Blog Archives

November 30th, 2014

11/30/2014

THIS IS PURELY AN ELECTION LAW BLOG----PLEASE CHECK MY SATURDAY BLOG AND I'LL BE BACK WITH HEALTH CARE LATER MONDAY!

Still no response from Maryland Board of Elections on request by Cindy Walsh for an audit of Baltimore election results made November 12, 2014. I will be mailing this second request on Wednesday, December 3, 2014. There were enough claims of election violations in Baltimore to justify this recount and audit and we expect to see the Maryland Board of Elections direct Baltimore City Elections to arrange this audit. Maryland has no election audit law so we are demanding what citizens in other states have established----a citizens audit process.

December 3, 2014

To:

Linda H. Lamone -State Election Administrator

151 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, MD 21401

From:

Cindy Walsh

2522 N. Calvert St

Baltimore, Maryland 21218

RE: Widespread election irregularities in the Maryland General Election

Ms. Lamone,

It has been widely reported and there are numerous independent claims of election tampering around the State of Maryland. This is especially true in the City of Baltimore. Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland in the Democratic Primary already has a lawsuit in the Special Court of Appeals contesting the original Democratic primary because of systemic election irregularities by 501c3 and FCC regulated media outlets ignoring Federal election laws regarding forums, debates, and access to media and the deliberate attempt to deny primary candidates their rights as citizens to run for office with the expectation of free and fair elections and protection from our Maryland Board of Elections and our Maryland Attorney General's office. Now, we have widespread election tampering at the polls in this General Election taking the form of voting machines changing the voter's choices at the ballot box. Whether reversing the voter's selection on the ballot or eliminating the write-in choice of these voters completely......whether deliberately seeing that all but one voting machine out of several work causing huge lines of voters waiting in an effort to discourage these voters......the attack on free and fair elections in Maryland is systemic and must receive justice.

As a voter I personally experienced the scenario of having 4 of 5 voting machines down during what would be the busiest time for voters coming to the polls in the morning before work. I questioned the polling officials as to why these machines were down and how long it would take to bring them up as this was creating a condition of discouraging voters and within 5 minutes of making clear I was aware of these violations all voting machines were up and running, just minutes after being told that only one would be working. We hear on the news that polling places across Baltimore had the same problem of one machine in several operating with long lines to vote and it can be deduced that had someone made very public the intent to discourage voters at these polls as I did at mine----those machines would have been brought online. The candidates for whom I voted were the one's experiencing the effects of lost votes from polling machines flipping votes from one candidate to another and the effects of write-ins being erased.

We are demanding a hand recount of all ballots in Maryland and especially in the City of Baltimore. We demand that a citizen group be at every recount location and participate in seeing these ballots one by one and witness the counting of these ballots. I want to be assigned a leadership position in this in Baltimore City. This Maryland General Election cannot be called for Larry Hogan as from start to finish this election was systemically fraudulent and irregularities must be addressed in order to assure the citizens of Maryland they have had a Rule of Law free and fair election process. I am waiting for the Maryland Court of Special Appeals to rule on my original contest of the Democratic primary and will be heading to Federal Court when that decision comes. No election results can be certified until a complete audit of the entire state election sites is done.

Please respond with your plans to meet the demands of the citizens of Maryland united against widespread election fraud.

Thank you for your time,

Cindy Walsh

___________________________________________

This report is too long but it is a great look at hard work by the citizens of Maryland and what they found-----and if you look this report from 10 years ago it seems nothing has changed----except that the level of election fraud is growing and done openly now!

WHEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE GOES WRONG:Maryland Citizens Tell the Story of Election Day 2004“

It occurred to me later,” Ruth said, “that the incomplete tallies were not flagged, so how would anyone know that there were cards that could not be read in the pouches and which cards they were. I don’t know if the Board of Elections ever did upload these votes,” she added.-- Pollwatcher Ruth Zlotowitz relating her observations at a vote tabulation center in HowardCounty, on November 2, 2004.TrueVoteMDNovember 2004
TrueVoteMD is a non-partisan grassroots initiative that grew out of concerns raised by the introduction of paperless electronic touch-screen voting in Maryland. Its members representa broad spectrum of the community, including candidates for political office, elected officials,election judges, poll watchers, and citizens from all walks of life who are dedicated to preserving the integrity of our elections and ensuring confidence in the voting process.TrueVoteMD is a project of the Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics, a Maryland non-profit (501(c)3 pending).This report was compiled and written by Linda Schade, Jillian Aldebron, and Amanda Bower
_______________________________________
We have candidates in Baltimore elections that have filed for a recount and audit.

MARYLAND STATUTES AND CODES Section 12-101 - Petition for recount. Listen § 12-101. Petition for recount.

(a) In general.- A candidate for public or party office who has been defeated based on the certified results of any election conducted under this article may petition for a recount of the votes cast for the office sought.

(b) Contents of petition for recount.- The petition shall specify that the recount be conducted:

(1) in all of the precincts in which the office was on the ballot; or

(2) only in the precincts designated in the petition.

(c) Place of filing.- The petition shall be filed with the board with which the candidate's certificate of candidacy was filed.

(d) Time of filing.- The petition must be filed within 3 days after the results of the election have been certified.

(e) Notice of filing of petition.-

(1) The State Board shall promptly notify each appropriate local board of a petition that is filed with the State Board.

(2) A local board shall promptly notify the State Board of a petition that is filed with the local board.

[An. Code 1957, art. 33, § 12-101; 2002, ch. 291, §§ 2, 4.]

___________________________________________
Below you see a good template for citizens conducting a public audit of an election in Baltimore City. We intend to witness an official recount if granted and see the actual ballots as they are counted. We will continue on with an audit regardless of the Maryland Board of Elections decision.

Report on Election Auditing by the Election Audits Task Force of the League of Women Voters of the United States

January 2009

Report on Election Auditing

Table of Contents

Introduction..........................................................3
Recommended Guidelines for Election Audits................................................................... 4
Guidelines for Auditing of Election Procedures and Processes.......................................... 5A.
Transparency .....................................5B.

Testing..................................................6C.
Physical Protection of Voting Systems ................................................................... 7D.
Education and Training........................................................8E.
Polling Place Procedures Prior to Voting................................................................ 9F.
Polling Place Procedures During Voting................................................................. 9
Guidelines for Conducting an Audit of Election Results.................................................. 10A.
In Advance of the Election.......................................................101.
Selecting Audit Units......................................................................................... 102.
“Risk Limiting” Audits and Statistical Considerations ..................................... 113.
Escalation Protocols........................................................................................... 12B.
After the Election ..............................................................131.
Basic Checks at All Polling Places .................................................................... 132.
Accounting for Provisional Ballots.................................................................... 133.
Approval or Disapproval of Provisional Ballots................................................ 134.
Accounting for Absentee Ballots ....................................................................... 135.
Starting and Completing Audits......................................................................... 146.
Using Paper Records.........................................................147.
Including All Ballots................................................................158.
Random Selection of Audit Units ......................................................................169.
Transparency.................................................... 1610.
Selective Audits ...................................... 1711.
Regulation of Audits ......................................... 1812.
Ballot Secrecy................................................... 1813.
Maintenance of Records .................................................................................. 18C.
How to Do the Audit Counting ............................................................................. 18D.
Reporting Guidelines................................ 201.
Audit Report............................................... 202.
Audit Results.............................................. 20

Criteria for an Election Auditing Law .............................................................................. 21A.
Process Audits............................................... 21B.
Post-Election Audits........................................ 21
Glossary of Election Audits Terminology ........................................................................ 24
Election Audits Resources .......................... 28A.
Reports ........................................................ 28B.
Post-Election Audits...................................... 28C.
Government Service Efforts and Performance Reports ........................................ 29D.
Sample Procedures for Hand Counting Ballots: ................................................... 29E.
Web Sites......................................... 29F.
Other Resources....................................30

©2009 League of Women Voters of the United States

Report on Election Auditing Report on Election Auditing

Introduction

A fair and accurate election process is essential to any democracy. After the 2000 election, in which voters experienced significant problems, many people came to doubt that the process was either fair or accurate. Consequently, significant changes in voting technology and in election laws and procedures were introduced. The results have been mixed. For example, numerous reputable reports have documented security, reliability and verifiability issues with electronic voting machines. Voters and advocates have questioned both the validity of specific election results and the integrity of the entire election process. Strengthening requirements for reviews of election procedures, testing voting equipment and auditing vote results can go a long way to restoring confidence in the fairness of the voting process and accuracy of election results. The field of election auditing is fairly new and evolving. About half of all states have laws or regulations and procedures relating to recounts of contested elections, and about one third of the states currently require election audits. Post-election audits differ from recounts. Post-election audits routinely check voting system performance in contests, regardless of how close margins of victory appear to be. Recounts repeat ballot counting in special circumstances, such as when preliminary results show a close margin of victory. Anyone designing an audit system should be fully cognizant of the relationship between audit and recount procedures. It is important that recount procedures and audit procedures complement each other, rather than duplicate or contradict each other. However, to distinguish these two important procedures in this document, we will strictly separate the use of the terms “audit,” “auditing,” “audit count” or “audit counting,” and “recount” or “recounting.”

________________________________________

Maryland's election audit bills deserve support

by Rob Richie // Published February 20, 2009

This year the Maryland legislature is debating legislation (SB595 and HB665) that would require audits comparing paper ballots to machine count, promoting greater transparency throughout the election process. Casting of votes is a private act, but the counting of our votes should take place in full public view to ensure voter confidence in the results.Filed by Senate Majority Leader Edward Kasemeyer (D, Baltimore and Howard Counties) and House Ways and Means Chair Sheila Hixson (D, Montgomery County), thelegislation would require spot-checks of the new vote-counting equipment Maryland will begin using in 2010. The paper ballots marked by voters would be counted by hand in randomly selected precincts and the tallies compared to the results calculated by the optical scanning machines that will be used in the polling place.

Studies and Election Day experiences have proven most optical scanning equipment to be highly accurate in counting votes. In the recent Minnesota recount, for example, hand counts of the paper ballots showed that the optical scanners had an accuracy rate of 99.9%. But all computerized equipment is vulnerable to programming errors, equipment malfunctions, or misinterpretation of voter intent. As one example, a local race in Iowa in 2006 showed a stunning defeat of an incumbent by a little-known opponent until a hand-count of the paper ballots revealed a computer error in which the optical scanners had not been programmed to account for the rotating order in which candidates' names appeared on the ballots. Our new voting system will allow voters to know how their votes were recorded, but paper records do not mean much unless we use them to ensure that our votes are counted accurately, especially in close races.

The legislation would require audits of federal and statewide races using a method developed by statisticians to hand-count more votes in contests with a very narrow margin of victory than in those where the outcome is clearer. Many counties across the nation audit a flat percentage of ballots, but experts argue that this wastes time and resources counting races where the outcome is not in doubt while counting too few votes to be certain of correct results in a close race. Prominent organizations like the League of Women Voters and American Statistical Association endorse this approach.

A national group of prominent election officials, statisticians, computer statisticians and election reform advocates put their heads together to come up with the most practical and cost-effective way to ensure that election results are correct. In looking back at Maryland's last three general elections, the cost of auditing them this way would have been roughly $20,000 in 2004 and 2006 and almost $40,000 in 2008 because of the close race in Congressional District 1. That seems a small price to pay for ensuring voter confidence that the right candidate takes office.

________________________________________

Citizen audits are organized all across the nation. Below you see a state that has a long history of citizen audits and we need that tradition in Maryland today.

Citizen Audit Seeks Connecticut Voters to Observe Post-Election Audits

Posted on August 9, 2014 | By Jonathan Kantrowitz
Source: The Connecticut Citizen Election Audit

Volunteer One Day for Democracy

The Connecticut Citizen Election Audit announces the opening of signup to participate in the independent observation of audits following the August primary election. Connecticut voters committed to trustworthy and credible elections are invited to signup now to volunteer one day between August 27th and September 12th.
Voters are offered written, video, and conference call training. Volunteers signup online, indicating the days within the period they can be available and the distance they are willing to travel. After towns are scheduled for audits, volunteers are assigned to observe one day in a town in their area of the state.
Coalition spokesperson Luther Weeks noted, “Without our volunteers, only a few officials would know how post-election audits are conducted.”
Further information, an introductory video, and online signup are available at: http://CTElectionAudit.org/volunteer

After the completion of local counting, the Citizen Audit combines the official results with citizen observations and makes an independent report to the public, election officials, and the General Assembly.

The Connecticut Citizen Election Audit, has organized volunteer observers and provided independent post-election audit reports since the adoption of optical scanners statewide in 2007.

Weeks noted, “Our past reports have surfaced election day errors, and multiple flaws in the conduct of the audit itself. Without our observations and objective reports these errors would not have been surfaced or corrected.”

Information on the Citizen Audit and all past reports are all available at:
http://CTElectionAudit.org

____________________________________________
As you see below your Maryland Assembly has made it difficult for the citizens of Maryland to recount and/or audit elections because they use machines not offering a paper trail, they place the costs on the citizens requesting the recount with a bond requirement, and they do not have election audit laws. We can see an individual electronic ballot with no voter ID----but not a paper ballot for each voter. As I showed earlier, there is a history of problems in computer coding that has shown results can be changed.

Q: Does the new voting system have a paper trail?

A: Yes. Each voting unit prints a report before the polls open confirming that there are no votes on the voting unit. After the polls close, another report is printed showing the results from that voting unit. Additionally, in case of a recount, ballot images can be printed from the election database. These ballot images can be manually recounted without being attributable to any particular voter. The voting system does not, however, provide a voter-verified paper trail. The State Board of Elections conducted a study on voter-verified paper trail and other voter verification technologies. The findings of the study are that these solutions are not ready for implementation.

THIS WAS FROM A 2006 REPORT FROM MARYLAND ASSEMBLY STUDY ON VOTING MACHINES:

Finally, seven in ten respondents (69.4 percent) agreed that voters “should be able to confirm the votes they cast on touch screen systems by looking at paper records or receipts of their votes.” This should not be surprising, given people’s familiarity with receipts from self-service transactions (e.g., gas pumps, movie ticket kiosks, ATMs, etc.). Ask if anyone wants a receipt after any transaction, and the majority of persons will almost certainly say yes. No empirical data, of which I am aware, exist on the subject of receipt retention, use and management, and additional research in this area would be helpful. There is evidence from at least one election that most voters do not use the paper trail to verify their votes. In a video study of voters in Las Vegas in the 2004 general election, fewer than 40 percent actually looked at the paper trail to confirm their ballots and many of those voters merely glanced quickly, hit the confirm button and moved on (Los Angeles County, Registrar/Recorder, 2004).

Don't worry say the Maryland Assembly----we audit ourselves upon occasion.

Maryland Audit Information

In September 2013 the Maryland Board of Elections adopted new "verification" regulations: http://www.elections.state.md.us/laws_and_regs/documents/Proposed_Regulations.pdf

Note that while the term "audit" is used, because Maryland's voting machines don't produce a voter verifiable paper record, they are unable to conduct an audit that is an independent verification of the election day results (see audit definition here: http://www.ceimn.org/audit_database/about.)

Here are the key components:
1. Post election verification - checking that the totals from a sample of machines are added correctly to get the total.
2. Post election audit - Precincts - checking that the number of voters matches the number of votes (reconciliation.)

Additional Resources: Maryland Statutes - Title 8 - Elections Maryland State Board of Elections

Maryland Recount Laws

This information was initially released on October 21, 2010 and updated in October 2012.

Voting System Used: DREs without VVPAT

For more details, visit Verified Voting.

Counting Method: Electronic review only
Counting method chosen by initiator

While Maryland's statutes do not provide instructions for conducting recounts by hand or by machine, the Code of Maryland Regulations states that for votes cast on optical scan ballots, the recount initiator must specify the counting method to be used. See Title 33, “State Board of Elections,” Subtitle 12, “Recounts,” Chapter 5, “Recount Procedures – Optical Scan Voting System,” Section 33.12.05.02: http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/33/33.12.05.02.htm. However, optical scan ballots are used in Maryland primarily for absentee and provisional ballots. The primary voting system is direct-recording electronic machines (DREs) without a voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT). Hence, despite these various recount provisions, in essence only an electronic review of the initial returns is possible. For recount procedures for DREs, see Subtitle 12, Chapter 6, “Recount Procedures – Direct Recording Equipment,” Section 33.12.06.02: http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/33/33.12.06.02.htm.

Initiating Mechanism: Candidate-initiated
Voter-initiated

Candidate-Initiated Options: Candidate determines how many/which precincts to recount

Any candidate in any election may petition for a recount. See the Maryland Statutes, “Election Law,” Section 12-101. If they do not specify all designated precincts, a counterpetition may be filed by another candidate to request that the remaining precincts also be recounted. Counterpetitions may also be filed to request an additional recount if the first recount alters the outcome of the election. See Section 12-102.

