 2013, there were 638,000 plans in place with 89 million participants, according to the Investment Company Institute. And assets in defined contribution plans totaled $6.6 trillion as of the third quarter of 2014, $4.5 trillion of which was held in 401(k) plans.



"Nobody thought they were going to take over the world," said Daniel Halperin, a professor at Harvard Law School. who was a senior official at the Treasury Department when 401(k) accounts came into being.

Rise of defined contributions



But a funny thing happened as 401(k) plans began to multiply: defined benefit plans started disappearing. In 1985, the year there were 30,000 401(k) plans, defined benefit plans numbered 170,000, according to the Investment Company Institute. By 2005, there were just 41,000 defined benefit plans–and 417,000 401(k) plans.


The reasons for the shift are complex, but Ghilarducci argued that in the early years, "workers overvalued the promise of a 401(k)" and the prospect of amassing investment wealth, so they accepted the change. Meanwhile, companies found that providing a defined contribution, or DC, plan cost them less. (Ghilarducci studied 700 companies' plans over 17 years and found that when employers allocated a larger share of their pension expenditures to defined contribution plans, their overall spending on pension plans went down.)



But the new plans had two key differences. Participation in 401(k) plans is optional and, while pensions provided lifetime income, 401(k) plans offer no such certainty.


"I'm not saying defined benefit plans are flawless, but they certainly didn't put as much of the risk and responsibility on the individual," said Terrance Odean, a professor of finance at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business.

Early signs of troubleThat concept may not have been in the forefront of employees' minds at the start, but problems with 401(k)s surfaced early.


For one thing, employee participation in 401(k) plans never became anywhere near universal, despite aggressive marketing by investment firms and exhortations by employers and consumer associations to save more. A 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office found that "the percentage of workers participating in employer-sponsored plans has peaked at about 50 percent of the private sector workforce for most of the past two decades."



The employees who did participate tended to be better paid, since those people could defer income more easily. The GAO report found that most of the people contributing as much as they were allowed tended to have incomes of $126,000 or more.


In part, that is because the ascent of 401(k) plans came as college costs started their steep rise, hitting many employees in their prime earning years. Stagnating middle-class wages also made it hard for people to save.


Fees have been another problem. Webb has studied 401(k) fees, and he concluded that "as a result of high fees, fund balances in defined contribution plans are about 20 percent less than they need otherwise be."

The Department of Labor in 2012 established new rules requiring more disclosure of fees, but it faced strong industry opposition, including a 17-page comment from the Investment Company Institute.

Failure of choice


Most employees also turned out to be less than terrific investors, making mistakes like selling low and buying high or shying away from optimal asset classes at the wrong time.


Berkeley's Odean and others have studied the effect of investment choice on 401(k) savers, and found that when investors choose their asset class allocation, a retirement income shortfall is more likely. If they can also choose their stock investments, the odds of a shortfall rise further.


"401(k)'s changed two things: you could choose not to participate, and you chose your own investments, which a lot of people, I think, screw up," Halperin said.

Benna, who is often called the father of the 401(k), has argued that many plans offer far too many choices. " If I were starting over from scratch today with what we know, I'd blow up the existing structure and start over," he said in a 2013 interview.



Another problem is that when 401(k) savers retire, they often opt to take their savings in a lump sum and roll the money into IRAs, which may entail higher fees and expose them to conflicted investment advice. A recent report by the Council of Economic Advisors found that savers receiving such advice, which may be suitable for them but not optimal, see investment returns reduced by a full percentage point, on average. Overall, the report found that conflicted investment advice costs savers $17 billion every year.



The result of all these shortcomings?


Some 52 percent of American households were at risk of being unable to maintain their standard of living as of 2013, a figure barely changed from a year earlier—even though a strong bull market should have pushed savings higher and the government gives up billions in tax revenue to subsidize the plans.


In a hearing last September on retirement security, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., declared that "something is out of whack. The American taxpayer delivers $140 billion each year to subsidize retirement accounts, but still millions of Americans nearing retirement have little or nothing saved."

Retirement worries riseAs problems mount with 401(k)s, Americans' worries about retirement security are intensifying.



A 2014 Harris poll found that 74 percent of Americans were worried about having enough income in retirement, and in a survey published recently by the National Institute on Retirement Security, 86 percent of respondents agree that the country is facing a retirement crisis, with that opinion strongest among high earners.



Changes may come, but for now, 401(k) plans and their ilk remain Americans' predominant workplace retirement savings vehicle. They may be a historical accident, but for the millions of people now facing a potentially impoverished retirement, the fallout is grave indeed.


As a former Treasury official, Halperin witnessed the creation of 401(k) accounts, But, "on balance, I don't think it was a big plus" that the accounts were created, he said. "I don't take credit for it. I try to avoid the blame."

We were reading a global banking 1% literary STAR Willa Cather------writing back in the days of Great Depression and last century's ROBBER BARON ROARING 20s. We love Willa's historical fiction----this one called THE PROFESSOR.


Willa being that global banking 1% freemason STAR prefaced the commercialization of our US public universities----the morals and ethics of UNIVERSITIES as PATENT MILLS----but one point we would like to make today is that faithful servant to what was to become a wealthy household loses her life's savings--$500 ---quite a lot to save by household seamstress. She made a bad investment tied to her church group ignoring what her wealthy employer advised. Of course the fiction has these wealthy employers feeling they will throw in their wealth to replace the seamstress' stock market losses.


Our 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE and our 99% global labor pool must remember what deregulation during CLINTON ERA 1990s created in the investment world-----where what we call STOCKBROKERS are now being allowed to be INVESTMENT COUNSELORS OR FIRMS. This was never done because ------people assume investment counselors fall under FIDUCIARY LAW. We have shouted over and again.......many of the laws passed these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ARE ILLEGAL. They break every kind of historical precedent for legal standings----whether covered in US CONSTITUTION, BILL OF RIGHTS, COMMON LAW, COURT RULING PRECEDENCE. The 5% global banking pols and players can PRETEND all they want that simply passing a law makes it legal. Rogue ROBBER BARON pols passing laws to stage massive and systemic frauds do not fit US Rule of Law -----a Congress passing a law stating Congressional pols are not held to INSIDER TRADING laws 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE are------have passed an illegal law. In US all citizens are held equally under law-----

So, people considering themselves stock brokers being allowed to sell themselves as investment advisors staging massive loses to clients----FORGET ABOUT THAT BEING LEGAL.

Is my Financial Advisor a Fiduciary or a Stockbroker?
Written by Ethan S. Braid, CFA - March 2013


Is my Financial Advisor a Fiduciary or a Stockbroker?


What is the fiduciary duty and why is that important?


The fiduciary duty requires an investment adviser, by law, to act in the best interest of her clients, putting her clients’ interests ahead of her own at all times.[i] Under the fiduciary duty, an investment adviser must provide advice and investment recommendations that she views as being the best for the client. In addition to being obligated to put clients’ interests ahead of their own, fiduciaries must also adhere to the duties of loyalty and care.[ii] An investment adviser, subject to the fiduciary duty, is required to provide up-front disclosures to the client, before any contracts are signed to provide investment advice. These disclosures cover important topics such as the investment adviser’s qualifications, services provided, compensation, range of fees, methods of analysis, record of any disciplinary actions and possible conflicts of interest, if any.[iii] An investment adviser that has a material conflict of interest must either eliminate that conflict or fully disclose to its clients all material facts relating to that conflict.[iv]


The world of investment advice is plagued with conflicts of interest, obscure disclosure and an overall lack of transparency. Seeking out an investment adviser who will act as your fiduciary can help to eliminate many of the problems associated with commission-oriented, product focused salespeople. Because a fiduciary is required, by law, to give full disclosure of how they are paid as well as any conflicts of interest they may have, before you do business with them, you as the consumer are in a better position to make an informed decision.