Timing: See Sections 12-101(d), 12-102 (d) and the Code of Maryland Regulations, Section 33.12.02.09: http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=33.12.02.09.htm.

Voter-Initiated Options: Voters determine how many/which precincts to recount
Voters may request recounts for initiatives/questions

Any voter may file a recount request for a question for which they are eligible to vote. As with recounts for candidates, the initiator may specify if all or only some precincts are to be recounted. See Section 12-103. If not all precincts are requested, a counterpetition may be filed requesting that the remaining precincts also be recounted. See Section 12-104.

Timing: See Sections 12-103(D) and 12-104(D).

Cost for Candidate-Initiated Recounts: Initiator pays deposit or bond before recount
Payer of costs depends on outcome of recount

Costs are not determined beforehand, but a bond is set by a judge after the recount petition is filed. See Section 12-105. There are a number of outcomes that can result in the state paying the full costs of the recount, including a change in the election result or a substantial gain in votes for the requesting candidate. See Section 12-107.

Cost for Voter-Initiated Recounts: Initiator pays deposit or bond before recount
Payer of costs depends on outcome of recount

Costs are not determined beforehand, but a bond is set by a judge after the recount petition is filed. See Section 12-105. There are a number of outcomes that can result in the state paying the full costs of the recount, including a change in the election result or a substantial gain in votes in favor of the position taken on the question by the initiator. See Section 12-107.

Challengers and Observers: Statutes specify that recount must be public
Party/candidate or initiator has statutory authority to appoint observers
Party/candidate or initiator has statutory authority to appoint challengers

Election officials are required to “ensure the public’s ability to be present while the recount is conducted.” See Section 12-106(a)(2). While the statutes do not mention observers or challengers, the Code of Maryland Regulations provides rules by which “any person with standing to file a petition for the recount being conducted” may challenge votes or ballots in the recount. See Section 33.12.07, “Challenges”: http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=33.12.07. The Code also specifies that recounts shall be “open to candidates and their representatives, other parties to the recount, the media, and the general public.” See Section 33.12.03.02: http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=33.12.03.02.htm.

Rules for Determining Voter Intent: Secretary of State or Election Board responsible for defining intent

The State Board is to adopt regulations regarding voter intent. See Section 11-302.

Audit Laws: State does not have audit laws

As of our most recent update (October 2012), Maryland does not have audit laws.

Additional Resources: Maryland Statutes - Title 8 - Elections Maryland State Board of Elections

States having: The primary voting system is direct-recording electronic machines (DREs) without a voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT).

0 Comments

November 29th, 2014

11/29/2014

0 Comments

I'LL BE BACK ON MONDAY TO START A DISCUSSION ON HEALTH CARE!!

I wanted to talk elections today and tie it to my previous blogs on a captured court and justice system from prosecutor, to states attorney, to judges. Now, if you are fighting for civil rights and access to these courts you know there has been a long-standing problem in Maryland. If you are a citizen who is seeing all kinds of corporate frauds and government corruption and see no pathway to justice----you too are now seeing the capture of the courts in Maryland. The courts are filled with people who value the protection of profit and the protection of corrupt government officials rather than the Constitutional rights of Maryland citizens and equal protection. If you think I am falsely categorizing people just look at how many cases against public officials and corporations die in Maryland courts. Part of the problem is the Maryland Assembly and passing of law that makes these cases harder to make but one thing we know is that the people who should be calling these laws unconstitutional --------are not doing so. Many of these Maryland laws blocking pathways to justice against corporations and government officials are simply unconstitutional and need to be challenged in court.

WE HAVE TAKEN THESE KINDS OF CASES TO COURT BUT WATCH AS THE MARYLAND COURT ALLOWS THEM TO LANGUISH AND DIE. I HEAR THIS ALL THE TIME.

Below is a list of judges up for election in 2014. If you notice O'Malley appointed almost all of these judges just before the coming 2014 election and the terms of service carry these judges into 2024/2029. Is it a coincidence that O'Malley appointed these judges just as an election comes about? Of course not......an incumbent has the advantage over challengers and that is why almost all of O'Malley's appointments won permanent election. This is what I mean by the power of elections as regards states attorneys, prosecutors, and judges. I do not know of many people who like O'Malley and most people understand he is a stooge for Wall Street and the face of Maryland corruption. He's not the first of course but he excelled at these qualities. So, we know he would appoint people as judges that would do just these things above-----

AND YET ALL OF THESE CANDIDATES WERE MADE PERMANENT IN THIS 2014 ELECTION.

This is the problem folks------people are not even taking time to research these candidates and thinking how the behavior of a governor appointing judges may be reflected in the candidates for justice he chooses. I deliberately show many of the Baltimore City court races because as we know----that is where justice is captured the most. All of O'Malley's appointments were made permanent.

Jimmy Sarbanes is a circuit court judge for the First Circuit Court in Wicomico County, Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014.[1][2] Sarbanes ran for re-election to the First Circuit Court in 2014, winning a full term expiring on December 31, 2029.[3][4]

Danny Brian O'Connor is a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court for Frederick County in Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on November 25, 2013.[1] O'Connor ran for re-election to the Sixth Circuit Court in 2014.[2]

Audrey A. Creighton is an associate judge on the Sixth Circuit Court for Montgomery County in Maryland. She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014.[1] She ran for election to the 6th Circuit Court in 2014, and she won a full term that expires on December 31, 2029.[2][3]

Hayward James "Jay" West is a judge on the 7th Judicial Circuit for Charles County in Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014.[1] West ran for re-election to the 7th Judicial Circuit in 2014, winning a new term expiring on December 31, 2029.[2]

Melissa Marie Phinn is an associate judge on the 8th Judicial Circuit for Baltimore City in Maryland. She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on December 28, 2012, and assumed office on January 18, 2013.[1][2][3] Phinn was re-elected to the 8th Judicial Circuit in 2014, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.[4][5]

Melissa K. Copeland is an associate judge on the 8th Judicial Circuit for Baltimore City in Maryland. She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014, and assumed office on March 13, 2014.[1][2] She was re-elected to the 8th Judicial Circuit in 2014, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.[3][4]

Mark Stephen Chandlee is a judge for the 7th Judicial Circuit for Calvert County in Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on September 19, 2013.[1] Chandlee was re-elected to the 7th Judicial Circuit in 2014, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.[2]

Lawrence V. Hill, Jr. is an associate judge on the 7th Judicial Circuit in Prince George's County, Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014, and assumed office on March 24, 2014.[1][2] Hill was re-elected to the 7th Judicial Circuit in 2014, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.[3]

Christopher L. Panos is an associate judge on the 8th Judicial Circuit for Baltimore City in Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on December 28, 2012 and assumed office on January 7, 2013.[1][2][3] Panos was re-elected to the 8th Judicial Circuit in 2014, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.[4][5]

Brenda A. Sexton is a judge on the Second Circuit Court for Cecil County in Maryland.[1] She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on November 25, 2013.[2][3] Sexton was re-elected to the Second Circuit Court in 2014, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.[4][5]

Colleen Cavanaugh is a judge of the Third Circuit Court for Baltimore and Harford counties in Maryland. She was appointed to the the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014, and began serving on the court on March 27, 2014.[1][2] Cavanaugh ran to keep her seat in the 2014 election, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.[3][4]

Douglas R. M. Nazarian is a judge on the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the intermediate appellate court for the state of Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley to fill a vacancy created by the retirement of James Eyler. He assumed office on January 1, 2013.[1] He ran for retention in 2014, winning a new term expiring on December 31, 2024.[2][3]

Kevin Francis Arthur is an at large judge for the Court of Special Appeals in Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014, effective March 18, 2014.[1][2] He ran for retention in 2014, winning a full term expiring on December 31, 2024.[3][4]

Andrea M. Leahy-Fucheck is a judge for the Court of Special Appeals in Maryland. She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014.[1] She ran for retention in 2014, winning a new term effective until December 31, 2024.[2][3]

Michael Wilson Reed is a judge for the Court of Special Appeals in Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014, and assumed office on March 18, 2014.[1][2] He ran for retention in 2014, winning a full term expiring on December 31, 2024.[3][4]

Shirley Marie Watts is an associate judge for the Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland's highest court. She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley in July 2013. She ran for retention in 2014, winning a new term expiring on December 31, 2024.[1][2]

____________________________________________

This sums up the problem-----the courts are being defunded at the national level and states are doing so as well. There is a crisis in the number of judges forcing shortcuts that always come at the expense of justice for most citizens. Let's take a look at funding in Maryland courtesy of Maryland Assembly.

Injustice on Appeal? Professors William Reynolds and William Richman document the crisis in U. S. Courts of Appeals

The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals handles over 60,000 cases on its docket every year. Most of them , however, are disposed without oral arguments and without publication of opinions. In their new book, Injustice on Appeal: The U.S. Courts of Appeals in Crisis, UM Carey Law Professor William Reynolds joins University of Toledo College of Law Professor William M. Richman in examining the current state of the Court.

The book chronicles the transformation of the United States Circuit Courts; considers the merits and dangers of continued truncating procedures; catalogues and responds to the array of specious arguments against increasing the size of the judiciary; and considers several ways of reorganizing the circuit courts so that they can dispense traditional high quality appellate justice even as their caseloads and the number of appellate judgeships increase.

"The Courts have been asking for judges in a formal way," says Reynolds. "But they have not gotten to sit down at the table with Congress and say 'we need many, many more judges'."

The distribution of what Reynolds and Richman call “the full Learned Hand treatment, in recognition of the famed appeals court judge ” – or the process that includes a judicial review and published opinion -- as opposed to the minimal treatment “is not equal across class [or] across race,” says Richman.

"It's really all about what has happened in the Court over the past 30 years, where the structure and the operation of those courts is not what it once was," says Shale Stiller, UM Carey Law adjunct professor and partner at DLA Piper US.

___________________________________________

Below you see Maryland's categorization of case loads and the days a citizen waits for such cases.   Look below to see a comparison of a corporate state like Maryland and a social progressive state like Massachusetts. These budgets are of course not inclusive of all spending -----but the budgets are calculated much the same way.

Populations of Maryland vs Massachusetts close-----yet Maryland spends almost half on judiciary.

Maryland 5,773,552
Massachusetts 6,547,629

C00A00 –JudiciaryAnalysis of the FY 2015 Maryland Executive Budget, 20148

The time standards for District Court cases are set according to the following case types:
Criminal: 180 days;
Traffic Driving Under the Influence(DUI): 180 days;
Traffic Must Appear: 180 days;
Traffic Payable: 120 days;
Civil –Large: 250 days; and
Civil –Small: 90 days.

For each case type, the goal is to terminate 98% of cases within the time standard.Exhibit 1 illustrates the number of District Court cases terminated within the time standard. While the majority of cases for each case type are disposed of within the established timeframe, in all categories, the District Court failed to meet the performance standard of 98%. Further, the timely termination of cases slipped in almost all categories from fiscal 2011 to 2012. The most dramatic decline was in Civil–Small cases, which exhibited a 5percentage point decline,from 85 to 80% from fiscal 2011 to 2012. Traffic–DUI cases declined from 81 to 77%, which is the lowest rate of completion within the time standard of any case type. All other case types also saw a decline between 1and 2percentage points, with the exception of Criminal cases,which remained at 91%. However, while the percentage of cases completed within the time standard declined, the differences between the average termination times of within standard and beyond standard cases decreased for most case types.

Maryland Judiciary-----Operating Budget Data
Adjusted Grand Total (thousands)

FYI 2013     FYI 2014      FYI2015      Increase over last year
$438,304 $468,503      $499,961       $31,458             6.7%

MASSACHUSETTS FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET SUMMARY ($000)

Judiciary
Data Current as of: 10/17/2014
TOTAL $823,686
_____________________________________________
Below you see a good article written by low income citizens and their real concerns with equal access and protection and due process in what is the wealthiest county in the state. So, this is not a problem of revenue----it is a problem of funding.

I want to caution people that do not care if the poor have legal access that I am having the same problems in the courts and moving cases along and I am middle-class with multiple degrees. So, these access issues are broadening and target people with cases that involve holding corporations and government accountable. When a person goes to court PRO SE it is often because they cannot find a lawyer that will represent that case.

MARYLAND COURTS of Montgomery County PRO SE LITIGANTS & JUDGES BIASES

Pro Se litigants:

"Deprived of life, liberty or property without due process."
Judges:

"Refuse to operate within the law and provide fair procedures".
ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Access to justice has eroded. Pro Se litigants are discouraged and denied rights with the intent to sabotage pro se litigants access to justice. These biases exists in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court ruling in Faretta v. California; "that everyone has the constitutional right to proceed without counsel".

Olmstad v. United States, (1928) 277 U.S. 438
"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites everyone to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy".
Saturday, January 4, 2014 Maryland Courts in Montgomery County Access to Justice The Court of Public Opinion/ the voiceless "50 million Americans qualify for federally funding civil legal aid, yet more than half of those who seek help are turned away due to lack of resources" (legal aid and pro bono lawyers)
"Access to Justice" is eroded in Montgomery County, Maryland judicial system especially towards pro se litigants. Powers to be -the government became a "rubber stamp institution' (accepted these behaviors) refusing to hold Judges, government and court officials accountable for their actions. In addition, ignoring the root causes of disparity issues in Montgomery county without applying a comprehensive social, economic or political strategy to combat these long-term problems. These actions impacts the political and social destabilization in the region, such as violating human and civil rights, unsustainable social and economic development that causes divisions in society and political systems.

According to the Department of Justice (Access to Justice Initiatives), millions of people can't get assistance due to systematic discrimination that takes hold in judicial procedures and understands that inequities shouldn't be tolerated. For example, promoting barriers and accessibility towards individuals who are experiencing financial barriers to exercise their rights, ensuring fairness, delivering fair and just outcomes and respect from the justice system in Montgomery County. In 2008, Chief Judge Robert Bell of the Court of Appeals of Maryland established Maryland Access to Justice Commission to reduce these barriers. In 2002, an Anti- Bias commission was created to examine the racial, gender and ethical bias that negatively impacted on the Maryland judicial system. In 2014, these barriers haven't decrease the numbers equally however demonstrates consistent disparity which remain a crisis situation in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Montgomery county is one of the tenth wealthiest counties in the nation, highest disparity and inequality (social economic issues) historically, however suppressed (Reference disparity statistics below). In 2002, the Court of Appeals of Maryland implemented an administrative order creating anti-bias commission on gender equality to ensure that gender, racial and ethnic fairness don't have a negative impact in the Maryland judicial system. The comprehensive report is a study designed to measure the changes in attitudes, experiences and perceptions towards these biases. "Social neglect and abandonment of indigenous, brown and black people have been perpetuated through the institutionalized legality of unfair treatment. More aggressive measures and policies are implemented to deny rights to those who are a the bottom of the social and economic barrel". The rights for equality, equity and justice for all is a myth however oppressed in Montgomery County, Maryland.

The Issues/Barriers A pro se litigant is negatively characterized, discouraged and denied rights  Judges comments reflect a distinct anti-pro se litigant sentiment. Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
The Courts are bias against pro se litigants in procedural requirements that are intentionally difficult. "Pro se pleadings are to be considered without the regard to technicality; pro se pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers" Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959). Judges and court officials are rude and disrespectful, only to discourage the rights of pro se litigants. "Judges have duty under Canon 3 to "be patient, dignified and courteous towards litigants and the right to be heard according to the law. "The fifth amendment states that no one shall be " deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law".
Court clerks withhold information from pro se litigants, stereotype and stigmatized and maliciously advised litigants with wrong information. Clerks manipulate records and documents are constantly lost there is no accountability to these actions. Canon 3 'Judges has a duty to assure that court officials "refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties" (Canon 3 Section 2) suggests a duty upon judges, especially administrative judges, to assure their court staff provide assistance in an impartial manner.

The Courts provide a self-help window which it's no guarantee of any help. They look angry, attitudes and responses are rude as if you disturbing them when it's part of their job to serve the public. This is just a tactic to block judicial access to common citizens.

Law libraries are financed by filing fees by pro se litigants ( some states) however they are at the convenience for lawyers. If you are a minority some clerks automatic assume you are a defendant in a criminal case before asking, May I help you"? Instead they ask, "Are you a defendant for a criminal case"?

Montgomery County is culturally diverse, there are immigrants and second language citizens in this county. When they present their case, you can barely understand or comprehend their case. Hispanics has the advantage to be offered an interpreter and others, such as Asian, African and Indians, etc., don't have the same opportunity to be offered the same services for an interpreter made available to assist them. Cases are lost due to this sort of injustice and discriminatory practices. This practice is unconstitutional, every member in society deserves equal protection under the law. Maty v. Grasselii Chemical Company 303 U.S. 197 (1938) "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleadings is important, but its importance consists in effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment".

The matter of public opinion and 1st Amendment rights aren't a guarantee - To openly speak on these topics of disparity, injustice and civil rights- you are retaliated and threatened in various ways that attributes and create a totalitarian oppressed system. This includes the access to media (freedom of the press) which is regulated on the basis of conformity to the government and non-conformity with "official" public opinion. This results to a "forcible consensus" not a democratic system of government but an anarchy. The problem is the government exclude the public access and don't have the ability to design a political system to limit corruption. In addition, can't rid their own personal biases to produce a comprehensive plan to improve public trust that deeply colors the way the public negatively views politics. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights". Sherar v. Cullen, 481F. 2d 946 (1973).

The founding fathers tirelessly tried to repair the problem of corruption; their ideas of this "disease of corruption" range from moral and ethical values featuring the legal and political systems. Now that the disease has surfaced, the constitution and laws needs to reformed and redesigned. The Constitution- fifth amendment states that no one shall be "deprived of life liberty of property without due process of law". The Equal Protection clause stretched with the promise that before depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property, the government must follow fair procedures. Action denying the process that is "due" is unconstitutional and the erosion of civil liberties.

References :
View links (below)

Unfinished Business - Disparity in Montgomery County
https://drive.google.com/?tab=jo&authuser=0#my-drive

Traffic Stops in Montgomery County
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6WA87wzHgSVVnNZaUJRZzJNUWM/edit

Department of Justice "Access to Justice"

Maryland Courts on Racial and Gender Bias
http://www.msba.org/departments/commpubl/press_ctr/pressrel/2001/pr10-29-2001.asp

Montgomery County Achievement Gap
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6WA87wzHgSVUW1saVRhei1SZEU/edit

Montgomery County MOA Department of Justice /MCPD engage in racially discriminatory conduct
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/Pubs/mcagrmt.php#COMPLAINT AND INVESTIGATION PROCESS Posted by Mimi Gooding at 8:57 AM Sunday, July 14, 2013

District Court of Maryland Loss of the Honorable Judge Convoy, Jr. JUDGES ATTITUDES TOWARDS PRO SE LITIGANTS
"Judges rule with a view to the private interest" Perverted forms of systematic corruptions
Judges "shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding... the right to be heard according to the law" (Canon 3 Sec. B4)
I am sorry for the lost of Judge Conroy, Jr., who was a Judge at the District Court of Maryland. I pray the strength for his wife, family and loved ones as they grieve their loss.
I discovered that the Judge was deceased in the newspaper while no one informed me from the District Court of Maryland that Judge Conroy, Jr., was deceased. For some reason I was waiting for an officer from the courts to inform me but I expect too much integrity from the District Court in Montgomery County.

Now, I understand why the Honorable Judge Wolfe desire to bury my case on the behalf of his private interest.... disregarding justice. Judge Wolfe has his own biases with women, low-income and pro se litigants ( distinct anti-pro se litigant sentiment). The Honorable judge, the administrative judge fails to improve the numbers of outcomes and to improve the access to justice in Montgomery County. Minorities are still the highest in traffic violations with large fines, unsuccessful in criminal and civil cases with negative outcomes against gender, income, race and ethnic litigants in Montgomery County. The traffic court is segregated as the officers (mostly white males) sit on one side of the court while minorities, low-income and white women (black females has the highest stops in Montgomery County) sits on the other side.....very intimidating and segregated environment.
(In 2002, Court of Appeals created an Anti- Bias Commission that studies provided that gender and racial bias have a major negative impact in Maryland Judicial system). The disparity still exists today in 2014. You can assume that hiring minorities could be more damaging because they use their ethnicity to abuse the system against other minorities.

As the court administrator, the court clerks intentionally withhold information from non-lawyers that they routinely give to lawyers. If a lawyer calls to request a particular procedure the clerk with provide answers. However, if a pro se litigant request the same information it becomes suddenly "no answer" or don't provide legal advice or tell misinformation with malicious intent. Even if they have a window for pro se litigants there is no real assistance or even civility. They have an instant attitude snatching papers as if you are bothering them and it's apart of their job to greet the public. Records are munipulated and documents are mailed late intentionally. Ex-parte communication is acceptable. They intentionally do everything to discourage pro se litigants from exercising their rights for justice. Judges have a duty to assure that court officials "refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties" (Canon 3, Sec C2) The latter provision suggests a duty upon judges generally and especially administrative judges, to assure their court staff provide assistance in an impartial manner.

There is no accountability for judges actions as they believes that they are "Above the Law" therefore he can use the judicial platform to suppress the law. The court room shouldn't be a place for situational ethics. Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal: 3d 678 694 " Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. Posted by Mimi Gooding at 4:21 PM Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Maryland District Court in Montgomery County During trail, the Maryland district court judge was favorable to the defendants which I am not surprised. I was the plaintiff and the defendants fabricated throughout the trail which the Judge permitted. I was a pro se litigant representing myself and I failed to research the history of the Maryland Court system and Montgomery County. I discovered that Montgomery County haven't been friendly to the low-income community, minorities and women.(See Administrative order creating a anti-bias commission, 2002), this to ensure gender, racial and ethnic fairness. I had complained about a white landlord in a predominately minority community which he retaliated against me because I filed a complaint of inhabitable living conditions which my apartment failed inspection. The Judge was favorable to the landlord because of his own biases not because they won legitimately.

The Judge allowed his human nature to supersede justice therefore he was bias against me because of reasons of my income classification, race, gender and religion. I was in court from 8:00 am until 2:00 pm while he showed favoritism when the defendant's lawyer was late. Judge Conroy tried to intimidate me yet I stood up against the fabrication and bias remarks of corruptive behavior and actions. He used these aggressive measures to deny my rights because of the history of Montgomery county of stigmatism and stereotyping towards certain class of citizens is perpetuated through the institutionalized legality of unfair treatment.

Judge Conroy informed me that I need a lawyer without acknowledging that "pro se" litigants (self representation) is legal and Constitutional. Elmore v. McCammon (1986) " the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws".  Judge Conroy refuse to allow me to read and cross examine the evidence that the defendants produced. The Judge claimed that I didn't breach my lease when it states on the notice to vacat that I violated the terms of lease and refer to B.3, B.4, 5,6,8 & 9 of my lease agreement. However the defendant's alleged that I had an unauthorized visitor and violated peaceful enjoyment agreement. I had gave court documents concerning a tenant who threaten me which I was granted a peace order from the court. In addition, proved that I had no one living with me, the defendants retaliated against me because I file a claim against them.

Judge Conroy yelled and screamed during trail and turning red in the face, (Judges have a duty under Canon 3) "To be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants" (Section B4) I was the pro se litigant plaintiff and the defendant was represented by an attorney fabricating in Court swearing under oath promising God to tell the truth". Judges manipulating and suppressing the truth, manufacturing facts, mischaracterize pleadings and engage in ex-parte communication. Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 270, 286.

I encourage anyone who has no funds for an attorney don't allow these Judges in Montgomery County to intimidate you from your Constitutional rights. You have a right to fight for your rightful place in the judicial system. Regardless the erosion of civil liberties that corresponds to the marginalization or undermining your constitutional rights within the Maryland Court system; please remember the State of Maryland has a low integrity rate with the government activities which includes the court system. Posted by Mimi Gooding at 3:31 PM

_____________________________________________
Please take time to educate what to look for in these judicial appointments and then the consequences of blindly electing the one with the most name recognition----remember, it is incumbents that media will promote the most. This is why O'Malley waits until just before the primary elections to appoint these candidates----it gives them the end in election coverage.

These judges will serve 10 and 15 years----that is a long time for a governor to have an imprint. What the citizens of Maryland can do is make these trial actions as public as possible and let the courts know you know that things are not working as the Constitution requires. Take these issues to Federal court ----things may get more progressive in 2016 if Bernie Sanders is elected.

This is pretty boring stuff but take time to look at the candidates----research their background and think of who appointed these judges.

Maryland judicial elections, 2014

Maryland judicial elections, 2014 Overview Total candidates: 169 Primary candidates: 153 General election candidates: 136 Incumbency Incumbents: 84 Incumbent success rate: 87% Competition - general election Percent of candidates in contested races: 67% Percent uncontested: 29% Percent retention: 4% Judicial Elections Elections Portal Judicial election dates Candidates by state Supreme court elections

The focus of the Maryland judicial elections are the trial courts. Judges of the circuit and orphans' courts competed in partisan primaries and then a non-partisan general election in 2014. Though the primaries were partisan, candidates may cross-file with both major parties.

A majority of this state's November elections were competitive, as only 40 out of the 169 total candidates ran unopposed. The contested races saw 11 incumbents defeated, though all five judges facing retention were successful by wide margins.

See Maryland elections summary, 2014 for an overview of this state's election results.

Election dates

February 25: Filing deadline
June 24: Primary
November 4: General election[1]

In addition to candidate lists, this page includes information about how the state's judicial elections work, as well as articles about notable news in races across the state.

General election: Contested races (I) denotes incumbent

First Circuit Court, Wicomico County

Jimmy Sarbanes (I), 55.7%
Melvin Caldwell Jr., 44.1%

Sixth Circuit Court, Frederick County

Danny Brian O'Connor (I), 48.7%
Scott Rolle, 51.1%

Sixth Circuit Court, Montgomery County (4 seats)

Audrey A. Creighton (I), 20%
Daniel Patrick Connell, 18%
Gary Eugene Bair (I), 20.4%
Joan E. Ryon (I), 21.3%
Nelson W. Rupp, Jr. (I), 20%

Seventh Circuit Court, Charles County (2 seats)

Orphans Court, Allegany County (3 seats)

Billie J. Gilpin (I), 27.8%
Charles "Buck" Taylor, 14.5%
Donna F. May (I), 31.5%
Edward C. Crossland, 26.1%

Orphans Court, Anne Arundel County (3 seats)

Alan Rzepkowski, 23.5%
Judith L. Duckett (I), 28.9%
Nancy B. Hirshman, 18.5%
Nancy Phelps (I), 29%

Orphans Court, Baltimore County (3 seats)

Arthur M. Frank, 24%
Juliet Fisher (I), 28%
Peter V. Gargano, 22.7%
William Evans (I), 25.1%

Orphans Court, Carroll County (3 seats)

Cathy Reese (I), 25.1%
Charles E. Harrison, 8.4%
Dorothy V. Utz (I), 26.4%
Ed Leister, 9.4%
John D. Carbaugh, 23.5%
Neil Ridgely, 7.2%

Orphans Court, Cecil County (3 seats)

Carolyn Crouch (I), 27.7%
Pete Pritchard, 22.8%
Richard Charles Bartel, 10.6%
Sally Saunders Camp, 24.1%
W. Edwin Cole, Jr. (I), 14.6%

Orphans Court, Charles County (3 seats)

Darlene Breck, 26.7%
Brian L. Still, 18.6%
Frank H. Lancaster (I), 26.6%
J. Lorraine Berry (I), 27.9%

Orphans Court, Frederick County (3 seats)

Adrian Remsberg (I), 19.8%
Bonnie L. Nicholson, 13.5%
Cleopatra Campbell (I), 20.1%
James Edward French, 13%
Janis Judson, 13.3%
Jimmy W. Trout, 20.2%

Orphans Court, Garrett County (3 seats)

Fred Sanders, 41.2%
H. Wayne Wilt (I), 39%
Everett B. Deberry (write-in)
Dan Duggan (write-in) [2]
Dave Beard (write-in)

Orphans Court, Howard County (3 seats)

Anne Dodd (I), 22.6%
Ellen Harrison, 18.7%
Emma Travis-Howard, 17%
Leslie Smith Turner (I), 21.1%
Nicole Bormel Miller, 20.3%

Orphans Court, Kent County (3 seats)

Amy L. Nickerson, 20.1%
Elroy G. Boyer, Jr. (I), 22.1%
Paul M. Showalter, 17.4%
Rosalie Brady Kuechler, 18.9%
Elizabeth Carroll, 21.5%

Orphans Court, Queen Anne's County (3 seats)

Eric Wargotz, 22.9%
Joseph V. DiPietro (I), 24.3%
Kimberly Jean Cascia (I), 27.1%
Stan Ruddie, 8.7%
Thomas M. Walsh (I), 16.8%

Orphans Court, Somerset County (3 seats)

Bob McCready, 20.1%
Donald L. Howard (I), 19.8%
John R. Somers (I), 25.7%
Kenneth E. Ballard, Jr., 13%
Libby M. Hall, 21.1%

Orphans Court, St. Mary's County (3 seats)

Albert Babcock, 18.7%
Dalton Wood (I), 26%
Linda Dean (I), 17.3%
Michael R. White, 19.6%
William Miles Mattingly (I), 18.3%

Orphans Court, Washington County (3 seats)

Cassandra Laverne Costley, 22.6%
Eileen W. Wiggins (I), 12.4%
John M. Shriver (I), 25.8%
Joseph W. Eichelberger, 24.7%
Linda Davis (Maryland) (I), 14.4%

Orphans Court, Wicomico County (3 seats)

Grover Green Cantwell, Jr., 30.3%
Melissa Pollitt Bright (I), 24.1%
Norma Lee Barkley (I), 23.7%
Peter D. Evans, 21.7%

Orphans Court, Worcester County (3 seats)

J. Franklin Knight, 21.9%
John Dale Smack, III (I), 28.8%
Linda M. Hess (I), 27%
William D. Shockley (I), 22.2%

Retentions The following judges were retained in the general election. In retention elections, the incumbent judge is not being evaluated against an opponent. Rather, he or she simply receives votes of "yes" to retain or "no", do not retain.

Appellate courtsCourtJudgeVotesClick the arrows in the column headings to sort columns alphabetically.Maryland Court of Special Appeals Andrea M. Leahy-Fucheck 85.8% Maryland Court of Special Appeals Douglas R. M. Nazarian 79.2% Maryland Court of Special Appeals Kevin Francis Arthur 84.8% Maryland Court of Special Appeals Michael Wilson Reed 87.8% Maryland Court of Appeals Shirley Marie Watts 88.4% General election: Uncontested The following candidates ran unopposed in the general election.

Trial courtsCourtCandidateClick the arrows in the column headings to sort columns alphabetically.8th Judicial Circuit Alfred Nance Orphans Court of Prince George's County Athena Malloy Groves Second Circuit Court Brenda A. Sexton Orphans Court of Dorchester County Calvin Travers Orphans Court of Dorchester County Carolyn I. Todd Orphans Court of Talbot County Carville D. Duncan Orphans Court of Baltimore City Charles Bernstein 8th Judicial Circuit Christopher L. Panos Third Circuit Court Colleen Cavanaugh Orphans Court of Caroline County Conway Gregory Fourth Circuit Court Dana M. Wright Fourth Circuit Court Donald E. Beachley 7th Judicial Circuit E. Gregory Wells Orphans Court of Caroline County Ellery Adams Fifth Circuit Court Fred S. Hecker Orphans Court of Dorchester County George R. Ames, Jr 8th Judicial Circuit Jeffrey M. Geller Third Circuit Court Julie L. Glass 8th Judicial Circuit Julie Rebecca Rubin Third Circuit Court Justin James King 7th Judicial Circuit Lawrence V. Hill, Jr.Orphans Court of Calvert County Leslie M. Downs Orphans Court of Baltimore City Lewyn Scott Garrett 7th Judicial Circuit Mark Stephen Chandlee 8th Judicial Circuit Melissa K. Copeland 8th Judicial Circuit Melissa Marie Phinn Orphans Court of Baltimore City Michele E. Loewenthal Third Circuit Court Paul J. Hanley Orphans Court of Talbot County Paul S. Carroll 8th Judicial Circuit Philip Senan Jackson Orphans Court of Caroline County Ron Fearins Fifth Circuit Court Ronald A. Silkworth 7th Judicial Circuit Sheila R. Tillerson Adams Orphans Court of Calvert County Theodore Philip LeBlanc Orphans Court of Calvert County Thomas Michael Pelagatti 7th Judicial Circuit Toni E. Clarke Orphans Court of Prince George's County Vicky L. Ivory-Orem Orphans Court of Prince George's County Wendy A. Cartwright Orphans Court of Talbot County William J. Howard Third Circuit Court Yolanda L. Curtin Primary For candidate lists and results from the judicial primary on June 24, 2014, please see: Maryland primary elections, 2014.