How is a stockbroker different from a fiduciary and why should I be concerned?


A stockbroker is defined as any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions (buying and selling securities - trading) for the account of others.[v] Brokers have many different titles these days with some of the more common being: wealth manager, wealth advisor, investment consultant, financial advisor, financial consultant and registered representative.


Regardless of their title, stockbrokers are generally not considered to have a fiduciary duty to the client.[vi] Stockbrokers are able to avoid the higher legal standard of the fiduciary duty due to an exemption they receive from the definition of Investment Adviser (fiduciary). This exemption, which can be found under section 202 (a) (11) (C) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 reads: any broker or dealer whose performance of such services is solely incidental to the conduct of his business as a broker or dealer and who receives no special compensation therefor. In other words, in the eyes of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, brokers are generally not considered to be fiduciaries because their advice is merely incidental to the sale of their products. Instead of being obligated to put their customers’ interests ahead of their own, brokers are instead expected to deal fairly with their customers and adhere to the lower standard of legal care, known as the suitability doctrine[vii]. The suitability doctrine requires a broker to know her customer’s financial situation well enough to recommend investments that are considered suitable for that particular client.[viii] Brokers are not required to provide up-front disclosures like the ones required for investment advisers.[ix]


As a consumer, caution should be exercised when dealing with a broker. Because a broker is only required to establish suitability, she is not legally obligated to put your interests ahead of hers. She may in fact sell you the investment that pays her the most commission, so long as the investment is deemed suitable. She is also able to sell you proprietary products if her firm offers them. Finally, she may be subject to conflicts of interest that could influence her investment recommendations while at the same time not being required to disclose those conflicts of interest to her client.


Who is a fiduciary and who is a stockbroker?


Investment Adviser (see Investment Advisers Act of 1940) means any person who, for compensation, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or indirectly or through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or who, for compensation and as a part of a regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities. Investment advisers are subject to the higher legal standard of care known as the fiduciary duty. Investment advisers also use a number of titles in addition to investment adviser, such as: investment manager, portfolio manager, wealth manager, and asset manager. Investment advisers provide ongoing advice and investment management based upon the client’s objectives. Typically the investment adviser is given discretionary authority over the client’s investments. Discretionary authority allows the investment adviser to make investment decisions in the portfolio without having to get prior approval from the client. Investment advisers carry a license called the “series 65 or series 66.” Investment advisers are monitored by either the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or state regulators.


Stockbrokers (also called Financial Advisors, Wealth Managers, etc.) are subject to the lower legal standard, known as the suitability doctrine (stockbroker). Most of the financial advisors working at the largest Wall Street Brokerage firms (wirehouses) fall into this category. Brokers carry a license called the “series 7.” Brokers are monitored by the SEC, state regulators and industry self-regulatory organizations.


Dual Registration can make the legal situation very confusing. Today, a large number of financial advisors serve as both investment advisers and brokers. According to a FINRA study, 88% of investment adviser representatives are also registered as brokers.[x] For example, you open several accounts with a financial advisor employed by one of the major brokerage firms. The advisor may sell you a “fee-based” account where she acts an investment adviser and concurrently sell you bonds or limited partnerships in another account where she gets a commission (which you may not even see) and functions as a broker. Which hat does she want to wear today and how much does she want to get paid? The biggest issue for clients of dual registrants is that ultimately the lower legal standard typically applies to the dual registrant wirehouse broker who can function as both an investment adviser and stockbroker.


Insurance Licensing is also common for many brokers and investment advisers. Insurance products can have massive embedded commissions and present significant conflicts of interest for financial advisors. These conflicts of interest are generally not disclosed and the fiduciary duty is not followed.



How can I tell if my adviser is a fiduciary or a stockbroker?


Look at the disclosures on the advisor’s website, marketing materials and business cards. Brokers who sell products & dual registrants will have disclosures that look something this:


Company XYZ makes available products and services offered by XYZ, a registered broker-dealer and Member Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). Insurance and annuity products are offered by DDT, a licensed insurance agency and wholly owned subsidiary of XYZ.


Banking products are provided by XXY, Members FDIC and wholly owned subsidiaries of XYZ


Ask, “Are you legally obligated to put my best interests ahead of yours?” “Will you be serving as my fiduciary?”


Ask, “Will my account be an advisory account or a brokerage account?” An answer of brokerage account will be your clue that you have found a stockbroker or dual registrant.


Ask to see the advisor’s form ADV. The form ADV will describe, among other things, fees & compensation, types of clients, disciplinary information, conflicts of interest, and education. If the advisor cannot provide you with an ADV, then the advisor is most likely a broker. Bear in mind that just because you get an ADV however, doesn’t mean that the advisor doesn’t also put on the broker hat from time to time if she is dual registrant.


Ask if the advisor is fee-only or “fee-based”. Fee-only advisers will be fiduciaries. Fee-only advisors cannot legally accept commissions and their only source of revenue is the fee they charge for advice and investment management. Since brokers are commission oriented, they cannot legally hold themselves out as fee-only. “Fee-based” however is a very different story. A“fee-based” advisor offers advisory accounts as well as brokerage accounts and is a dual registrant. So while she may put on the advisory hat one day, the next day she might put on the brokerage or insurance agent hat to sell some limited partnerships or annuities.


Ask what licenses the advisor has. A “series 7 license” means the advisor is registered as a stockbroker (the series 7 is the broker examination). The series 65 or 66 means she is registered as an investment advisor. Having both the series 7 and 65/66 equates to dual registration, which brings about the problems we covered previously in this article. Having an insurance license means she can sell you life insurance and annuities and accept commissions.




Why do Conflicts of Interest Matter?


According to Merriam Webster, a conflict of interest is defined as: a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust.


If you are a client at a Wall Street Bank/Brokerage firm, you will likely be exposed to significant conflicts of interest. You are a client because you are looking for advice. However, what you receive may be something very different. These firms are in the business of selling products and producing a profit for shareholders. As brokers, exempt from the definition of investment adviser, advice from their salespeople is typically considered incidental to the sale of products they are promoting or helping you buy. In other words, broker dealer firms are there to facilitate a transaction on behalf of the customer, with the focus on the transaction and not the advice. Also, as we learned earlier, many advisors at these firms are able to switch hats on a whim playing broker one minute and advisor the next. The broker’s ability to offer both advisory and brokerage accounts creates serious conflicts of interest. These conflicts are often centered on how the broker gets paid.


To demonstrate just how deep the conflict can be, let’s consider an example. Suppose that a woman named Sue recently sold her company and has decided to retire. Her husband, Bob, a recently retired executive, has a pension that provides for most of the couple’s living expenses and they have no debt.