Process Primary election Circuit and orphans' court judges compete in a partisan primary for the Republican and/or Democratic nomination. Candidates may cross-file with both parties. The candidates who receive the most votes from each primary advance to the general election to compete against each other, as well as any minor party or independent candidates.[3][4]

Below is an example of the elections process for the circuit courts provided by the Maryland State Board of Elections:

“

In Circuit X, there are two incumbent judges who must stand for election. They are candidates A and B, a Democrat and Republican respectively. They both file Certificates of Candidacy to appear on both the Democratic and Republican Primary ballots. Candidate C, a Democrat and qualified member of the Bar also files a Certificate of Candidacy to appear on both the Democratic and Republican primary ballots.
In the primary election, the Democratic Party selects candidates A and C (i.e. those two candidates received the most votes) and the Republican Party selects candidates A and B.
In the general election candidates A, B, and C all will appear on the ballot since they each won one or both of the primary elections in which they appeared on the ballot.
On the general election ballot, in addition to candidates A, B, and C, candidate D will also appear on the ballot. Candidate D is a member of the Green Party and a qualified member of the Bar and received the Green Party's nomination.
The two candidates who receive the most votes will be elected to office.

[5]

” —Maryland State Board of Elections[4]

General election Appellate judges stand for retention in the general election. Trial court judge candidates who advanced from the partisan primary run in the general election without party affiliation.[6]

0 Comments

November 28th, 2014

11/28/2014

0 Comments

ALL THIS DEMOCRACY HAS MADE OUR PUBLIC SYSTEMS MESSY-----WE NEED 'PROFESSIONALS' AND BEST IF THEY GRADUATE FROM AN IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL! BUT WAIT----IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS HAVE AS A MOTTO-----LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING TO WIN AT ALL COST! That does not make good public officials!

'The overwhelming evidence is that the system currently employed by most of our leading universities admits applicants whose ability may be unremarkable but who are beneficiaries of underhanded manipulation and favoritism. Nations which put their future national leadership in the hands of such individuals are likely to encounter enormous economic and social problems, exactly the sort of problems which our own country seems to have increasingly experienced over the last couple of decades. And unless the absurdly skewed enrollments of our elite academic institutions are corrected, the composition of these feeder institutions will ensure that such national problems only continue to grow worse as time passes. We should therefore consider various means of correcting the severe flaws in our academic admissions system, which functions as the primary intake valve of our future national elites'.

I've spoken about the centralization of power in Maryland with every public policy and agency now being in the hands of quasi-governmental organizations and COMMISSIONS headed by appointed people. So, the people we elect to City Hall or the Maryland Assembly have lost control to these COMMISSIONS to some of the most important public policy issues. Corporate governor's like O'Malley and Erhlich simply load these commissions with business people who then rule in favor of corporate shareholders. Our public works, our public energy, our transportation, and our economic development is all under control of corporate appointments. Now, we see our courts and justice system taken by this same capture.

Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

AP Photo / Patrick Semansky
ByBrendan JamesPublishedApril 18, 2014, 10:43 AM EDT

A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that it no longer exists.

Asking "[w]ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," they write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

As one illustration, Gilens and Page compare the political preferences of Americans at the 50th income percentile to preferences of Americans at the 90th percentile as well as major lobbying or business groups. They find that the government--whether Republican or Democratic—more often follows the preferences of the latter group rather than the first.

The researches note that this is not a new development caused by, say, recent Supreme Court decisions allowing more money in politics, such as Citizens United or this month's ruling on McCutcheon v. FEC. As the data stretching back to the 1980s suggests, this has been a long term trend, and is therefore harder for most people to perceive, let alone reverse.

"Ordinary citizens," they write, "might often be observed to 'win' (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail."

THIS IS REVERSIBLE FOLKS! IT ONLY TAKES CITIZENS GETTING ENGAGED IN POLITICS AND BUILDING THE STRUCTURES TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC TO RUN FOR OFFICE AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE!

____________________________________________

When Sandra Day O'Connor retired from the Supreme Court a few decades ago she stated that the Judicial Branch of government was being dismantled and that the power of the prosecutor was ending equal protection and due process. Flash forward to today and you see there is absolutely no public justice structures left at the Federal and state level and it is the people's rights being ignored. The Federal and state courts are now geared to serve only corporate law and the growing area of legal careers are international law. So, rather than have US corporations in control of our legal system as we have seen through Reagan and Clinton----Bush and Obama are appointing heads to public agencies and legal structures connected to global corporations. Harvard and Yale Law Schools say----there is no American politics or law-----only corporate and international law. When we elect graduates of these Ivy League schools---or if the pol we elect does nothing but appoint these Ivy League grads----this is the attitude they bring. THERE IS NO AMERICAN POLITICS OR LAW.

THIS IS WHAT TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT LOOKS LIKE. IT ENDS OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND RIGHTS AS CITIZENS AND HANDS ALL POLICY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TO A GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL.

O'Connor was speaking at the end of Reagan and during the Clinton terms in office-----neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. Neither Republican nor Democratic voters want to lose their Constitutional rights so JUST GET RID OF THESE GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS

THIS IS HOW OUR LEGAL SYSTEM BECOMES CAPTURED. IF ALL PROCESSES THAT WERE ALWAYS HEADED BY PEOPLE CHOSEN BY THE PUBLIC IN ELECTIONS ARE REMOVED FROM PUBLIC ELECTIONS AND MOVED TO APPOINTMENT----THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER IN CHARGE OF ANY PUBLIC ACTION.

5 Ways Prosecutors Have Too Much Power

by Kevin Mathews
October 8, 2014

The Economist looked at this overly dominant role of the prosecution and found several problems that seem to perpetuate injustice rather than fair outcomes:

1. Prosecutors Develop Plea Bargains

Astonishingly, 19 out of every 20 Americans charged with a crime will plea out before ever going to trial. It couldn’t possibly be that that many people are guilty or don’t want their day in court to prove their innocence. Unfortunately, however, they feel pressure to take a deal because the alternative is generally so much riskier.

The justice system is currently more concerned with bargaining rather than pursuing justice. The potential ramifications of being found guilty in court are so steep that most feel compelled to cop to lesser charges regardless of their actual culpability in the matter. Why is that? Well…

2. Prosecutors Choose the Punishments

Sometimes judges get a say in the final outcome if a case actually goes to trial, but the prosecutor still gets the opportunity to recommend a punishment for the individual in question. Since prosecutors are setting the punishment in 95% of cases, however, they generally select the terms. It’s absurd that someone can say, “Agree to probation and a high fine for something you possibly didn’t do or risk spending five years in jail” and for that to be considered justice rather than extortion.

3. Prosecutors Choose the Charges

In addition to the punishments, the prosecution has discretion over what charges they pursue. With something like the law, you’d think it’d be obvious what charges might apply to a particular defendant, but there’s plenty of gray area that allows a prosecutor to go after a defendant passively or aggressively.

Often, the prosecution can overload a defendant with a variety of charges or multiple counts of a particular charge specifically to intimidate the defendant. Once again, when facing a list of charges, the defendant feels the only safe option is to plea without a trial.

The other downside is what we see too often: prosecutors rarely use their discretion to target the wealthy and elite. We wonder why bankers have not gone to jail and it’s mainly because the prosecution isn’t pursuing these types of criminals. The system is bogus when prosecutors choose to pursue low-level drug dealers and not business executives committing billion dollar frauds.

4. Prosecutors Are Pressured to Win

Not all people on trial are guilty, but prosecutors are rarely allowed to look at it that way. Given the behind-the-scenes politics of the job, the prosecutor is compelled to present a winning case against the defendant, regardless of whether they did it. In a push to secure convictions, actual justice is lost.

Sometimes this goes so horribly wrong that prosecutors don’t even present a complete or accurate case. While suppressing evidence is illegal, that doesn’t stop prosecutors from doing it to win and keep their bosses happy and obtain job security.

5. Prosecutors Can Bribe Snitches

While the defense cannot (legally) promise witnesses anything in return for their testimony in a case, the prosecution has an upper hand in being able to negotiate deals for reduced sentences with witnesses for their own crimes.

As you might expect, this not only encourages honest witnesses to show up in court, it also motivates dishonest ones to say what the prosecution wants to hear in order to get themselves out of trouble. When offered a get-out-of-jail-free card by the prosecution, it’s hard for some to resist the temptation to incriminate someone else, even falsely.

________________________________________

In Baltimore, there are no groups engaged in voter education outside of the sound bites handed to voters by these same corporate pols. No discussion of policy -----no education as to who and why judicial and prosecutorial candidates are better than others. Our public schools should be filled with discussions of candidates and policy issues continuously----not just during elections. We need our growing group of political activists to move into these community venues with permanent organizations!

Below you see an article that pretends all of this prosecutor power problems come from the masses choosing prosecutors that are not capable. The problem has become that justice departments no longer are funded and staffing is too small to handle cases as they need be. Who funds these justice agencies?

THE MARYLAND ASSEMBLY AND BALTIMORE CITY HALL. IT IS THE CORPORATE POLS DISTORTING THE JUSTICE PROCESS WITH FUNDING AND LOOPHOLES.

Here we see an article that describes a difference between prosecutors that run and are affected by the will of the people and issues important to the public. This is seen as 'unprofessional' and not good for precedent. As we see today courts are ruling in ways that throw aside precedent and going all the way back to the late 1800s for court rulings to uphold their stances. THIS IS FROM WHAT CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE CAME. This takes all civil and labor precedent away----you know, that 'unprofessional' and messy democratic process that has judges and prosecutors serving as the public would want. It is why in Maryland, any case involving civil liberties and labor justice almost never move anywhere.

Get Rid of Direct Elections for Prosecutors

by hlpronline on November 18, 2011 Harvard Law Review

The Minnesota state legislature is now considering H.F. 1666, the “Impartial Justice Act“, which would put to the voters a constitutional amendment to eliminate direct election of state judges. Currently, Minnesota voters elect judges just as they would elect a state senator or governor–judicial candidates raise money, campaign against each other, and appear on the general ballot. If the amendment is approved by a majority of voters, the governor would appoint a judge to fill a vacancy based on a merit selection system, the judge would be reviewed by a nonpartisan Public Performance Evaluation Committee comprised of mostly non-lawyers, and the judge would be subject to an up-down vote by Minnesotans at the next election (there would be no competing candidate). If the judge is approved by the voters, s/he would serve an eight-year term before being subject to another retention vote. In the interim, the Committee would conduct two more evaluations, with their recommendation appearing on the ballot.

If this amendment goes to the voters, Minnesota will join a nationwide movement to reform the judicial selection process. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has argued that: “No other nation in the world [elects judges] because they realize you’re not going to get fair and impartial judges that way.” Since her retirement, O’Connor has championed judicial selection reform and created the O’Connor Judicial Selection Initiative to encourage states to abandon direct elections. One problem with electing judges may be the resultant lack of quality and judicial aptitude. A study from 2007 suggested that “elected judges are more focused on providing service to the voters (that is, they behave like politicians), whereas appointed judges are more focused on their long-term legacy as creators of precedent (that is, they behave like professionals).” Other concerns include partisanship, bias, and corruption (influenced by campaign contributions). If Minnesota adopts the amendment, it will join five other states (AK, AZ, CO, KS, UT) in a process of commission-based selection, independent evaluation, and voter-approved retention.

For those who believe that the arbiters of justice should be selected based on merit, rather than political savvy or constituent responsiveness, a strong argument can be made for also reforming the selection process for prosecutors, who have wide discretion in whom to indict and what charges to levy.

David Yin

There are 2,344 local prosecutor offices nationwide, and they handle 95 percent of all criminal prosecutions in the country. The vast majority of these prosecutors (i.e. District Attorneys) are elected by voters and most attorneys general are also elected. Elections may make prosecutors accountable to voters, but they also motivate prosecutors to make decisions not based on the law, but their desire to retain their jobs.

One highly publicized example of prosecutorial misconduct, which may have been prompted by political motives, is the Duke lacrosse case from 2006. In April 2006, three Duke lacrosse players were indicted on charges of rape, sexual offense, and kidnapping. The district attorney was Mike Nifong, who had been“appointed interim District Attorney himself only after the previous District Attorney left to become a judge. Now Nifong faced a tough election against a woman he had once fired and who would undoubtedly fire him if she became District Attorney.” Throughout the investigation, Nifong made “inflammatory statements [as a] prosecutor in the midst of a tough election campaign.” Among these was his denial of there being any exculpatory evidence, when he knew DNA evidence strongly suggested his suspects were innocent of the crime. By June 2007, however, when the extent of his deceptions became clear, Nifong was forced to resign and was disbarred for his ethical violations. Soon after, all charges against the lacrosse players were dropped. The NC State Bar prosecutor noted during the ethics hearing that “Nifong was trailing, by 20 percent to 37 percent, on March 27, 2006, the day the police first briefed him on the case. But he went on to win, by 45 percent to 42 percent, after all the media attention.”

Prosecutors often campaign on their conviction rates (being “tough on crime”), and sometimes even on their ability to send suspects to death row. A recent empirical study suggested that election pressures can affect decisions to take cases to trial. In North Carolina “the average number of pending cases in the year before a re-election campaign is 1377.7, while in all other years it is only 1260.9.” In Harris County, Texas, which alone accounts for nearly 10% of America’s executions since 1977, local prosecutors have campaigned on their records of obtaining the death penalty. This eye toward public opinion can distort the types of cases to prosecute, and cause prosecutors to turn a blind eye to exonerating evidence. Daniel Medwed reported that:

Empirical proof suggests that prosecutors have consented to DNA tests in less than fifty percent of the cases in which testing later exonerated the inmate. Likewise, qualitative evidence of prosecutorial indifference and, on occasion, hostility to even the most meritorious of post-conviction innocence claims is alarming. Some prosecutors have continued to fight these claims despite clear evidence, including DNA test results, exculpating the defendant; others have averted the possibility of post-conviction litigation by destroying biological evidence or urging defendants to waive their rights to the preservation of the evidence. Prosecutorial intransigence to setting aside the conviction of an innocent prisoner all too often wanes only after it becomes politically expedient (or even beneficial to do so).

Accountability is important, but direct democracy does not always create the best type of accountability. Electing judges based on their ability to conform to transient popular demands injects improper motives in a branch of government we often value precisely for an ability to transcend politics. Similarly, requiring prosecutors to campaign for votes creates incentives based on popular approval rather than the fair application of the law. A selection process of merit-based appointment, evaluation, and retention voting would balance the public’s desire to have a say in its champions, while disentangling the interests of justice from political self-interest.

____________________________________________

So, as corporations push for appointed judges and prosecutors to control who can seek justice in our US legal system, we see below how powerful and dysfunctional the role of prosecutor has been allowed to come. There is no justice occurring when people are made to plea bargain in order to get out of jail even if innocent. This is to what Sandra Day O'Connor referred when she said our legal system was being dismantled. She promotes appointed judges and prosecutors as the solution but as we know----this distortion was not created by the public----it is a capture by corporations cheapening the justice process. The solution is fully funding our justice agencies so they can take all the cases brought before them. Think of the job creation when our states attorney and Maryland Attorney's offices are made flush with new lawyers, court employees, all making the justice system work FOR WE THE PEOPLE. Plea deals not needed to cheapen the system of justice!

THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME AND IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE ALLOWED OUR COURTS TO BE MADE DYSFUNCTIONAL BY CORPORATE POLS.

American justice A plea for change American prosecutors have too much power. Hand some of it to judges

Oct 4th 2014 | From the print edition The Economist

ANTHONY YARBOUGH was convicted of a triple stabbing in 1992, although not a speck of blood was found on his clothes and the DNA under one victim’s fingernails did not match his. He was found guilty because his petrified 15-year-old co-defendant, Sharrif Wilson, pleaded guilty and testified against him in exchange for a lighter sentence. (He later recanted.) The same DNA was found on the corpse of another stabbed woman while Mr Yarbough and Mr Wilson were in prison. Yet they were not exonerated and freed until this year.

More than 95% of convictions in America are reached through plea bargains, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty in return for leniency. Many convictions also depend on the testimony of a “co-operating witness”, who snitches for the same reason. Defenders of the system argue that it is efficient. By avoiding long, costly trials, America can lock up lots of villains. Without plea deals, the courts would be swamped.

Alas, the process is open to abuse (see article). Prosecutors hold all the cards. If a defence lawyer offers a witness $100 for a false alibi, he is guilty of bribery. But if a prosecutor offers a co-operating witness something far more valuable—the chance to avoid several years in a cell—that is just fine. With so much at stake, snitches sometimes tell prosecutors what they want to hear. One study found that nearly half of the cases in which people have been wrongfully sentenced to death hinged on false testimony by informants, typically criminals who were rewarded with lighter punishments.

Over the past generation, two things have given prosecutors more muscle. One is the proliferation of incomprehensible laws, which mean that in complex white-collar cases a prosecutor can usually find some technical rule his target has broken. The other is the spread of mandatory minimum sentences, which transfer power from judges to prosecutors. In Florida, the minimum sentence for possessing 4-14g of heroin is three years; for 28g or more, it is 25 years. Thus, it makes a huge difference whether a dealer’s girlfriend is charged just for the drugs in her handbag or also for the stash in her boyfriend’s safe. Likewise, a white-collar defendant may face one count of fraud or a separate charge for every e-mail sent in pursuit of it. In both cases, it is up to the prosecutor to decide.

Eric Holder, the attorney-general, who announced his retirement on September 25th (see article), has urged federal prosecutors not to seek such harsh sentences in some drug cases. But only some; and state prosecutors are still free to threaten defendants with terrifying punishments if they fail to plead guilty or implicate others. A federal judge recently guessed that thousands of innocent Americans could be stuck behind bars because of coercive plea bargaining.

Let judges judge

Many other countries ban plea bargains or limit them stringently. Ideally America should ban them too. If it cannot face the thought, it should at least reform them. Mandatory minimum sentences should be scrapped, and judges should judge each case on its merits. Prosecutorial control over plea bargaining should be loosened, for instance by bringing in a magistrate judge who could take offers from both sides and act as adjudicator. This would make the negotiation more of a give-and-take, and could be used to shine light on a process that is currently as murky as it is inequitable.

As America’s military dominance declines, its influence will depend more and more on “soft” power: winning friends because of the attractiveness of its ideals. Its justice system makes this difficult. Mr Holder’s successor should try much harder to rein in America’s over-mighty prosecutors.

_____________________________________________
Just as corporations are hiding the fact that they are national or global by creating local business offices that appear not connected to a larger corporation----BUT THEY ARE-----so too will candidates not talk about their Ivy League connections or their previous careers. We had the recent US Attorney General appointed and all we heard was she was black and had a civil rights history.....meanwhile, her career is as an international lawyer with a history on Wall Street.

Please take time to know these politicians----forget the propaganda given and do the research. We have 200 million registered Democratic voters in Maryland and there is not reason to have a Maryland Assembly and Baltimore City Hall filled with corporate pols!

In Politics, a Prestigious Education and Political Experience can be a Liability

Posted: 05/28/2013 2:37 pm EDT Updated: 07/28/2013 5:12 am EDT

In the last presidential election, both the Democratic party and Republican party nominated candidates with advanced degrees from Harvard University. Mitt Romney holds both an MBA degree and a law degree from Harvard. However, this was not a selling point of his campaign. In fact, Romney tried to tether Barack Obama to Harvard because Obama earned a law degree from the school. As the presumptive GOP nominee, Romney even derided Obama for taking advice from the Harvard faculty lounge and asserted: "We have a president, who I think is a nice guy, but he spent too much time at Harvard, perhaps."

For Obama, his Harvard degree has been a curse throughout his political career. In 2000, state senator Barack Obama challenged U.S. Representative Bobby Rush in his bid for reelection in the Democratic Primary. Rush successfully branded Obama as an elitist, intoning: "Barack Obama went to Harvard and became an educated fool." The strategy worked. Obama lost that race by 31 percentage points.

Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, learned what a liability his Ivy League education could be in his first political campaign. Bush has a B.A. from Yale University and an MBA from the Harvard Business School. In 1978, Bush was the Republican nominee for an open seat in the U.S. House of Representatives (the West Texas-based 19th congressional district). Bush's Democratic opponent, Kent Hance, taunted Bush for his educational achievements. Hance called Bush: "Not a real Texan," and asserted that: "Yale and Harvard don't prepare you as well for running for the 19th Congressional District as Texas Tech [Hance's alma mater] does." Hance won that race.

0 Comments

November 27th, 2014

11/27/2014

0 Comments

I will be taking Wednesday and Thursday for Thanksgiving but will be back to blogging on Friday!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL!

We are proud that the citizens of Baltimore came out en masse to protest an unacceptable level of police brutality and killings against black men in the city!.

0 Comments

November 25th, 2014

11/25/2014

0 Comments

I will finish for now my discussion on immigration policy by looking at what the article below states is American job loss that is permanent. That's what our favorite neo-liberal economist Krugman calls it as well. The layoff with the crash of 2008 of tens of millions of Americans was a policy of down-sizing the workforce coming near an end. We saw with the articles from yesterday often these jobs lost were eventually filled with immigrant labor but much of what is called the 'structural employment deficit' is simply global corporate neo-liberals and neo-cons and their policies of absolutely no oversight, accountability, regulation, and public justice.

THE STRUCTURAL JOBS DEFICIT IS MERELY FREE MARKET ---- SMALL GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Reversing that will not only create more than enough jobs for the American people----it also rebuilds our public justice, public services, and downsizes these global corporation into manageable regional businesses. That is what sending these corporate pols packing by running labor and justice candidates in all primaries will do. Whether Republican or Democrat-----everyone has to see how the idea of small government and free trade NEVER ACTUALLY EXISTS AS JUST THAT.

YOU ALLOW PUBLIC PROTECTIONS BE DISMANTLED AND THE RICH LOOT THE US TREASURY AND PEOPLE'S POCKETS. YOU DISMANTLE THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER THE GUISE OF SAVING PUBLIC REVENUE AND THE PRIVATE CONTRACTS TO NATIONAL AND GLOBAL CORPORATIONS ARE FILLED WITH FRAUD AND CORRUPTION COSTING MORE THAN IF YOU HAD A PUBLIC WORKFORCE DOING THE WORK.

Let's take a look at what used to be full employment in the US and why having 20 million immigrants working in the US does not create the job shortage.....it's the policy that deliberately creates a stagnant economy and dismantling of our public protections. As I said above-------this job loss IS NOT PERMANENT!

Globalization Creates Unemployment: American Job Loss Is Permanent

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Global Research, October 28, 2010 28 October 2010
_____________________________________________

As this article shows almost all of the job loss with the last crash were middle-class------these are the people in middle-management and public professional positions and are often those providing oversight and accountability. We had to downsize education, health care, government agencies and in most cases these people had jobs making sure things worked as they needed to meet the requirements of Rule of Law. Who needs these people when Rule of Law and the US Constitution are being rewritten say Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons. Whereas this one crash represents only several million jobs-----if we look at the downsizing since Reagan we see those numbers lost compounded over a few decades. Look again at both public and private sector job losses and you see while public sector job cuts in the millions, we know that all of the private sector positions tied to meeting Rule of Law, regulation, and quality/public safety requirements cut with deregulation were in the tens of millions since Reagan. This is the supposed structural job deficit in the US today and we simply need to reinstate Rule of Law, rebuild public justice, restore oversight and accountability and

VOILA------TENS OF MILLIONS OF JOBS REAPPEAR TO BRING THE UNEMPLOYMENT BACK TO THE 4% LEVEL THAT REPRESENTS FULL EMPLOYMENT.

Neo-liberals praise Obama for having lowered public employment figures and state this brings down the deficit-----but as we all know the losses to corporate fraud and corruption far exceed any supposed savings from cuts to personnel.

So, why would 20 million immigrants currently in the US be a threat to full employment of US workers with this rebuilding of our first world structures? It wouldn't be. You heard very little about immigrants taking jobs before this move towards a structurally high unemployment.

95 Percent Of The Jobs Lost During The Recession Were Middle Class Jobs

204490 Michael Snyder
The Economic Collapse
Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Who is the biggest loser in the ongoing decline of the U.S. economy? Is it the wealthy? No, the stock market has been soaring lately and their incomes are actually going up.

Is it the poor? Well, the poor are definitely hurting very badly, but when you don’t have much to begin with you don’t have much to lose. Unfortunately, it is the middle class that has lost the most during this economic downturn. According to Bloomberg, 95 percent of the jobs lost during the recession were middle class jobs. That is an absolutely astounding figure. Yes, some executives lost their jobs during the last recession as did some minimum-wage workers. But overwhelmingly the jobs that were lost were middle income jobs. Sadly, the limited number of jobs that have been added since the end of the last recession have mostly been low income jobs. A higher percentage of Americans are working low income jobs than ever before, and the cost of living continues to rise at a very brisk pace. This is causing an erosion of the middle class unlike anything we have ever seen in American history.

When I was growing up I was taught that the fact that we had the largest middle class in the history of the world was evidence that our economic system was working incredibly well.

So what does the fact that the middle class is shrinking at a very rapid pace at this point say about how well our economy is working?

Middle Class Incomes Are Going Down

During the last recession, millions of Americans lost their jobs and the percentage of working age Americans that have jobshas not bounced back in the years since the recession ended.

But most middle class Americans still have jobs. The big problem for many middle class families is the fact that their incomes are not going up. In fact, after you account for inflation, middle class incomes are actually way down during the Obama years as a recent Bloomberg article explained….

As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing that median income for working-age households — those headed by someone younger than 65 — had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during the first seven years of Bush’s time in office.

Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.

So is this the “hope and change” that Obama was talking about?

But let’s not just blame Obama and Bush. The truth is that the trend toward lower paying jobs has been going on for a very long time.

Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.

So where will it end?

Will 50 percent or 60 percent of all Americans soon be working low income jobs?

At this point, approximately one out of every four jobs in America pays $10 an hour or less.

Could your family survive on $10 an hour?

The Rising Cost Of Living

As middle class incomes go down, the cost of almost everything that middle class families buy continues to go up.

The Federal Reserve claims that it has kept inflation “low” for decades, but that is a giant lie.

When you take a look at the long-term picture, it is amazing how much prices have changed.

Back in 1950, the average price of a new car was $1,510.

Today, the average price of a new car is $30,748.

In 1967, yearly tuition at Yale was $1,950.

Today it is $38,300.

And inflation continues to take a great toll on the paychecks of middle class families.

For example, electricity bills in the U.S. have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.

Also, the price of gas has risen by more than 100 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House and the average U.S. household spent a staggering $4,155 on gasoline during 2011.

The Destruction Of Middle Class Wealth

What is the number one financial asset for most middle class families?

Most middle class families don’t have a lot of stocks, bonds or other financial assets.

Instead, normally the family home is the number one financial asset for most middle class families, and in recent years the value of that asset has been absolutely decimated.

When you take inflation into account, housing prices have fallen all the way back to 1998 levels. The following is from a recent Smart Money article….

The latest S&P / Case-Shiller numbers, reported last week, show that prices in 20 major markets declined 3.5% over the year through February. They’re now back to 2002 levels. If we subtract for inflation, they’re back to 1998 levels.

Overall, home prices in the U.S. have declined for six months in a row and are now down a total of 35 percent from the peak of the housing bubble.

Unfortunately, things don’t look like they are going to turn around any time soon. Yale economics professor Robert Shiller recently said the following about U.S. home prices….

“I worry that we might not see a really major turnaround in our lifetimes”

But falling home prices are not the only problem we are witnessing. We are also seeing millions of middle class families lose their homes.

According to the U.S. Census, homeownership in America is now at the lowest level it has been in 15 years.

According to Gallup, the current level of homeownership in the United States is the lowest that Gallup has ever measured.

Owning your own home is an indication that you are part of the middle class, and so the fact that the number of Americans that own a home is falling rapidly is not a good sign for the health of the middle class at all.

The Future Is Not Bright

Those that are graduating from college right now are supposed to be the future of the middle class in America.

But for most of those college graduates, the future is not so bright. Last year, a staggering 53 percent of all U.S. college graduates under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed.

Millions of young college graduates have been forced to take jobs that do not even require a college degree. Just check out the following stats from a recent CNBC article….

In the last year, they were more likely to be employed as waiters, waitresses, bartenders and food-service helpers than as engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians combined (100,000 versus 90,000). There were more working in office-related jobs such as receptionist or payroll clerk than in all computer professional jobs (163,000 versus 100,000).

Aren’t those numbers crazy?

The truth is that a college education is no longer a ticket to the middle class.

What Happens To Americans That Fall Out Of The Middle Class?

As the middle class shrinks, the ranks of the “low income” and “the poor” are absolutely swelling.

Today, approximately 48 percent of all Americans are either considered to be “low income” or are living in poverty.

That is almost half the country.

Each year, millions more fall out of the middle class. In 2010, 2.6 million more Americans fell into poverty. That was thebiggest increase that we have seen since the U.S. government began keeping statistics on this back in 1959.

As the middle class shrinks, the number of Americans dependent on the government for survival rises. Right now,government dependence is at an all-time high and things are only going to get worse from here.

In November 2008 (when Barack Obama won the election), 30.8 million Americans were on food stamps. Today, more than 46 million Americans are on food stamps.

Will we eventually see 50 million or 60 million Americans on food stamps?

The U.S. economy desperately needs more middle class jobs.

Unfortunately, the Republicans failed to generate them under George W. Bush and the Democrats failed to generate them under Barack Obama.

Instead, both parties continue to promote the politics of division and they both continue to push for more of the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

Nothing is being done to solve our problems and so the middle class in America is going to be even smaller by this time next year.

If you still have a spot in the middle class, hold on to it as tightly as you can. It is not as secure as you might think.
___________________________________________

For those not understanding what the attack on the public sector by small government neo-liberals and neo-cons, it means an attack on the largest and last stronghold of unions and as we see in this article----it reverses much of the employment gains in the black population as they were the largest group hired after WW2 as New Deal programs and public justice grew.

We do not have a national debt-----we have massive systemic corporate fraud and government corruption allowed to flourish because of the dismantling of the public sector. THE NEXT JOBS PROGRAMS NEEDS TO BE REBUILDING OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT!

Imagine if this dismantling of the public sector had not occurred----would the tension for employment brought by current Hispanic immigrants exist? NO, IT WOULD NOT.

THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT ON RACIAL INEQUALITY: 1950 TO 1984

(BLACK, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, GOVERNMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT, LABOR) PETER GEORGE BOHMER, University of Massachusetts - Amherst

Abstract The models of racial discrimination developed and the detailed empirical analysis of the post World War II U.S. economy are consistent with the two central hypotheses: (1) there is no dominant tendency within U.S. capitalism towards elimination of racial discrimination, and (2) until the late 1970's, public sector employment increased racial equality.^ Neoclassical models of racial discrimination and related empirical studies are criticized: (1) for emphasizing one aspect of racial equality, earnings, while de-emphasizing unemployment because of the difficulty of integrating it into neoclassical theory; (2) for incorrectly theorizing production as a purely technical process resulting in a one-sided emphasis on market forces for racial equality while abstracting from tendencies that reproduce inequality; and (3) for failing to analyze the distinct behavior and outcomes between the public and private sector. Blacks are more likely than whites, and increasingly so, to work in the public sector, and their proportion of private sector employment is declining.^ A social relations theory of production based on cooperation and conflicts among black employees, white employees and employers is constructed. The likely equilibrium is racial inequality in earnings and employment. Other results derived are that improvement in earnings by race decrease black employment, and growth of government employment or affirmative action causes black to white earnings and employment to increase.^ The implications of the model are consistent with actual trends. It is demonstrated that black to white earnings grew until the mid 1970's for both men and women, and have been stationary since. Further the relation between black and white unemployment has substantially worsened since 1975. Both trends are shown to be statistically significant. A cause of the deterioration in the relation between black and white unemployment rates is the stagnation of government employment.^ The study concludes with an analysis of present public policy. The author finds that current attacks on affirmative action and cutbacks in human services and public sector employment have halted progress towards racial equality and will increase inequality in earnings and unemployment between blacks and whites, and among blacks.

___________________________________________

For those not old enough to remember what life in the US looked like before Reagan/Clinton neo-liberalism joining with Republicans in free market and deregulation-----there was full employment for one. These policies are what created the high unemployment and along with global markets----it is what is continuing what is now a Depression era level of unemployment after this coming economic crash. We have lots of tensions brought now as jobs are scarce----with immigrants being the top target. PLEASE REMEMBER, THE PROBLEM WITH UNEMPLOYMENT IS REAGAN CLINTON NEO-LIBERALISM AND NEO-CONSERVATIVE GLOBAL MARKETS. You do not have to hate another work demographic-----just reverse deregulation and global free market policies by GETTING RID OF GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS

20 million Hispanics now in the country would be able to work without any disturbance to full employment of US citizens.

The high cost of deregulation: Joblessness, bankruptcy, debt The future was supposed to be rosy for deregulated airlines, trucking and S&Ls. Results have been disastrous. Share Tweet Reddit Email Travel Deals $809 & up -- Cozumel All-Incl. 3- Night Escape from Philly

See all travel deals »

Shop Team Gear Philadelphia Eagles ProToast Elite Toaster $31.96 (20% off) Buy Now < prev next > Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, INQUIRER STAFF WRITERS Posted: Thursday, October 24, 1991, 3:00 AM

Editor's note: The following story ran Oct. 24, 1991, on Day Five of the nine-day "America: What went wrong?" series published in the Inquirer.

* * *

Since deregulation of the trucking industry in 1980, more than 100 once- thriving trucking companies have gone out of business. More than 150,000 workers at those companies lost their jobs.

Since deregulation of the airlines in 1978, a dozen airline companies have merged or gone out of business. More than 50,000 of their employees lost their jobs.