Hypothetical Clients Sue & Bob


Age: 65 years old
Children: 3
Grandchildren: 4
Total Investable Assets: $5.0 million dollars
Net worth: $6.50 million dollars
Pension & Soc Security: $100k annually
Goal: $150k annually in portfolio income


To keep this example simple let’s just focus on what can happen when Sue and Bob walk into the office of a dual registrant, insurance licensed salesperson at traditional Wall Street Brokerage firm.


Example options A & B (in terms of payment to the stockbroker):


A.The stockbroker shows the clients a $1m variable annuity with a 7% commission and a $4m investment in bonds, limited partnerships & structured notes at an average of 3% commission.


Result is an immediate non-transparent commission of $190,000 to the stockbroker.


B.The stockbroker shows the clients a $5m balanced wrap mutual fund advisory account at a 1% annual fee (paid at .25% quarterly)


Result is an immediate fee of $12,500 to the stockbroker.


You don’t have to be very good at math to see that by changing the product mix, the stockbroker can dial up or dial down how much he or she gets paid. Does the stockbroker want to get paid $190,000 or $12,500 this month? What a dilemma! To add insult to injury, in many cases, especially with annuities and investment bank products, the commissions are not transparent and difficult to gauge.


This payment scheme should certainly cause you to think twice about where you get financial advice. Caution should be exercised with dual registrants, especially those who are also insurance licensed. Do your homework. Ask lots of questions. Be critical of anything with a huge prospectus – these investments generally enrich the stockbroker completely at your expense.




There is a better way to receive investment advice – work with a fee-only advisor who is subject to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and operates as a fiduciary for clients. There is a great comfort that comes in knowing your advisor is putting your interests ahead of her interests and not merely selling you products for commission.

______________________________________________


What has been allowed to happen during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA staging ROBBER BARON few decades is this BLURRING of stock broker and investment advisor deliberately, willfully, and with malice opening the door to HOODWINKING. Clinton era 1990s deregulation at the same time they staged this platform for fraud-------passed policy pushing our public and private sector labor unions often tied to stock investment to being left on their own in investment of PENSION funds. OPEN DOOR TO HOODWINKING-----HANDING 99% CONTROL OF INVESTING PENSIONS -----at same time making it impossible for those 99% of investors to educate to be wise investors because of all the INSIDER-BACK DOOR corruptions and frauds.


Global banking 5% to the 1% want to declare these laws passed by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA were simply a legal deregulation of US stock markets. We discussed in detail the process of DERIVATIVES AND CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS-----installed by JP MORGAN and US FED at this same time. Artificially inflating stock and bond values to hide weak stocks and corporate holdings----NO, THAT CAN'T BE ILLEGAL.


What we do is keep reminding our US 99% and our new global 99% immigrant citizens wanting to invest whether forced to through 401K or pensions-----global banking 5% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have made our US stock market as too Europe and UK too fraudulent and criminal for any 99% to invest and win. Like the lottery----one may win a time or two the ONE-ARMED BANDIT-----but the HOUSE comes away with great PROFITS. Those corporations calling themselves INVESTMENT FIRMS------are indeed acting criminally. Please think about taking all wealth tied to 401ks and pensions out of today's global banking market......BOND MARKET FRAUD HAS KILLED THAT ONE SAFE HARBOR----

The Cold, Hard Truth About Brokers and Financial Advisors


Think you're getting better investment performance by using a broker or financial advisor?

You better read this.Matt Koppenheffer
(TMFKopp)


Mar 20, 2012 at 12:00AM


The case against stock brokers and financial advisors isn't just all hot air. Today, I have proof that when you use a financial advisor or full-service broker, you may find yourself with lower returns than if you'd handled your investing yourself. Read on and I'll share the details of recent research that shows just how costly professional financial advice can be.
To Germany we go!


I'm referring to a paper titled "Financial Advisors: A Case of Babysitters?" that comes to us from Andreas Hackethal and Michael Haliassos of Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, and Tullio Jappelli of the University of Naples Federico II in Italy. The trio of researchers got their hands on a couple of very cool datasets -- one is from a German online brokerage and includes 32,751 randomly selected customers, while the other is 4,447 clients of a large German bank.


In both the online brokerage and the bank, customers were offered the option to manage the accounts themselves or employ an advisor. That choice provided the perfect opportunity to do a side-by-side study of advisor-assisted and individually managed accounts.
Let's get right to those results.


Here are the researchers summing up their findings:


Involvement of financial advisors is found to lower portfolio returns net of direct cost, to worsen risk-return profiles, as measured by the Sharpe ratio; and to increase account turnover and investment in mutual funds, consistent with incentives built into the commission structure of both types of financial advisors.That may be a lot to digest all at once, so let me break this down a little further. There are three very crucial points that the researchers highlighted:



Lower performance. Bottom line, the research showed that the accounts that used financial advisors had lower returns (net of fees) than the accounts that did not. How much lower? A whopping five percentage points lower. That smarts. But just how much does that hurt? Starting with a $100,000 portfolio, over the course of 30 years, getting 7% returns instead of 12% means a difference of a cool $2.2 million, or having a $761,226 account value instead of nearly $3 million.


Lower risk-adjusted performance. A potentially reasonable explanation for No. 1 above is that advisors are serving their clients by creating safer portfolios that produce lower returns but also have lower risk. But that doesn't appear to be the case with this dataset. The researchers found that advisor-assisted accounts also had lower Sharpe ratios. The Sharpe ratio is a measure of performance that adjusts for risk, so the findings suggest that investors using advisors were getting less compensated for the risk they were taking as opposed to investors who weren't using advisors.


Padding their bottom line. Finally, the results suggest that, on the whole, advisors in this dataset were focused on padding their own bottom lines. Accounts that used advisors had higher turnover and were more heavily invested in mutual funds -- both outcomes that would (conveniently!) earn higher commissions for the advisors.

What have you done for me... ever?

Take a moment to think about what it means to pay a professional for their services. I've had problems with scorpions in my house, so I hired a pest professional. Evaluating that service has been simple -- I've been happy because I'm not seeing poisonous arthropods running around anymore. Which, mind you, is an outcome I was woefully unsuccessful at achieving on my own.


Likewise, you could hire a plumber to fix a leaky faucet or a doctor to treat an infection with the expectation that either could do a better job at remedying the problem than you could.


With all of that in mind, consider this: What is a financial advisor worth if you end up with lower investment returns?


Say it ain't so!

I'm sure there are holes that could be poked in this research, and I'd be overreaching if I were to suggest that this one study of a couple of financial outlets in Germany is enough to condemn the entire financial advisory industry worldwide.


At the same time, if I'm Bank of America's (NYSE: BAC) Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (a Citigroup (NYSE: C) / Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) joint venture), Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), Charles Schwab (Nasdaq: SCHW), or any of the many other players in this multitrillion-dollar business, it's got to be a bit uncomfortable that research like this is coming out. For decades, brokers and financial advisors were very much like the great and powerful Oz, hiding out behind a comfortable and profitable shroud of secrecy. In the age of the Internet, it's becoming much easier to find out the value -- or lack thereof -- that brokers and financial advisors actually offer their customers.

WE THINK MOTLEY FOOL IS BEING A 5% PLAYER IN MAKING PEOPLE THINK WE CAN USE INTERNET TO VET FOR GOOD FINANCIAL ADVISORS.


But I'm not writing this to simply crucify the industry. I want to hear what you have to say. Whether you're a financial advisor or broker client or you're a financial advisor or broker yourself, I want to hear why you think this research hits the nail on the head or why it misses the point. Share your thoughts in the comments section below or send us an email at tips@fool.com.


Something big just happened

I don't know about you, but I always pay attention when one of the best growth investors in the world gives me a stock tip. Motley Fool co-founder David Gardner and his brother, Motley Fool CEO Tom Gardner, just revealed two brand new stock recommendations. Together, they've tripled the stock market's return over the last 13 years.* And while timing isn't everything, the history of Tom and David's stock picks shows that it pays to get in early on their ideas.

_______________________________________________

When Bernie Madoff was exposed as the only Wall Street fraudster to go to jail----he was accused of creating a PONZI SCHEME disguised as an investment firm. Madoff went to jail because he defrauded wealthy people----99% of the rest of Wall Street doing these same frauds allowed to keep their loot.


Are people creating ponzi schemes BUSINESS MEN AND WOMEN? Of course not. We don't call criminal cartels BUSINESS LEADERS.



What makes today's global banking corruptions even more fraudulent is tying our government treasuries to these frauds. Very easy---EASY PEASY to find DELIBERATE, WILLFUL, AND WITH MALICE FRAUDS----in public pension investment and US Treasury and state municipal bond frauds these several years of OBAMA---MOVING FORWARD under TRUMP.


When these schemes crash----and they always do-----the 'dividends' received over several years never cover the extent of losses in what is invested by our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE.


Our 5% to the 1% freemason/Greeks black, white, and brown ----whether labor unions or global banking 1% Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' organizations directing citizens into these criminal investments -----HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE when angry over these wealth losses.

How to Recognize a Ponzi Scheme


The Ponzi scheme is a notorious type of securities fraud, and for good reason. Because it functions by paying off newer investors with money from previous investors while little to no actual investing is going on, everything looks to be on the up and up. Although eventually every Ponzi scheme will run out of new investors to dupe, many of these scams can run for a long time.


So what is a wise investor supposed to do?

If a Ponzi scheme is so undetectable that newer investors are being paid and previous investors are able to say they've received the "promised" returns, how can an average investor sniff out a fishy deal? As securities fraud attorneys, we'd like to say that, luckily, with a little education, any investor can be wise to the biggest red flags.


What Is a Ponzi Scheme?


Before you are able to recognize the warning signs of a Ponzi scheme, it is important that you understand what this type of fraud entails. Charles Ponzi was one of the most notorious people who participated in this type of scam, which is why it was named after him. Basically, he collected money from people who wanted to invest in his business and then paid investors large interest payments from the money he obtained from the new investors. While Ponzi didn’t create this form of investment fraud, his operation was the first to become known in the United States.


Ponzi schemes can be difficult to identify. One of the most recent examples involved a man from Santa Ana, CA, who allegedly used money received from new investors to make payments for principal and interest to previous investors. The earlier investors believed that they were receiving returns on their investments. This scam reportedly cost investors $14.5 million. Unfortunately, this case is not isolated, as there are regularly reports of Ponzi schemes resulting in financial loss.


Red Flags of a Ponzi Scheme


When you are looking into a new investment opportunity, it's important to take the time to check out both the person offering the investment and the investment itself. Verifying that both the promoter and the opportunity are legitimate can save you a lot of time, money, and heartache.


Any person offering an investment should:



Be registered to sell investments in your state

Have a history that is clear of any disciplinary action or a pattern of complaints


Be able to explain his or her investment model to you in terms you understand


Be willing and able to provide all of the documents and information you need


Beyond checking out the person offering the investment, you should also look into the actual opportunity itself. If an opportunity features the following, it could be a Ponzi scheme:



"Guaranteed" High Returns


Any investment with “guaranteed” high returns should be carefully examined.
Hidden Information
Excuses about missing paperwork, errors, or secretive strategies are red flags.
Consistent High Returns
Be cautious of investments that generate high returns unaffected by the market
Unregistered Investments
Most cases of investment fraud involve investments that have not been registered.
Unlicensed Sellers
Many Ponzi schemes involve unregistered firms and/or unlicensed individuals.
Pressure to Reinvest
Ponzi schemes collapse without regular income or when too many investors cash out.
Steps to Avoid a Ponzi Scheme


Check out the credentials and background of the person who has approached you about the investment. You can check the company out with the BBB. If the person is a broker, you can use his or her CRD number to gain more insight into the broker’s record.


Have an attorney review any contracts that you are given. Don’t send any money until you have had the contracts analyzed by a lawyer that you can trust.


Be cautious if a money manager wants to be your custodian. A custodian is a broker-dealer that maintains investment accounts. If a money manager asks you to write a check directly to them, it is a red flag. It would be better to write the check to the custodial firm.


Make sure you understand your investment. If the investment appears complicated or if it cannot be properly explained, you may not want to hand over your money.



Trust your instincts. There are times when your instincts will tell you something is wrong. If you don’t feel comfortable about an investment, walk away.


Take Action to Protect Your Rights


The first step you should take if you suspect a Ponzi scheme is to contact an experienced investment fraud attorney. Failure to do so may result in evidence becoming too obscured to properly establish your case. An attorney will take the time to go through your options and determine the best course of action. Choosing the right legal representative is not easy. However, it is absolutely critical in establishing an effective legal strategy.



The right law firm should possess the following qualities:


Established, recognized experts in investment fraud cases


Track record of successful outcomes in investment claims

If you believe that you may have been the victim of a real estate Ponzi scheme then it is important to contact an experienced investment fraud attorney. Meyer Wilson has successfully represented more than 800 investors in stockbroker mediation, arbitration, and litigation claims.


___________________________________________

The ROBBER BARON frauds with the ROARING 20s ending in the great economic crash and Great Depression was criminal as well-----that is why the rich tied to owning these corporations are called ROBBER BARONS. We don't excuse these frauds simply because these ROBBERS turnaround to DONATE to CHARITIES being patrons to US CITIZENS made impoverished by that global banking fraud.



TRUMP is MOVING FORWARD what was massive and systemic US TREASURY AND STATE MUNICIPAL BOND MARKET FRAUD operating during the entire OBAMA terms. We want to be clear about whom to hold responsible------CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global banking 5% pols and players staged these frauds----TRUMP is simply all too glad to be the FALL GUY.


Don't get mad at 99% of black citizens---99% of white citizens---99% of brown citizens---don't get mad at 99% of Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Hindi -----our US elections rigged and fraudulent have not allowed for any of our US voters to GET RID OF CRIMINAL GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS.

Absolutely NONE of what this global banking VOX MEDIA OUTLET prints as public policy concerns for all kinds of population groups IS TRUE. Our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE do not have to march to Washington DC to find these 5% pols and players!

PLEASE GLANCE THROUGH TO SEE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES HAVING NO IMPORTANCE NEXT TO GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE POLICIES.



Economists said a Trump presidency would be a disaster. So why isn't Wall Street worried?


By Timothy B. Leetim@vox.com Nov 10, 2016, 9:00am EST


Before the election, a lot of people — including me — assumed that a Donald Trump win would send stocks plunging. A group of 20 Nobel Prize–winning economists warned last week that a Trump presidency could “jeopardize the foundations of American prosperity and the global economy.”