More coverage

America's two-class tax system

Attytood: How Barlett and Steele got it so right with 'Wrong'

1 p.m. Monday: LIVE CHAT with Barlett and Steele

Your say: Comment on this article

"What Went Wrong: The Betrayal of the American Dream" is being published by the Investigative Reporting Workshop

This project depends on stories from readers. You can share your story with project editor Kat Aaron online

Workshop videos: To hear more about Don Barlett and Jim Steele's work

Follow the project on Twitter

1991 SERIES:
AMERICA: WHAT WENT WRONG? DAY 1

How game was rigged against middle class

After three decades, American worker loses out to Mexico

Who - and how many - in America's middle class

DAY 2

The lucrative business of bankruptcy

DAY 3

Big business hits the jackpot with billions in tax breaks

DAY 4

Why the world is closing in on the U.S. economy

DAY 5

The high cost of deregulation: Joblessness, bankruptcy, debt

DAY 6

For millions in U.S., a harsh reality: It's not safe to get sick

How death came to a once-prosperous discount-store chain

DAY 7

Raiders work their wizardry on an all-American company

DAY 8

When you retire, will there be a pension waiting?

Workers saving for their retirement lose on junk bonds

DAY 9

How special-interest groups have their way with Congress

Since deregulation of the savings and loan industry in 1982, about 650 S&Ls have folded, with at least 400 more in serious trouble. The bailout will leave taxpayers stuck with a half-trillion-dollar tab.

Now, the people who rewrote the government rule book to deregulate airlines, trucking and savings and loans are about to rewrite the rules on banks.

They call it banking reform.

President Bush spelled out the plans in a speech on Feb. 5: "Regulatory reform is long overdue. Our banking reform proposals . . . address the reality of the modern financial marketplace by creating a U.S. financial system that protects taxpayers, serves consumers and strengthens our economy. "

Sound familiar? It should.

The arguments for deregulating banks are much the same as those that were made in the 1970s and '80s for the other industries:

Removing government restrictions on the private sector would let free and open competition rule the marketplace. Getting rid of regulations would spur the growth of new companies. Existing companies would become more efficient or perish. Competition would create jobs, drive down prices and benefit consumers and businesses alike.

That's the theory.

The gritty reality, as imposed on the daily lives of the men and women most directly affected, is a little different.

For Christopher E. Neimann of Fort Smith, Ark., deregulation meant the loss of health insurance as he was battling cancer.

Neimann, who worked for a trucking company, was diagnosed with a rare bone cancer in November 1987. He went on medical leave two months later.

In August 1988, his company, Smith's Transfer Corp., entered bankruptcy, a victim of deregulation's rate wars. Its checks began bouncing, including ones paying for Neimann's treatments at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

On April 11, 1989, the hospital sent Neimann a stern letter asking him to pay his bill, which totaled $30,128.

When the bedridden, gravely ill Neimann couldn't make payments, the hospital began pressuring his wife, Billie.

"The hospital called me one night and told me they were going to dip into the estate," she said. "And he wasn't dead. He was still alive. I knew he was going to die. And they knew he was going to die.

"I just cried and I said, 'I beg your pardon. Could I ask you what estate are you talking about? ' And they said, 'Well, his estate. ' And I said, 'Ma'am, at 31 years old, you don't have an estate. You don't have anything to go into an estate. At this age, we're just starting out. ' I said, 'You can dip all you want. Dip right in and get some of the bills, too. Because there won't be anything left. ' "

After a battle of a year and a half, Neimann died on June 6, 1989, aged 31, leaving behind a young wife and an infant daughter.

The calls from M.D. Anderson's collection department continued.

"They kept calling and told me that I was still liable," said his wife, who has since remarried. "I was so upset that eventually I talked to my lawyer and he told me to give them his name. I don't know what's happened, but lately they haven't called. "

For Leslie Wagner of Flower Mound, Texas, deregulation meant seven years of relentlessly shrinking paychecks - and, ultimately, no paycheck.

At 23, she went to work as a flight attendant for Braniff International Airlines. That was in 1969, when the Dallas-based carrier was the nation's eighth largest airline.

By 1982, her base salary was $19,300 a year. That year, the fourth year of airline deregulation, Braniff asked workers to accept wage cuts and other concessions.

Even after employees agreed to reductions, Braniff still could not pay its bills and the airline was forced to seek protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in May 1982. The action grounded Braniff and put 9,000 employees, including Leslie Wagner, out of work.

Two years later, a scaled-down Braniff Inc., under new owners, emerged from Bankruptcy Court and resumed service. Former employees were offered jobs, but at reduced pay. When Wagner returned to work in 1985, her new base pay was $15,600 a year - 19 percent less than she earned in 1982.

By 1989, with Braniff still in financial trouble, employees were asked to take another pay cut. Wagner's base pay went down again - to $14,400.

On Sept. 28, 1989, Braniff was forced into Bankruptcy Court for the second time in seven years. Its assets were auctioned off to pay creditors, and the airline's remaining 4,800 employees were let go.

After absorbing a pay cut of 25 percent during the years when the cost of living rose 28 percent, Leslie Wagner was out of work.

The company resumed limited service in July 1991, but Wagner was not recalled. It didn't matter. Braniff was back in Bankruptcy Court a month later, for the third time in a decade.

For Joyce D. Heyl of Sioux Falls, S. D., deregulation also meant the loss of a job.

Heyl worked 19 years in the accounting department of an interstate trucking company, American Freight System Inc., until it went out of business in August 1988.

"When you work for a company a long time and you like your job, you always think it's going to be there and then suddenly one day it's not," she said. ''I loved my job. I was very upset when the company went down. "

Her standard of living went down with it.

"I'm 59 years old and I thought to go back into the job market with a lot of young people was something I wouldn't be able to do," she said.

To supplement the family income she works part time at various jobs. At American Freight, she earned $410 a week, or $21,320 a year. Now she's lucky if she earns half that.

For Barbara Joy Whitehouse of Salt Lake City, deregulation meant a devastating financial blow, on top of a personal one.

Her husband was killed in a 1986 Montana highway accident while driving a truck for a company called P-I-E Nationwide Inc. After his death, Barbara Whitehouse, 54, began receiving $299 a week under Montana's workers' compensation law, which makes payments to spouses of workers killed on the job.

Because P-I-E was a large company and appeared to have considerable assets, Montana authorities permitted it to pay claimants directly, rather than contribute to the state's workers' compensation fund, which disburses benefits in most cases.

That was a mistake. P-I-E was not as solid as Montana officials thought. Deregulation was helping drive it, like many other interstate trucking companies, out of business. After huge losses, P-I-E filed for bankruptcy in October 1990 and is now being liquidated.

After the bankruptcy filing, the company ran out of cash and Whitehouse's biweekly checks stopped. P-I-E's last check to her, on Oct. 10, 1990, bounced.

Whitehouse has filed a claim with the Bankruptcy Court for $466,440 - the amount due her under Montana law if she lived to be 84 and didn't remarry.

But Whitehouse will see little, if any, of that money. Hers is one of more than 7,000 unsecured claims against P-I-E - meaning she'll collect, at best, a few cents on each dollar owed.

"P-I-E knew they owed me $299 per week for life and should have put aside a safe fund to meet this debt," Whitehouse wrote to the Bankruptcy Court.

"They didn't, so now the court wants me to go at the bottom of the list to see if they can offer me what's left after the big guys get their fair share. I am as important as any big company. . . . This is wrong. My husband dies, the law says they pay me for life and now I have nothing. "

And finally, for you, the American taxpayer and consumer, deregulation has meant fewer airlines and higher air fares, more unsafe trucks on the highways, and your tax money diverted to pay for the S&L debacle.

That last one is going to cost you for years to come.

For this, and all the other costs associated with deregulation, you can thank the people in Washington who wrote the government rule book - the sprawling, often contradictory collection of laws and regulations that provide the framework for the U.S. economy.

It is that rule book, as The Inquirer has reported the last four days, that a succession of Congresses and presidents have skewed to favor special interests, the powerful and influential, at the expense of everyone else.

The results: There are more rich people than ever before. There are more poor people than ever before. And the ranks of those in between are shrinking, their standard of living falling.

One reason is that the ever-changing rules are propelling federal, state and local taxes ever higher while middle-class jobholders are being forced into lower-paying jobs.

So it is with deregulation, which has meant lost jobs or paycuts for employees in the airline and trucking industries, and, ultimately, higher taxes for everyone to rescue the savings and loan industry.

Backers, to be sure, predicted a rosy future for airlines and trucking when those industries were deregulated. Few of the benefits they foresaw have come about.

Advocates of airline deregulation claimed that it would stimulate competition, reduce fares, open up air travel to more Americans.

Instead, air fares went up, not down. Competition became destructive, not productive. The increase in air travelers was lower in the decade after deregulation than in the decade before it. Cities once served by multiple carriers are now served by one or none. And the airline industry is in shambles.

Nonetheless, the people in Washington have a different view. Transportation Secretary Samuel K. Skinner offered this assessment in January:

"Airline deregulation . . . ushered in a decade of competition and consumer savings unsurpassed in the history of the industry. With deregulation having accomplished so much throughout the 1980s, we must stay the course in the coming decade as the industry continues to restructure. Every credible analysis of airline competition in the 1980s has declared deregulation a success. "

Judge for yourself.

Last year was the worst financial year in the history of American aviation as airline losses soared to $3.9 billion.

Pan American, the flagship of U. S. carriers, founded in 1927, is in Bankruptcy Court. Eastern Air Lines, founded in 1927, is in Bankruptcy Court and is being liquidated. Braniff, founded in 1934, is in Bankruptcy Court for the third time. Continental Air Lines, founded in 1937, is in Bankruptcy Court. Midway Airlines, founded in 1979, is in Bankruptcy Court. Trans World Airlines, founded in 1928, can't pay its bills and is on the edge of bankruptcy.

And then there's America West Airlines of Phoenix - once considered deregulation's success story. From a modest regional carrier with three jets and 280 employees in 1983, it grew into a nationwide airline with 92 planes and 12,000 employees. With revenues of $1 billion, it moved onto the list of the nation's top 10 airlines last year.

In June, it moved into Bankruptcy Court.

If all the news from the skies appears bleak, the authors of the government rule book - the people who brought you airline deregulation - have another solution:

They already have invited foreign airlines to invest in the remaining U. S. carriers. And they are thinking about opening the U. S. domestic market to foreign carriers, so that Air Japan, for example, might one day fly between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

So it is that the government, which revised the rule book to spur competition among U. S. airlines, is now contemplating encouraging foreign airlines - many of which are subsidized by their governments - to compete against the few remaining U. S. carriers.

In trucking, it's been a similar story. Rather than making the industry stronger, as congressional backers predicted, deregulation triggered price wars and cutthroat discounting that have destroyed many of the largest companies and weakened others.

More trucking companies failed in the 1980s than in the entire 45 previous years that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) regulated the industry.

Part of the reason, of course, was that there were now many more companies, all scrambling for business.

In 1979, the year before deregulation, 186 companies went out of business. Eleven years later, in 1990, the number had soared to 1,581, the most trucking failures ever recorded in a single year. For the decade, a total of 11,496 failed.

Of the 30 largest motor carriers of 1979, only nine are still in business. The others either went bankrupt or were broken up and their pieces acquired by one of the surviving companies.

A decade into deregulation, trucking appears to be following a variation on the airline-industry pattern.

That is, after an initial burst of competition has come a shakeout, with widespread failures that eventually could leave control of the industry in fewer hands. Meanwhile, though, small, mom-and-pop operators continue to come in, keeping the pressure on.

Trucking industry data show that consolidation already is under way.

Before deregulation, the three largest trucking companies accounted for one-third of the operating revenue of the top 25 companies. Now, those three - Roadway Express, Consolidated Freightways and Yellow Freight System Inc. - account for about one-half.

Nevertheless, advocates of trucking deregulation, like their airline counterparts, contend that it has been an unqualified success.

"The trucking industry has saved billions of dollars through more efficient operations allowed and stimulated by deregulation. . . . The benefits to consumers from deregulation exceeded our fondest dreams," Darius W. Gaskins Jr., former chairman of the ICC, told a House committee in 1989.

A 1990 study by the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank, echoed this view: "Surface freight deregulation (trucking and rail) has been extremely beneficial to shippers and to their customers. Total annual benefits from rate and service changes amount to $20 billion. "

While companies that hire truckers have profited from lower rates, there is no evidence that the cost savings have been passed along to consumers.

Neither have workers in the industry benefited - in fact, gains that shippers have realized have come at workers' expense.

Indeed, what has happened to those workers provides a glimpse into the future for employees in other industries, where restructuring and downsizing are leading to pay cuts, layoffs and elimination of benefits.

Consider the pay of flight attendants.

In 1983, according to data compiled by the Association of Flight Attendants, the average annual salary was $28,847. Six years later, in 1989, it had declined to $27,160.

That represented a pay cut of 6 percent at a time when living costs shot up 24 percent.

During those same years, the people who write the government rule book - and who revised the laws that, ultimately, led to lower salaries for airline employees - increased their own salaries 48 percent.

The pay of members of Congress went from $60,662 in 1983 to $89,500 in 1989. The $28,838 increase alone exceeded the full salary of flight attendants. Today, congressional salaries are $125,100 a year.

For truckers, the 1980s were a dismal time, even though government statistics suggest that all is well.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment and wages in the trucking industry are up since 1980. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of employees increased 248,000, rising from 1.242 million to 1.490 million.

Average yearly earnings went from $18,400 to $23,400, the government says.

What those figures fail to disclose: During the years when total employment rose, more than 100 of the big, established trucking companies folded. With them went more than 150,000 jobs.

These were the higher-paying trucking jobs - drivers with seniority and company-paid benefits, such as health insurance and pensions. Many of those truckers earned solid, middle-class wages - $30,000 or more in recent years.

Deregulation brought an influx of one-owner shoestring trucking operations, which cut into the business of those established companies. Jobs at these small operations paid less.

So it was that deregulation eliminated two jobs that paid, say, $30,000, and created three jobs that paid $20,000 or less.

Just as misleading are the earnings reported by the government.

In 1990, trucking industry workers earned, on average, $23,400 a year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

But the government excludes one major category of truckers from its figures - self-employed drivers. And their earnings generally are lower than those for drivers employed by major companies.

"We don't really have any data on how many there are," said a BLS official. "An individual in business for himself is technically not covered by our study. "

A spokesman for the ICC said that the agency does not know how many owner- operators exist. "I'm not sure we have ever had an accurate count," he said.

The Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association, the largest trade group representing individual drivers, estimates there are 350,000 to 400,000 owner-operators.

Based on surveys by its magazine, Landline, the association estimates the annual income, after expenses, of owner-operators at $20,000 a year, or $385 a week, according to Sandi Laxson of the drivers' group.

"Deregulation has been a nightmare for our people," said Laxson. "I remember my uncle was a truck driver 20 years ago and, wow, he made a lot of money. He was on the road all the time. But his wife drove a nice car and they had a nice house.

"Now, drivers are struggling to survive."

* * *

The source of the upheaval in the trucking industry is the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, which changed the rules that had governed trucking for half a century.

Responding to criticism that the ICC's rules had frustrated competition and discouraged new companies from entering the business, Congress scaled back the agency's powers, making entry easier and giving truckers more freedom to set rates.

President Jimmy Carter summed up the high hopes when he signed the law in July 1980: "The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 will eliminate the red tape and the senseless overregulation that have hampered the free growth and development of the American trucking industry. "

No one was prepared for what followed.

As promised, the law unleashed new competition - on a scale unforeseen and with an intensity that became destructive.

New trucking companies surged into the industry by the thousands.

But most were one-person operations.

By 1979, the year before deregulation, the ICC had granted operating licenses to 17,000 interstate carriers. By 1990, that number stood at 45,000.

The ICC granted more operating certificates in the 1980s than in the previous 45 years it regulated the industry.

From being an agency that exercised tight control over truck licensing, the ICC essentially rubber-stamped applications.

But while the number of companies more than doubled, there was no corresponding increase in the volume of freight hauled.

Too many trucks were suddenly chasing too little freight.

Total inter-city tonnage increased just 11 percent, from 2.26 billion tons in 1980 to 2.5 billion tons in 1989. Thus, more than twice as many ICC- approved companies were competing for roughly the same amount of freight.

The trucking glut led to desperate rate wars as truckers scrambled to survive. With each round of rate cuts, many longtime companies found themselves awash in red ink.

As losses mounted, companies whose trucks had long been familiar names on American highways began to vanish. Even companies that initially thought they would benefit from deregulation were, in the end, destroyed by it.

When the parent corporation of American Freight System Inc., one of the nation's largest trucking companies, based in Overland Park, Kan., acquired Smith's Transfer Corp. of Staunton, Va., in 1987, it sought to allay concerns of Smith employees about being absorbed by another company.