But on Wednesday morning, the markets didn’t seem very alarmed. Stocks opened the day up, and then they kept rising, ending the day up by 1.1 percent. Evidently, Wall Street doesn’t view a Trump presidency as all that alarming, at least for shareholders.


So what’s going on here? I think it’s possible for both those Nobel laureates last week and the markets this week to be right. Depending on which campaign promises Trump chooses to pursue, a Trump administration could wind up doing a lot of damage to the US economy. But this damage wouldn’t necessarily take forms that would be reflected by stock market values.


For example, Trump’s plan for bank deregulation could eventually lead to another 2008-style financial crisis. And his deregulation of the greenhouse gas emissions could eventually lead to catastrophic climate change. But those disasters may take a long time — years, even decades — to materialize. And in the meantime, less regulation could mean more economic activity and more profits for US companies.


Some of Trump’s economic policies could also be disastrous for particular groups of people — like poor people and immigrants — without harming the stock market or conventional economic metrics like gross domestic product or the unemployment rate. So the economic stakes of Trump’s economic agenda are high. They just won’t necessarily be reflected in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.



Donald Trump was not a conventional candidate, and he didn’t have the detailed policy blueprints that presidential candidates normally publish. But the broad outlines of his economic agenda are fairly clear.


First, a massive tax cut. Trump’s plan would reduce government revenue by $7.2 trillion over a decade, making it more than twice as large as the significant tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush. Almost half the benefits would flow to the top 1 percent of income earners.


Trump would pair his tax cut with a package of infrastructure investments that could cost more than $500 billion.
“We have bridges that are falling down,” he said in August. “We’ll get a fund, we’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates and rebuild our infrastructure.”



Trump has also signaled that he’d like to see about $500 billion in additional military spending over the next decade. “We want to deter, avoid, and prevent conflict through our unquestioned military dominance,” Trump said in September, lamenting recent cuts to defense spending.


He vowed to make these changes “revenue neutral” using “commonsense reforms that eliminate government waste and budget gimmicks.” But that promise may go out the window once it becomes clear that there isn’t anywhere close to $500 billion in “government waste” to cut and Republicans still want to spend more on the Pentagon.


Ironically, the package of tax cuts and spending hikes could amount to the kind of Keynesian fiscal stimulus that liberals advocated during the 2009 recession. If deficit spending boosts the economy, it could force the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to keep inflation under control.


And sure enough, the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds soared on Wednesday, rising above 2 percent for the first time since early 2016. That’s a sign that markets are expecting less fiscal discipline from the new regime than it would have gotten under President Hillary Clinton.


Another part of Trump’s agenda is deregulation. In particular, Trump has vowed to repeal Obama’s regulations designed to combat global warming by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. He also wants to roll back Dodd-Frank, the package of financial regulations Congress passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.


In the short term, repealing environmental regulations could cause economic activity to go up, not down, as businesses face lower costs. It will only be after a generation or two that the full consequences — rising temperatures, rising sea levels, more severe weather — will be felt. And these effects will occur globally, not just in the United States, so the costs will be very widely distributed.


The story is similar for financial deregulation. The Dodd-Frank reforms tried to discourage big banks from making the kind of highly risky leveraged bets that brought the banking system to the brink of collapse in 2008. It’s too early to say whether this framework has been effective at preventing financial crises, since it’s only been about six years since it passed. But there’s reason to worry that financial crises could become more likely if the law is repealed.
Those consequences, too, might take many years to materialize. Indeed, as with climate regulations, the initial effect might appear to be positive — as newly deregulated banks lend more and boost economic activity.


So Trump’s regulatory policies will have big impacts, but they may not be obvious until long after he leaves the White House.


On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly railed against China and Mexico, vowing to slap higher tariffs on Chinese imports and renegotiate the NAFTA trade deal. But Simon Lester, a trade expert at the Cato Institute, argues that it’s far from clear how far Trump would actually go toward cutting the US off from foreign trade.
One of Trump’s big challenges on the trade front is the fact that the world is bound together in a complex patchwork of agreements that limits the ability of any one country to change trade policies unilaterally. For example, the US imposes something called anti-dumping duties on certain Chinese goods, and the president has some discretion to decide how these duties are set. In principle, Trump’s trade team could tweak these formulas to effectively charge China more to sell products to us.


The problem is that China would likely challenge these higher charges at the WTO, and if Trump didn’t have a good justification for them, then US goods would be hit by countervailing duties in China. That would start a trade war that would be in no one’s interest.


Trump’s second problem is Congress. For example, Simon says that Trump does have the authority to unilaterally withdraw the US from the NAFTA agreement. The problem is that Congress made key NAFTA commitments — like zero-tariff treatment for most goods — part of US law. So unilaterally withdrawing from NAFTA wouldn’t actually accomplish very much; Mexican companies could still sell goods in the US without paying tariffs.


To change that, Trump would have to get Congress to repeal the law that implemented NAFTA’s requirements back in the 1990s. The problem is that many members of Congress — especially in Trump’s own party — are enthusiastic free traders. They have close ties to business groups like the US Chamber of Commerce that have long favored free trade. So they won’t necessarily go along with a plan to withdraw from NAFTA — especially if Trump doesn’t have something to replace it.


Simon argues that a more likely scenario is that Trump will go to countries like Mexico and seek more modest changes to their trade relationships. If Mexicans make some concessions, then Trump can declare victory and seek congressional approval — without upending the global trading system.



Still, it’s hard to be sure. While Trump has talked a lot about trade, the statements have tended to be very general: He thinks NAFTA is bad and China is ripping us off. Trade law is a complex subject, so whoever Trump chooses to help him on trade policy could have a lot of influence.


From a humanitarian perspective, the most significant aspect of Trump’s administration may be his treatment of immigrants. Trump has vowed to deport millions of people who are in the United States illegally. That will have untold personal costs for the people targeted. It will also be bad for businesses that employ those workers and their customers.


Also, if Trump adopts the economic agenda of House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), it could lead to dramatic cuts in social programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. Vox’s Dylan Matthews argues that the Ryan budget amounts to “the most vicious cuts to programs for poor and medium-income people of any president since Reagan.”


Finally, Trump and the Republican Congress are widely expected to repeal Obamacare. No one knows what, if anything, they’ll put in its place. But Vox’s Sarah Kliff reports that as many as 22 million people could lose health insurance as a result.

_______________________________________________



We have made clear these same ROBBER BARON frauds these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA were the same frauds happening in early 1900s MOVED FORWARD by same global banking 5% freemason/Greek pols and players. Same game----different generation. Here we see European banking fleecing their 99% of European citizens same way. Both European and US 5% players pretending to be investment firms acting as stock brokers thinking they are outside of US or European jurisdiction by fleecing our third world 99% of citizens-----who WORLD BANK/IMF have tied to same 401K/pension schemes thrown out as FODDER to these criminal cartels-----ARE ACTING ILLEGALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE INSIDE US OR EUROPEAN SOVEREIGN BOUNDARIES pedaling these frauds. It is the same as if CHINA or RUSSIAN 5% players were in these nations acting criminally towards 401K/pension investments of US or European citizens.


THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF INVESTMENT CHEATS ARE TIED TO THE NATION FROM WHERE THESE ACTIONS TAKE PLACE.


When our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens think it OK to fleece that overseas 99% of their hard-earned savings----then we can be sure it has become alright for ourselves to be fleeced in these same ways. Please stand up against these ROBBER BARON FRAUDS AND CORRUPTIONS----and history repeats itself-----WW 1 and WW 2 were a direct result of global banking 1% ROBBER BARON FRAUDS.

We KNOW our 5% freemason/Greeks are hard into being these ROBBER BARON players.

The rankings in this RAND CORPORATION article would have us believe that it is those Eastern block or Greek/Italian socialist nations doing all these frauds-----NO, those listed as being least corrupt are driving these frauds and corruptions in those other nations.

The Cost of Corruption in Europe — Up to €990 Billion (£781.64 Billion) Lost Annually

FOR RELEASE
Tuesday
March 22, 2016

• RAND Europe's study shows the true extent of the cost of corruption in the EU, with new figures far higher than the previous estimate of €120 billion (£94.74 billion).
• Study estimates that an initial €71.12 billion (£56.16 billion) could be saved through the EU adopting three policy measures regarding corruption.
• Corruption risks during public procurement could cost Europe around €5 billion (£3.95 billion) a year.

A new study has highlighted the true extent of the cost of corruption in Europe, with new estimates showing that up to €990 billion (£781.64 billion) in GDP terms is lost annually.


The Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Corruption Study by RAND Europe, commissioned by the European Parliament, investigated the many forms of corruption, which includes paying bribes or exercising power to give privileged access to public services, goods or contracts.


The new figures from the study are far higher than the initial estimate provided by the European Commission of €120 billion (£94.74 billion), after RAND Europe used an innovative methodology to measure the cost of corruption to the EU as a whole. This takes into account the indirect effects of corruption, such as disincentives of companies to invest, and direct effects, such as money lost on tax revenues and public procurement.


Corruption involving EU public procurement was estimated to cost Europe around €5 billion (£3.95 billion) a year. This form of corruption could be involving only one organisation in a procurement process, or giving organisations just a couple of days to respond to a tender for a new contract.


Based on the study, RAND Europe has recommended three policy measures to address corruption in Europe and retrieve an initial €71.12 billion (£56.16 billion) from the money lost each year. These are:

• Applying the updated Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), which was used in Bulgaria and Romania before each joined the EU, to other member states could reduce corruption costs by €70 billion (£55.27 billion) annually.

• Establishing a European Public Prosecutors' Office (EPPO), which would assist OLAF (the European Commission Anti-Fraud Office) in investigating corruption across the EU, could reduce corruption costs by €0.2 billion (£0.16 billion) annually.

• Implementing a full EU-wide procurement system could reduce corruption costs by €920 million (£726.37 million) annually.

Marco Hafner, a research leader at RAND Europe and the report's main author, says: “Corruption imposes significant social, political and economic costs. Not only does it result in huge amounts of money being lost annually, but corruption leads to more unequal societies, higher levels of organised crime, weaker rule of law and lower trust in public institutions.”


He continues: “Measuring corruption is challenging, but our study provides one of the most realistic and current estimations of its true cost to Europe as a whole. Our recommendations highlight achievable targets for the EU and member states to help stop corruption from taking place and limit the amount of money lost each year.”


The full report for the Cost of non-Europe Corruption can be viewed at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/579319/EPRS_STU%282016%29579319_EN.pdf.
- ENDS -


Notes to Editors:
The league table of EU corruption — lowest to highest levels in individual member states based on an average of three corruption indices




PositionCountry


1Denmark
2Finland
3Sweden
4Netherlands
5Luxembourg
6UK
7Austria
8Germany
9Republic of Ireland
10Belgium
11France
12Spain
13Portugal
14Cyprus
15Estonia*
16Slovenia*
17Malta*
18Hungary*
19Lithuania*
20Poland*
21Czech Republic*
22Italy*
23Slovakia*
24Greece*
25Latvia*
26Croatia*
27Bulgaria*
28Romania*



The * indicates countries that have higher corruption levels than the EU average for the 28 member states.
About RAND Europe


RAND Europe is a not-for-profit organisation whose mission is to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. Our clients include European institutions, governments, charities, foundations, universities and private sector firms with a need for impartial research. We combine deep subject knowledge across diverse policy areas including health, science and innovation; defence, security and infrastructure; and home affairs and social policy. Combined with proven methodological expertise in evaluation, impact measurement and choice modelling, we are able to offer quality-assured research and analysis, unbiased insights and actionable solutions that make a difference to people's lives. www.randeurope.org
______________________________________________

When US national media deliberately creates TENSIONS between RUSSIA---CHINA selling the idea that these nations are hacking and/or attacking our 99% US citizens with these fraudulent schemes------this is what we call OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS-----these nations---China/ Russia/Eastern/Western Europe/US/Canada----are today controlled by global banking 1% neo-liberals/neo-cons all working for the same OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS.

There is no tension between these global banking 1% of each of these nations----they are glad to help each other fleece our US and global 99% of citizens.  The manufactured tensions by national and international media preface this MARCH TO WW 3. 


Shadow Banking Threatens China's Economy—but What Is It, Exactly?


Needed government reforms to the country's byzantine financial system may nonetheless upend China's growth.

• Ryan Perkins
• Jun 28, 2013  THE ATLANTIC

Zhou Xiaochuan (R), Governor of the People's Bank of China, is tasked with tackling excesses in China's shadow banking system.(Molly Riley/AP)



Last week, the Shanghai interbank offered rate (Shibor), China's once-anonymous version of London's LIBOR, made news around the world when it suddenly spiked at all time high. Expected to lower this rate by injecting cash into struggling Chinese banks, the People's Bank of China (the country's equivalent of the Fed) instead did nothing, leading to speculation that China's leaders were finally prepared to tackle the economy's overheating problem. In the process, the media appears to have finally taken notice of the potential dangers that lurk within the byzantine industry that is Chinese finance. Reviewing the headlines, a series of arcane, sinister terms leap out: Off-balance sheet lending. Inter-corporate finance. And, most prominently, shadow banking.


Such terms, nebulous as they may be, are keeping Chinese policy makers up at night: According to Fitch, China's shadow banking sector may be hiding as much as $2 trillion worth of risky assets in off-balance sheet lending. But what does that really mean? And, more importantly, how did China find itself in this situation? Before we can answer these questions, it's worth going back and having a look at what shadow banking really is, and how it presents a risk to China -- and the world economy as a whole.


Firstly, the concept of shadow banking has an unfortunate reputation and is in dire need of rebranding. Despite the macabre connotations its name conjures, it's not inherently a bad thing. Generally, shadow banking simply refers to the lending and borrowing -- basic financial activities -- that occur outside the traditional deposit and loan model; that is, anything other than putting money in the bank and occasionally borrowing for things like buying a house. In Western nations such as the U.S, hedge funds, venture capital firms and private equity -- all forms of shadow banking -- form a major part of economic life. In China, however, the structure of shadow banking is very different.


Until around 2007-8, conventional banks, in the form of loans, undertook the vast bulk of all lending in China, and because the Communist Party controls the vast majority of banks, this structure allowed the government to retain a handle over the economy at large. However, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, as export-oriented businesses -- the companies that form a major pillar of the Chinese economy -- saw markets shrink, two important things happened.