In an Oct. 2, 1987, letter, American Freight welcomed the Smith workers into the new company, citing numerous fringe benefits - profit-sharing, pension and health and welfare plans - to which they would be entitled.

"Your economic security has been made more certain," the letter said. ''American Freight System is a financially viable carrier with a secure future in the deregulated motor carrier industry. "

Nine months later, American Freight filed for Bankruptcy Court protection.

The action threw 9,300 people out of work, closed 258 trucking terminals across the nation and idled 17,000 trucks and trailers. The company has since been liquidated.

For trucking companies still in business, the outlook is grim. Many that have survived are just getting by. Profit margins have been squeezed. Equipment is neglected or pushed to the limit.

So many carriers are entering and leaving the industry that the Federal Highway Administration has been unable to keep pace with safety inspections of interstate carriers. The inspections are required by the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, which was aimed at reducing trucking accidents.

A January 1991 report of the General Accounting Office noted: Federal Highway Administration "workload data show that the number of carriers entering the marketplace in any one month can exceed the number that underwent safety reviews. "

For those vehicles that the highway agency did inspect, the GAO said, "70 percent . . . received a less-than-satisfactory rating. "

That comes as little surprise to DeWayne Snow.

The owner of Snow's Welding & Truck Repair Inc. in Tyler, Texas, 100 miles east of Dallas, Snow does repair work for both large and small trucking companies.

"It's real tough on them right now," Snow said. "They don't fix anything they don't have to. . . . They'll bargain over everything. They even say to you, 'Can I bring in some used parts? ' "

As companies fought to stay in business after deregulation, they struggled to cut costs. Usually that meant reducing the wages and benefits of workers.

This sometimes was accomplished, curiously enough, through a program intended to broaden ownership - Employee Stock Ownership Plans, or ESOPs.

Created by Congress in 1974, ESOPs have become more and more popular with a wide spectrum of American corporations.

Proponents say that ESOPs give workers a voice in their company's operations and make them feel committed to its success.

In the trucking industry, though, ESOPs were used as a device to persuade employees to accept pay cuts.

In return for wage reductions of up to 15 percent, workers received stock in the company. If the firm prospered, they were told, their stock would appreciate in value and they would earn back what they had given up. That was the theory, anyway.

Contrary to the image of American labor as uncompromising on bread-and-butter issues, trucking industry workers went along - usually overwhelmingly so - with virtually every request of financially strapped employers for wage cuts in exchange for ESOPs.

Since 1980, more than two dozen ESOPs financed by worker wage cuts have been adopted by large trucking companies.

With few exceptions, the companies failed anyway.

* * *

The first major trucking company to adopt an ESOP was Transcon Lines Inc. of Los Angeles, a carrier with terminals in 45 states. The plan, approved at Transcon in 1983, was widely hailed as an example of labor and management cooperation.

A remarkable 88 percent of Transcon's 4,000 employees agreed to reduce their wages by 12 percent for five years in return for 49 percent of the company's stock.

Financial analysts loved the deal.

Said William H. Legg, a transportation analyst with Alex Brown & Sons Inc. of Baltimore: "Without the ESOP, Transcon wouldn't have been able to put enough capital into the company to stay even with the more well-heeled carriers. "

The Transcon example soon spread through trucking, as one carrier after another secured wage cutbacks from workers in return for stock in the company.

In the spring of 1989, amid much fanfare, Transcon distributed 2.5 million shares of stock to its workers, signaling the successful conclusion of the plan.

Calling the ESOP an "unqualified success," Orin Neiman, Transcon's chairman, paid tribute to the workers who now owned almost half of the company's stock.

"The ESOP helped the company through years of fierce price competition and saved Transcon and 4,000 jobs that otherwise would have been lost," Neiman said.

One year later, Transcon was out of business.

With the ICC's approval, the company was sold in the spring of 1990 to a Florida-based real estate company. Three weeks later, Transcon closed its doors and entered federal Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles. It is now being liquidated.

Virginia Oates, who worked for Transcon in Charlotte, N.C., remembers the last day.

"The company I worked for, Transcon Lines, was involved in a hostile takeover on April 20, 1990," she wrote the ICC. "The takeover transpired at 4:50 p.m., Friday, April 20, 1990, without any advance notice to the employees of Transcon Lines from anyone. All personnel, except the salesmen, were advised to take all their personal things with them as they left that day. "

A Transcon employee for 15 years, Oates - and 4,000 Transcon workers nationwide - were suddenly out of work. The stock they had bought with $50 million of their wages was virtually worthless.

"It is hard for me to believe that the ICC has done their public duty in this case," wrote Oates.

* * *

Trucking deregulation was the product of a broad-based political movement for regulatory reform that gathered steam in the 1970s.

While the perception exists that deregulation was Ronald Reagan's idea, it actually predated his arrival in the White House. In fact, airline and trucking deregulation were pushed through by Jimmy Carter.

The legislative coalition that brought about those changes and the subsequent deregulation of the savings and loan industry in 1982 had broad support in both parties.

Such political opposites as Sen. Jake Garn, the conservative Utah Republican, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat, were both on the deregulation bandwagon.

And it was Kennedy, more than any other senator, who led the charge for passage of the airline and trucking deregulation bills.

When Carter signed the Motor Carrier Reform Act on July 1, 1980, at a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden, he singled out Kennedy for special attention: "It's particularly gratifying to me to welcome Sen. Kennedy . . . because he's done such a tremendous job . . . in helping the whole nation understand the advantages to be derived from this trucking deregulation bill. "

Using language that sounded very much like the speeches that Reagan administration officials would make later in the 1980s, Kennedy described the Motor Carrier Act as "a significant victory" in the "ongoing battle to . . . reform and reduce needless federal regulation of business. . . . It means less government interference with industry . . . and more freedom for individual firms to conduct their business in the way they think best. It'll mean new opportunities, new jobs. "

Kennedy was half right.

New jobs were created - at low wages.

But many jobs that paid middle-class wages were eliminated.

Ask Charles D. Wright Jr.

For 12 years, Wright was a dock worker at a sprawling truck terminal in Hagerstown, Md., a distribution hub that received and rerouted freight across America.

After completing high school in Hagerstown, Wright went to work at the terminal, on a plain north of the city where he had hunted groundhogs as a boy.

He felt fortunate.

"Trucking was a good job in those days," he said. "The pay was good. It was steady work. "

And Ryder Truck Lines, which owned the terminal, was a good company, he said.

"I was proud to work there," he said. "People would ask you where you worked. I'd tell them, 'Ryder Truck Lines. ' Big smile. "

Ryder was one of the nation's oldest trucking companies. Founded in the 1930s, it was owned by IU International Inc., a Philadelphia-based conglomerate that had diversified into the interstate trucking business.

In addition to Ryder, IU owned another old-line trucking company, Pacific Intermountain Express Inc. (P-I-E), based in the West.

As separate divisions of IU, Ryder and P-I-E long were profitable operations.

Deregulation turned the profits into losses.

To try to stem the losses, IU merged Ryder and P-I-E in 1983, creating Ryder/P-I-E Nationwide. But the red ink still flowed. The trucking operations lost $42.5 million in 1984.

Another change was also beginning. Charles Wright and fellow workers at the Hagerstown terminal watched the company, once a solid, well-run organization, gradually deteriorate into a chaotic operation.

"They kept on hiring more management, more supervisors," he said. "When it was Ryder, there were just two supervisors a shift, and some nights only one. And then after deregulation, we had more superintendents and more managers than we ever had before. There was a lot of turnover among those guys. When it was Ryder, the same guys were supervisors for years. "

The Ryder/P-I-E merger didn't work. In 1985, the company lost $86.4 million - the largest one-year loss ever recorded by any trucking company.

In the fall of 1985, to keep afloat, the company proposed an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. In exchange for giving up 15 percent of their wages for the ESOP, employees would receive stock in P-I-E.

A prospectus spelling out the benefits was mailed to employees: "The purpose of the plan is to enable employees . . . to acquire stock ownership in (P-I-E) and thereby to share in the future of (P-I-E) and to provide employees who participate with an opportunity to accumulate capital for their future economic security. "

Over the five-year life of the ESOP, employees would give up about $250 million in wages in exchange for 49 percent of the company's stock.

Victor Anderson, another Hagerstown dock worker, recalled the day the ESOP was proposed: "They took everybody off the dock and brought us down to our break room and said, 'Hey, we've got this ESOP program. We're in financial difficulty and if you all don't decide to get into this - now we can't force you to get into this - but if you don't get into this, we're going to go out of business - next week. ' "

Employees who signed up were sent buttons, proclaiming: "I'M AN OWNER," which they were urged to wear on the docks.

The more workers who supported the ESOP, the lower the company's wage costs, so IU kept up a steady drumbeat of promotions urging workers to ". . . keep those sign-up cards coming in" and to "get to 100 percent (and) top 'er off. "

Fearing that they would lose their jobs, more than 85 percent of P-I-E's 10,500 employees signed up.

Charles Wright reluctantly agreed to go along, although he was convinced it was merely a device to get him to take a wage cut from $500 to $425 a week. In truth, most workers felt they had no choice.

"When you think about it, what are you going to do," asked Anderson. ''Are you going to take a 15 percent cut in pay or are you going to go out and try to get a job when it was hard to find one? So the majority of the people decided to get into the ESOP. . . . You were under a lot of pressure. "

Eighty-five days after the stock plan was adopted, IU sold the company that it had spent months persuading employees to save by forfeiting their wages.

On Dec. 31, 1985, the truck line, now renamed P-I-E Nationwide Inc., was sold to a privately held Chicago investment partnership, Maxitron Inc., which had no experience in the trucking industry.

Many employees were embittered by the sale, coming so soon after they had agreed to 15 percent wage cuts.

Indeed, employees would later file lawsuits seeking to recover the money they had contributed to the ESOP. The lawsuits have since been settled and a fraction of the money returned.

"When they turned around and sold the company right after the ESOP, it left a bad taste in people's mouths," said Anderson. "They led us to believe that the company would not be sold, that it was going to turn around and that sometime our stock would go onto the open market. "

Such was not the case. Under Maxitron, P-I-E continued to slide.

Top management changed with each season. In the 20 months after adoption of the ESOP, P-I-E had four different chief executive officers.

The chaos at the top filtered down through the company.

"It seemed like anything that went wrong was your fault," said Wright, ''and anything that went right was their idea. "

"The equipment was neglected after deregulation," said Anderson. ''Before, they had a regular program to replace so many tractors each year. That way you replaced your fleet every few years.

"But after deregulation . . . they had to do everything to keep their customers. One of the big things that suffered was the equipment.

"One way they could cut expenses was, if the truck needed brakes or tires, to run it one more trip. Or if the clutch was slipping on a tow motor, use it another week before you fixed it. There was a lot of neglect. "

In the spring of 1990, the company changed hands yet again.

The new owner was from Miami Beach and, like Maxitron, had no experience in the trucking industry.

Olympia Holding Corp., as it was called, had the same address, 1250 Ocean Dr., Miami Beach, and many of the same officers of a company that only three weeks earlier had acquired control of another old-line trucking firm, Transcon Lines of Los Angeles.

Olympia's plan, its officers told the ICC, was to merge the troubled lines into one company. After applications were submitted, the ICC tentatively agreed to transfer the operating certificates to the new owners.

If the ICC had been guilty of overregulation in the past, its approval of the Transcon and P-I-E acquisitions showed just how far in the other direction the agency had swung.

The central figure behind Olympia Holding and the Transcon and P-I-E deals was a controversial developer, Leonard A. Pelullo, who has operated from Chester County, Pa., to Miami Beach.

About the time that the ICC approved Pelullo's control of the two trucking companies, he and his businesses were the subject of civil complaints and criminal investigations. Disgruntled investors, banks, the IRS, other government agencies, and federal grand juries were suing or probing Pelullo's business activities, from Philadelphia to Miami, from Newark to Los Angeles.

Some of his difficulties grew out of his unsuccessful attempt to restore a collection of Miami Beach's historic art deco hotels. The real estate venture was undertaken by the Royale Group Ltd., a publicly traded company that Pelullo controlled.

After the Royale Group attracted millions of dollars from investors and banks to restore the hotels, the company collapsed.

While the ICC was considering the transfer of P-I-E's and Transcon's operating certificates to Pelullo's companies, his business empire was reeling, as a summary of the litigation and complaints against him shows:

His principal company, the Royale Group, and its affiliates were in Bankruptcy Court in Miami.
A Bankruptcy Court trustee in that case reported to the judge that Pelullo had transferred assets to family-controlled entities, with the apparent intent to "deprive creditors" of assets.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) had filed a claim in Dade County, Fla., Circuit Court seeking to recover more than $30 million in principal and interest from a loan to a Pelullo company by a failed savings bank.
The IRS had filed a claim of $697,000 against Royale and seized company documents in an attempt to collect unpaid federal taxes for various Pelullo corporations.
A federal grand jury in Cincinnati had indicted Pelullo for allegedly bribing an officer of an Ohio savings and loan. A jury later acquitted him of the charge.
A federal grand jury in Philadelphia was investigating charges that Pelullo had defrauded a savings and loan association in Stockton, Calif., from which the Royale Group had borrowed $13.5 million in 1984.
A civil complaint filed in New Jersey accused Pelullo of raiding the pension fund of Compton Press Inc., a Morris Plains, N.J., printing company of which he acquired control in 1987, and of siphoning off millions of dollars from the company's retirement plan for his personal use. A federal judge in New Jersey later sent Pelullo to jail for three weeks when he failed to pay back the fund.

This, then, was the background of the new owner of two longtime trucking companies, whose certification the ICC approved in April 1990.

Pelullo's Growth Financial Corp. acquired Transcon for $12 on April 1, 1990.

That's right.

Twelve dollars.

In the next few weeks, liquid and real assets of Transcon were diverted to other Pelullo entities, according to a bankruptcy trustee. The trustee asserted in Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles in 1990 that Growth Financial appropriated to itself $1.655 million in cash belonging to Transcon.

The trustee said that transfers were only the first of many transactions that would reduce Transcon to a "debt-ridden shell, all in an attempt to move all of Transcon's assets beyond the reach of its creditors. "

What happened to the cash that disappeared from Transcon's accounts remains a mystery, but the trustee contended that perhaps $400,000 was diverted to P- I-E, as were tractors and trailers owned by Transcon.

If they indeed were diverted to P-I-E, none of these assets helped that company either. It just prolonged the inevitable.

Victor Anderson and his fellow workers at the Hagerstown terminal saw it coming.

"It just became so obvious the last month they were going to go down," he said. "When you run out of toilet paper and soap, you know it's the end. "

On Oct. 16, 1990, P-I-E filed for protection from creditors in Bankruptcy Court in Jacksonville, Fla.

Pledging to reorganize and stay in business, the company closed terminals and slashed its workforce.

It was too late. In early December of that year, the bankruptcy reorganization was converted to a liquidation. P-I-E's few remaining assets were to be sold off.

Dec. 17 was the last work day for Charles Wright at the Hagerstown terminal.

After 12 years of steady employment, he was out of a job. To support his wife and two children, he began drawing $215 a week in unemployment compensation.

Along with his wages, Wright lost his health benefits. The Teamsters offered to provide coverage but he'd have to pay the cost. It was an offer he had to pass up.

"When we left, we were told we could pay into the health and welfare program for $432 a month," he said. "But who has $432 a month when you are laid off? How is anybody who's laid off going to afford that? So we don't have any health coverage. "

And what of Leonard Pelullo, the man the ICC approved to take over P-I-E?

In a criminal case involving events that occurred before Pelullo acquired Transcon and P-I-E, he was convicted in July of defrauding a Stockton, Calif., savings and loan and the Royale Group, the company that he controlled, of $2.2 million.

In that case, a U. S. District Court jury in Philadelphia found him guilty on 50 counts of wire fraud and racketeering. Judge Robert F. Kelly sentenced Pelullo to 24 years in prison - jailed him immediately and ordered him to pay a fine of $4.4 million and restitution of $2.2 million.

At the sentencing hearing, Kelly posed a rhetorical question concerning Pelullo's control of a public company - a question the ICC might easily have asked at the time of the P-I-E/Transcon merger:

"Why would any public corporation ask him - let him - ever get control of their assets?"

0 Comments

November 24th, 2014

11/24/2014

0 Comments

Anyone that tells you that people from developed world nations love the opportunity to migrate to developed world nations really do not understand what it is like being uprooted from your families and culture. You will if global corporations have their way! The intent to grow and expand overseas is what has been the economic policy of the Obama years and it will continue for at least a few decades if left unchecked and with that comes Americans living as ex-pats. Consider as well that the global corporate pols in Congress and controlling our state assemblies have as a goal of embracing Trans Pacific Trade Pact and are building the structures in our states and cities even as we speak. Those goals will have these foreign workers working as they did in their own nations and with growing competition for jobs in the US, Americans will be forced to compete with those foreign workers brought to the US and worked as they did overseas.