The Shibor rate hike and the government's refusal to step in with additional funds, then, is a not-so-subtle statement that the party's over and that it's time to solve debt addiction the old fashioned way -- cold turkey.First, in response to the global financial crisis in 2008, the Chinese government enacted a stimulus package worth $586 billion, more than half of which was financed through new bank lending. This package won praise around the world for its speed and decisiveness and kept the country on track in the short term, in noted contrast to a similar plan implemented by the United States. But the stimulus also flooded the economy with cheap credit, thereby fuelling a speculative housing bubble, propping up inefficient state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and undoing years of work spent trying to instill China's banks with financial discipline.


In the two decades leading up to the financial crisis, a lot of hard and sincere work was done to try to teach profligate SOEs, local governments, and banks to live and work within their means, but that doesn't mean these institutions suddenly forgot how to take advantage of a free lunch. In fact, it probably heightened their appetite for it. As a result, much of the money was sunk -- almost literally -- into local government financing vehicles (LGFVs), which are municipal government-owned companies often responsible for infrastructure investment. These companies, for the most part, exist to keep local government debt off the books -- since local governments have a very limited capacity to borrow money directly -- by allowing them to borrow indirectly and finance construction projects through companies they own, built on land often acquired and sold below market price by them.



Surprisingly, this system constituted a huge source of revenue for cash-strapped local governments, which have few real sources of tax revenue. Less surprisingly, it is also an endemic, institutionalized form of corruption. A recent OECD report estimated that total public debt reached 57 percent of GDP by the end of 2010, with LGFVs accounting for about three quarters of this figure. Given that some people familiar with LGFVs see them as little more than holes in the ground into which seemingly endless amounts of perfectly good money are poured, it is likely this borrowing generated a wave of future defaults.
***
How, and why, was the money spent this way? To answer this question, it's important to understand the love affair between the Chinese government and infrastructure projects. Over the past two decades, Beijing has relied on building roads, power grids, and other fixed assets in order to facilitate the rapid expansion of the economy, but this method of growth inevitably leads to declining returns over time. As a result, Chinese policy makers understand that to decrease the economy's dependence on investment and export markets (which depend too much on the whims of the global economy) domestic consumption needs to pick up the slack. Unfortunately, however, this "rebalancing" is tricky.



One problem is this: Contrary to popular belief, China's manipulation of the yuan isn't the golden goose Western critics make it out to be. Even if the currency were allowed to float freely, Chinese labor would still cost a fraction of what it does in the U.S. This discrepancy is mainly achieved through the hukou, a household registration system that prevents workers from becoming fully entitled residents in the regions to which they have migrated to work, as well as restricting the rights of children born in these regions to services like education and health care.



In short, the hukou ensures that workers remain in the shadows -- and wages remain low -- by constantly recycling labor out of factories and back to the place of registration. Factors like this have made it increasingly difficult to rebalance the economy and have contributed to the yawning wealth gap in Chinese society. Though Chinese leaders have hinted at reforming the hukou, they nonetheless face a vexing dilemma: How do they increase domestic demand without significantly upsetting a social order upon which the economy depends for its competitive advantage?
***
Historically, the answer to this question was infrastructure development, and for good reason: Infrastructure is politically neutral, theoretically benefits the whole of society, is generally dominated by massive State and quasi-State owned enterprises, and in the past generated massive returns. However, over the last four years, the GDP growth generated by each yuan of additional loan has fallen from 0.85 to 0.15, an indicator that the limits of debt-fuelled growth are being reached. In effect, the very engine that caused China's growth ---fixed asset investment fuelled by local debt -- wasn't sustainable, and the government began to worry about the negative consequences of an overheating economy: inflation, real estate bubbles, and overcapacity.


So in 2009 they slammed on the breaks. An economy that was addicted to credit needed to go somewhere else to get its fix. This was where shadow banking came in.


Desperate for credit, banks began working closely with trust companies and other entities to refinance bad loans by bundling them up and repackaging them as "wealth management vehicles", or WMVs. These vehicles, which require a tenure ranging from a year to a few days, offered a higher rate of return than conventional bank deposits. They also allowed banks to keep their lending off their balance sheets and were sold through their branches or online, effectively turning banks into middle men between recipients and investors. In theory, this should have solved the problem of obtaining local financing. But the problems have only begun.
***
As more and more of these loans turned bad they were simply recycled into high yield WMVs, a fact that China's policy makers have acknowledged. In an uncharacteristically stark warning aired in a China Daily op-ed, Xiao Gang, the former head of the Bank of China, said that there are more than 20,000 WMVs in circulation -- compared with "a few hundred" five years ago. Worse, many of these WMVs lack transparency or are linked to empty real estate, long term infrastructure projects or collections of assets which have no sure fire way of generating the revenue needed to repay them at the given time, creating the real possibility of a liquidity crisis.


Has this crisis already begun? There's evidence that banks and trusts have colluded to circumvent a shortage of liquidity by issuing ever greater numbers of WMVs -- with still higher rates of return to attract the cash necessary to finance the short fall. But if the music stops and investors pull their money or stop purchasing new issuances, then the rollover for the bank to pick up could potentially be huge. The consulting firm KPMG estimates that shadow banking and WMVs overtook insurance to become China's second largest financial sector in 2012 and represent assets roughly equivalent to 15 percent of total commercial bank deposits.



This situation has arisen in a country whose people, facing restrictions on investing abroad and nervous about China's volatile stock market, have so few other investment options. In addition, most simply don't believe banks will let them lose their money and will support their investments, no matter how risky they are; essentially, the basic ingredients of a Ponzi scheme. The Shibor rate hike and the government's refusal to step in with additional funds, then, is a not-so-subtle statement that the party's over and that it's time to solve debt addiction the old fashioned way -- cold turkey. The question, then, is this: how bad was the addiction, and how big will the comedown be?

_________________________________________

During ROBBER BARON periods as last century and today------Hong Kong bankers come to US to defraud their 99% of citizens as US global Wall Street is over in Hong Kong defrauding the 99% of US citizens-----Russian oligarchs are in NYC defrauding their 99% of RUSSIAN citizens while UK/US are in Russia defrauding US 99% of citizens and of course all the above are in Nigeria using that banking system to launder all that global fraud while Nigerian banking 1% are in US defrauding their 99% of Nigerian citizens------ALL SAME GLOBAL BANKING SYSTEM ----GLOBAL BANKING 1% DEFRAUDING from all nations' citizens-----no tensions between these OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS. Each of these nations have those 5% freemason/Greeks as ROBBER BARON PLAYERS.

The deregulation during CLINTON ERA 1990s let us know ROBBER BARON period was gearing up-----as soon as ROBBER BARON period is over----as with this coming massive US TREASURY and corporate bond fraud------all those criminal investment firms acting as stock brokers pretending to be free of any FIDUCIARY will disappear.

Corruption in Nigeria


The $20-billion hole in Africa’s largest economy

Most Nigerians live in poverty. Millions would be spared if officials stopped pilfering from the public purse

Middle East and Africa
Feb 2nd 2016 | LAGOS

POWER corrupts. So too does a resource-rich economy, like Nigeria’s, where easy access to oil revenues opens the door to palm-greasing. Of 168 countries surveyed by Transparency International, an anti-corruption group Germany, in its annual Corruption Perception Index, Nigeria ranks 32nd from the bottom.


Whistleblowers sometimes try to estimate how much cash has gone missing from Nigeria’s public purse. In 2014 a respected former central-bank governor lost his job after claiming that $20 billion had been stolen. But this captures only a small share of the damage done by corruption. The much bigger question is where Nigeria could be if its politicians and officials were a little more honest.


One answer comes from economists at PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). They compared Nigeria to three other resource-producing countries that are somewhat less corrupt than it, though by no means squeaky clean: Ghana, Malaysia and Colombia. PwC concluded that Nigeria’s’s economy, which was worth $513 billion in 2014, might have been 22% bigger if its level of corruption were closer to Ghana’s, a nearby west African country.


By 2030, the size of Africa’s biggest economy should triple in real terms come what may. Yet if Nigeria manages to reduce corruption to levels comparable to Malaysia (itself hardly above suspicion: its prime minister recently had to explain how almost $700 million had made it into his bank account), its economy could be some 37% bigger still. The additional gain would be worth some $534 billion (adjusted for inflation), or about as much as the economy is currently worth. If it does nothing to change then the cost of corruption in Nigeria would amount to almost $2,000 per person a year by 2030, PwC reckons.


Some of this damage is visible. When public cash—most of which comes from oil pumped in the southern Niger delta—is siphoned off, investment in health, education and roads suffers. But corruption also affects the economy in more surreptitious ways. Public institutions often hire the family and friends of the boss rather than the best candidates. In turn those institutions become more inefficient and deliver less of what they are meant to, whether it is education or roads. In addition countries where corruption is high attract less foreign investment. They have higher prices, and lower tax bases. Nigeria’s tax-to-GDP ratio is only about 8%, compared with more than 25% in South Africa. Given rampant theft, many people are reluctant to pay their taxes on the ground that the money will just be squandered.


This may in part explain why, despite its oil wealth, there is a rising share of Nigerians who are classified as below the poverty line. A survey of living standards (using data from 2010, the most recent figures available) suggested that 61.2% of the population lives in absolute poverty, an increase of over six percentage points on the previous figures from 2004. At least 25m people who should have been lifted into low- or middle-income still reside below the breadline thanks to “excess corruption”, says Andrew S. Nevin, PwC’s chief economist in Nigeria.


Last year Muhammadu Buhari, the president, swept to power on the votes of Nigerians who have had enough. Since then, anti-fraud agencies have arrested senior politicians and sidekicks accused of embezzlement, and new corruption bills have been put before parliament. “Ending the impunity is about political will, because those benefiting most are among the ranks of the leaders,” says Samuel Kaninda, the co-ordinator for west Africa at Transparency International. Cleaning up Nigeria will be an Herculean task. But the rewards are equally fabulous. 

__________________________________________


Can we imagine how such a protest ---here in that US CITY DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE----LOS ANGELES ----would be effective in getting rid of global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA if we didn't allow these national global banking 5% leaders to name these protests after TRUMP?
MARCH FOR OUR LIVES------ROBBER BARON FRAUDS AND US CITIES AS FAILED STATES----
Peaceful rolling protests for weeks and months filling US city downtown streets just as this video shows ----millions of US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens -----demanding those 5% global banking pols and players get out of our people's government---local and state.


The Political Resistance against Donald Trump
March 24 at 1:01pm ·
“MARCH FOR OUR LIVES” Downtown Los Angeles

you tube.com


This CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ROBBER BARON period was timed to BABY BOOMER wealth assets-------maxed wealth in Social Security and Medicare Trusts-----maxed wealth in retirement savings and life insurances -----all reaching the period of baby boomer maximum retirement CURVE. Baby boomers from 1940s are aging out----the peak of baby boomer retirements happening during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.


This is for what our US 99% OF MILLENNIALs are being staged ----sadly, our young adults are deliberately being kept unable to maintain steady employment and strong wages but Obama and Clinton neo-liberals privatized all public trusts and savings to private global banking to continue these SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE/401k/PENSION schemes for these next few decades of MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE construction of massive global corporate campuses and global factories----

SAME MASSIVE AND SYSTEMIC FRAUDS WILL POP UP AGAIN STEALING ALL OF ANY WEALTH OUR US MILLENNIALS will accumulate---especially those thinking they are WINNERS being that 5% earning $200-400,000 annual salaries.


Since MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD SMART CITIES for only the global 1% has a goal of global 99% of citizens having no access to any monetary wealth-----there will be no need for a next round of ROBBER BARON FRAUDS----IF WE KEEP MOVING FORWARD.

When did CLINTON ERA install deregulated criminal banking structures? Here we see baby boomers peaked in 1999

'Baby Boomers have always had an outsize presence compared with other generations. They peaked at 78.8 million in 1999 and have remained the largest living adult generation'.

And our millennials are being led to protest a TRUMP ----
Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
March 1, 2018

Millennials projected to overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation

By Richard Fry   PEW RESEARCH


Millennials are on the cusp of surpassing Baby Boomers as the nation’s largest living adult generation, according to population projections from the U.S. Census Bureau. As of July 1, 2016 (the latest date for which population estimates are available), Millennials, whom we define as ages 20 to 35 in 2016, numbered 71 million, and Boomers (ages 52 to 70) numbered 74 million. Millennials are expected to overtake Boomers in population in 2019 as their numbers swell to 73 million and Boomers decline to 72 million. Generation X (ages 36 to 51 in 2016) is projected to pass the Boomers in population by 2028.


The Millennial generation continues to grow as young immigrants expand its ranks. Boomers – whose generation was defined by the boom in U.S. births following World War II – are aging and their numbers shrinking in size as the number of deaths among them exceeds the number of older immigrants arriving in the country.


Because generations are analytical constructs, it takes time for popular and expert consensus to develop as to the precise boundaries that demarcate one generation from another. Pew Research Center has assessed demographic, labor market, attitudinal and behavioral measures and has now established an endpoint – albeit inexact – for the Millennial generation. According to our revised definition, the youngest “Millennial” was born in 1996. This post has been updated accordingly (see note below).


Here’s a look at some generational projections:

Millennials

• With immigration adding more numbers to this group than any other, the Millennial population is projected to peak in 2036 at 76.2 million. Thereafter, the oldest Millennial will be at least 56 years of age and mortality is projected to outweigh net immigration. By 2050 there will be a projected 74.3 million Millennials.

Generation X

• For a few more years, Gen Xers are projected to remain the “middle child” of generations – caught between two larger generations, the Millennials and the Boomers. Gen Xers were born during a period when Americans were having fewer children than in later decades. When Gen Xers were born, births averaged around 3.4 million per year, compared with the 3.9 million annual rate from 1981 to 1996 when the Millennials were born.
• Though the oldest Gen Xer was 51 in 2016, the Gen X population is projected to grow for a couple more years. Gen Xers are projected to outnumber Boomers in 2028, when there will be 64.6 million Gen Xers and 63.7 million Boomers. The Census Bureau projects that the Gen X population will peak at 65.8 million in 2018.

Baby Boomers

• Baby Boomers have always had an outsize presence compared with other generations. They peaked at 78.8 million in 1999 and have remained the largest living adult generation.
• There were an estimated 74.1 million Boomers in 2016. By midcentury, the Boomer population is projected to dwindle to 16.6 million.