YOU WANT A JOB THEN LET THIS CHINESE CORPORATION IN THE US HIRE YOU BUT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO IGNORE ALL US LABOR AND JUSTICE LAWS THAT TAKE AWAY PROFITS THEY COULD EARN IF THEY OPERATED IN THEIR OWN NATION.

So, the idea that these high-skilled or any immigrant being brought to the US for a better life is totally fictional. It has been and it will get worse if TPP is allowed to become installed.

IT IS NOT PROGRESSIVE TO CREATE A SYSTEM OF WORLD-WIDE MIGRANT WORKERS ALL TO CHEAPEN THE LABOR FORCE OF DEVELOPED WORLD NATIONS ONLY TO MAXIMIZE CORPORATE PROFITS.

What Hispanic and other immigrants already in the US need is CITIZENSHIP NOW. We understand that neither Clinton neo-liberals nor Republicans will allow this so what a progressive liberal state would do is protect the workplace rights of immigrants already here. Stop allowing them to be fleeced of wages, be paid less, and be abused in the workplace and this can be done on a local and state level. If a state allows all this abuse for immigrants----it is not a progressive state.

We need to educate that when workplace equality is embraced for all then corporations see no need to bring labor from elsewhere and everyone has an equal opportunity for employment-----IT IS NOT A BAD DEAL FOR US WORKERS. What makes this hard to accept is the control global corporations have been given on creating high unemployment and job scarcity and none of this has to be the case. Work to change bad economic policy before we fight with one another for jobs!

'Because of the importance of well-managed migration',

First, we need to remember that the current high unemployment and stagnant economy is a direct result of Clinton neo-liberalism and global market neo-cons. It is not immigrants-----it is not a shortage of 'business-friendly' policy-----it is global free market policy. US immigrant labor would be glad that Americans work to change this!

Globalization Creates Unemployment: American Job Loss Is Permanent

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Global Research, October 28, 2010 28 October 2010

Now that a few Democrats and the remnants of the AFL-CIO are waking up to the destructive impact of jobs offshoring on the US economy and millions of American lives, globalism’s advocates have resurrected Dartmouth economist Matthew Slaughter’s discredited finding of several years ago that jobs offshoring by US corporations increases employment and wages in the US.

At the time I exposed Slaughter’s mistakes, but economists dependent on corporate largess understood that it was more profitable to drink Slaughter’s kool-aid than to tell the truth. Recently the US Chamber of Commerce rolled out Slaughter’s false argument as a weapon against House Democrats Sandy Levin and Tim Ryan, and the Wall Street Journal had Bill Clinton’s Defense Secretary, William S. Cohen, regurgitate Slaughter’s claim on its op-ed page on October 12.

I sent a letter to the Wall Street Journal, but the editors were not interested in what a former associate editor and columnist for the paper and President Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy had to say. The facade of lies has to be maintained at all costs. There can be no questioning that globalism is good for us.

Cohen told the Journal’s readers that “the fact is that for every job outsourced to Bangalore, nearly two jobs are created in Buffalo and other American cities.” I bet Buffalo “and other American cities” would like to know where these jobs are. Maybe Slaughter, Cohen, and the Chamber of Commerce can tell them.

Last May I was in St. Louis and was struck by block after block of deserted and boarded up homes, deserted factories and office buildings, even vacant downtown storefronts.
Detroit is trying to shrink itself by 40 square miles. On October 25, 60 Minutes had a program on unemployment in Silicon Valley, where formerly high-earning professionals have been out of work for two years and today cannot even find part-time $9 an hour jobs at Target.

The claim that jobs offshoring by US corporations increases domestic employment in the US is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. As I demonstrated in my syndicated column at the time and again in my book, How The Economy Was Lost (2010), Slaughter reached his erroneous conclusion by counting the growth in multinational jobs in the U.S. without adjusting the data to reflect the acquisition of existing firms by multinationals and for existing firms turning themselves into multinationals by establishing foreign operations for the first time. There was no new multinational employment in the U.S. Existing employment simply moved into the multinational category from a change in the status of firms to multinational.

If Slaughter (or Cohen) had consulted the Bureau of Labor Statistics nonfarm payroll jobs data, he would have been unable to locate the 5.5 million jobs that were allegedly created. In my columns I have reported for about a decade the details of new jobs creation in the U.S. as revealed by the BLS data, as has Washington economist Charles McMillion. Over the last decade, the net new jobs created in the U.S. have nothing to do with multinational corporations. The jobs consist of waitresses and bartenders, health care and social services (largely ambulatory health care), retail clerks, and while the bubble lasted, construction.

These are not the high-tech, high-paying jobs that the “New Economy” promised, and they are not jobs that can be associated with global corporations. Moreover, these domestic service jobs are themselves scarce.

But facts have nothing to do with it. Did Slaughter, Cohen, the Chamber, and the Wall Street Journal ever wonder how it was possible to have simultaneously millions of new good-paying middle class jobs and virtually the worst income inequality in the developed world with all income gains accruing to the mega-rich?

In mid-October Treasury Secretary and Goldman Sachs puppet Tim Geithner gave a speech in California in the backyard, or former backyard, of 60 Minutes’ Silicon Valley dispossessed upper middle class interviewees in which Geithner said that the solution is to “educate more engineers.”

We already have more engineers than we have jobs for them. In a recent poll a Philadelphia marketing and research firm, Twentysomething, found that 85% of recent college graduates planned to move back home with parents. Even if members of the “boomeranger generation” find jobs, the jobs don’t pay enough to support an independent existence.

The financial media is useless. Reporters repeat the lie that the unemployment rate is 9.6%. This is a specially concocted unemployment rate that does not count most of the unemployed. The government’s own more inclusive rate stands at 17%. Statistician John Williams, who counts unemployment the way it is supposed to be counted, finds the unemployment rate to be 22%.

The financial press turns bad news into good news. Recently a monthly gain of 64,000 new private sector jobs was hyped, jobs that were more than offset by the loss in government jobs. Moreover, it takes around 150,000 new jobs each month to keep pace with labor force growth. In other words, 100,000 new jobs each month would be a 50,000 jobs deficit.

The idiocy of the financial press is demonstrated by the following two headlines which appeared on October 19 on the same Bloomberg page:

    “Dollar Index Appreciates as Geithner Supports Currency Strength”

    “Geithner Weak Dollar Seen as U.S. Recovery Route”

To keep eyes off of the loss of jobs to offshoring, policymakers and their minions in the financial press blame US unemployment on alleged currency manipulation by China and on the financial crisis. The financial crisis itself is blamed by Republicans on low income Americans who took out mortgages that they could not afford.

In other words, the problem is China and the greedy American poor who tried to live above their means. With this being the American mindset, you can see why nothing can be done to save the economy.

No government will admit its mistakes, especially when it can blame foreigners. China is being made the scapegoat for American failure. An entire industry has grown up that points its finger at China and away from 20 years of corporate offshoring of US jobs and 9 years of expensive and pointless US wars.

“Currency manipulation” is the charge. However, the purpose of the Chinese peg to the US dollar is not currency manipulation. When the Chinese government decided to take its broken communist economy into a market economy, the government understood that it needed foreign confidence in its currency. It achieved that by pegging its currency to the dollar, signaling that China’s money was as sound as the US dollar. At that time, China, of course, could not credibly give its currency a higher dollar value.

As time has passed, the irresponsible and foolish policies of the US have eroded the dollar’s value, and as the Chinese currency is pegged to the dollar, its value has moved down with the dollar. The Chinese have not manipulated the peg in order to make their currency less valuable.

To the contrary, when I was in China in 2006, the exchange rate was a little more than 8 yuan to the dollar. Today it is 6.6 yuan to the dollar–a 17.5% revaluation of the yuan.

The US government blames the US trade deficit with China on an undervalued Chinese currency. However, the Chinese currency has risen 17.5% against the dollar since 2006, but the US trade deficit with China has not declined.

The major cause of the US trade deficit with China is “globalism” or the practice, enforced by Wall Street and Wal-Mart, of US corporations offshoring their production for US markets to China in order to improve the bottom line by lowering labor costs. Most of the tariffs that the congressional idiots want to put on “Chinese” imports would, therefore, fall on the offshored production of US corporations. When these American brand goods, such as Apple computers, are brought to US markets, they enter the US as imports. Thus, the tariffs will be applied to US corporate offshored output as well as to the exports of Chinese companies to the US.

The correct conclusion is that the US trade deficit with China is the result of “globalism” or jobs offshoring, not Chinese currency manipulation.

An important point always overlooked is that the US is dependent on China for many manufactured products including high technology products that are no longer
produced in the US. Revaluation of the Chinese currency would raise the dollar price of these products in the US. The greater the revaluation, the greater the price rise. The impact on already declining US living standards would be dramatic.

When US policymakers argue that the solution to America’s problems is a stronger Chinese currency, they are yet again putting the burden of adjustment on the out-of-work, indebted, and foreclosed American population.

___________________________________________

This is a very good article that looks at what Trans Pacific Trade Pact looks like as the structures are being built while neo-liberals and neo-cons pretend this is about growing jobs in America. Remember, TPP seeks to allow global corporations to operate in the US as they do in developing world nations. These immigrant investors are people enriched in their own nations just as the rich in America became super-rich and now they are moving that wealth here to America just to create jobs for you and me. So, US global corporations are bringing their tag team from developing world nations to bring the US to the level of those developing nations.

Right now we have loads of immigrant investors creating businesses say in the tech industry just waiting for Obama's executive order for high-skilled immigrant workers so they can bring their Indian workforce here to America. Just wait for TPP and those Indian tech corporations are now allowed to work those immigrants from India just as they do in India-----ignoring all US labor and justice laws. That is how you take the US from first world----to now second world----and with TPP to third world status. This is the goal behind allowing the wealthy foreign investors to come to the US to create businesses while the American people cannot access loans and see their personal wealth erode.

October 2014

Selling Visas and Citizenship: Policy Questions from the Global Boom in Investor Immigration

By Madeleine Sumption and Kate Hooper

Employment & the Economy Competitiveness Labor Market Impacts Recruitment Immigrant Integration Citizenship & Civic Engagement Immigration Policy & Law Selection Systems Visa Policy see more... Download Report Over the past decade, the number of countries with immigrant investor programs has increased dramatically. Although governments have long extended residence permits or citizenship to wealthy individuals willing to invest large amounts in their economies, the forces of globalization and rapidly increasing interest among prospective immigrant investors are challenging policymakers to step up to meet this demand. About half of Member States in the European Union now have dedicated immigrant investor routes, while Malta and countries in the Caribbean have developed their own "citizenship-by-investment" programs, sparking public debate.

In theory, the benefits of immigrant investor programs for both newcomers and destination countries are straightforward. For potential investors, these initiatives make doing business abroad attractive by offering a faster or easier route to resettlement, insurance against political or economic upheaval at home, or access to visa-free travel, among other things. In exchange, destination countries enjoy the perks of new investment, including revenues and job creation. In practice, however, policymakers have been disappointed to find the economic impacts of immigrant investment are often modest at best, and designing a program to control where and how money is invested, thereby maximizing economic benefits, can be a challenge.

This report offers an overview of immigrant investor programs around the world, ranging from the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom to Bulgaria, Greece, Latvia, Portugal, Spain, and St. Kitts and Nevis.

Click to Enlarge It examines several of the approaches policymakers have taken to encourage immigrant investment while balancing the objectives of economic benefit, public opinion, and program integrity. Finally, the report concludes with an outlook on the future of investor programs. Even as new countries take a shot at developing their own initiatives, more experienced players are reviewing or scrapping their programs altogether due to insufficient economic benefits, and these outcomes will likely have implications for future program design.

Table of Contents I. Introduction

II. How Do Immigrant Investor Programs Work?

A. Who Applied for Investor Programs and Why?

B. Types of Immigrant Investor Programs

III. Determining the Investment Type

A. Programs Based on Private-Sector Transaction

B. Programs Based on Investor-Government Transactions

IV. Immigrants or Casual Visitors? Residency Requirements

V. Ensuring Integrity

VI. What Next? The Future of Investor Programs

__________________________________________

As you see the movement of people as migrants worldwide is soaring and this is due to the policies that have nations bringing in workers from abroad to work more cheaply than the domestic workers. This of course is nothing new but the difference is that it is escalating and as Trans Pacific Trade Pact policies are pushed------developed world nations like Europe, Canada, US, and Australia now act as developing world nations in bringing migrant workers into their nations to be exploited and abused. That is where TPP takes the US and it is not good for these immigrants at all. What looks right now as better wages in the US will become wages just as bad as they received in their home nations.

Migrant workers do not want to leave their home nations to come elsewhere to work so these policies are not creating work conditions these immigrants want for the most part. It is not the progressive approach to lifting people around the world or in the US. It is simply a policy with a goal to exploit immigrant workers and make US workers already challenged with competition for good jobs more pressed to take whatever they can get.

Note that the United Nations has a Labor Organization but embraces and promotes global markets and corporations.

International Labour Standards on Migrant workers

ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations

The growing pace of economic globalization has created more migrant workers than ever before. Unemployment and increasing poverty have prompted many workers in developing countries to seek work elsewhere, while developed countries have increased their demand for labour, especially unskilled labour. As a result, millions of workers and their families travel to countries other than their own to find work. At present there are approximately 175 million migrants around the world, roughly half of them workers (of these, around 15% are estimated to have an irregular status). Women make up almost half of migrants. Migrant workers contribute to the economies of their host countries, and the remittances they send home help to boost the economies of their countries of origin. Yet at the same time migrant workers often enjoy little social protection and are vulnerable to exploitation and human trafficking. Skilled migrant workers are less vulnerable to exploitation, but their departure has deprived some developing countries of valuable labour needed for their own economies. ILO standards on migration provide tools for both migrant sending and receiving countries to manage migration flows and ensure adequate protection for this vulnerable category of workers. (Note 1)

Because of the importance of well-managed migration, the 2004 International Labour Conference called for the implementation of an action plan for migrant workers, which includes a non-binding multilateral framework for migrant workers in the global economy, the wider application of relevant standards, capacity building, and a global knowledge base on the issue.

________________________________________

Think how policies as we have here in Baltimore and Maryland deliberately allow national and global corporations to take all state and local contracts and control how these projects will be manned and as we know often these corporations hand businesses from all over the country contracts that then allow these businesses to bring their state's own labor to Baltimore and Maryland to do the work. This is why and how you create high unemployment in Baltimore and Maryland and it is how you lower the standards of labor as well. This is what Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons are doing to the workforce. Look as well to the model China has created that leaves massive numbers of citizens too impoverished to leave the urban sweat shops and made to be happy simply to get home for a Chinese New Year.

Think what will happen as Chinese foreign investors create businesses here in America and then Obama's Executive Order allows them to bring their own workers from China and then TPP allows these global corporations to ignore all US labor and justice laws and allows these global corporations to work these immigrant workers as they do in China.

DO YOU SEE THE PROGRESSION? THAT IS THE GOAL OF CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS AND BUSH NEO-CONS AND THESE TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT AND FOREIGN INVESTORS AS BUSINESS OWNER POLICIES ARE.

Migrant Workers In Tears, Happy to Go Home for Chinese New Year

by Fauna on Sunday, January 8, 2012 48 comments

The following video was featured on popular Chinese video sharing website Youku’s home page, having accumulated over 560k views after just 7 hours of being uploaded, featuring several migrant workers overcome with emotion at the prospect of returning home to celebrate the Chinese New Year with their families…

From Youku:

Migrant workers overcome with emotion and shedding tears after getting their train tickets, happily going home to celebrate the new year! Several migrant workers are interviewed in the 5 minute long video. Several migrant workers express happiness and are thankful that they received their wages in time for the Chinese New Year, perhaps allowing them to go home to celebrate with their families. Some thank their employers for paying on time, the government, and the media for helping bring public attention to their lives and hardships.

The second pair of migrant workers talk about their train trip, that it will take 2 days and 1 night in order to get home, requiring a one day stopover as well, and their train tickets are for standing room only, without seats for the entire ride. When asked by the interviewer how they can endure not having seats, they explain that they are in a rush to get home and there were out of options. It was only until they got their wages that they were able to go home at all.

They also share about who they are looking forward to see at home, such as their wives, children, and parents. When asked what he wants to say to his family at home on camera, the crying migrant worker says he’s bringing home the money he’s earned through blood and sweat, that he’s about to come home, and they can be reunited.

At time of translation, there were over 5000 comments by Chinese netizens in reaction to this video. Many of the comments reveal not only the attitudes of many Chinese people towards migrant workers, the government, and Spring Festival (aka Chinese New Year) but also various phenomenon common to the Chinese internet and the internet as a whole…

____________________________________________

As Republicans pretend to be anti-immigrant they are all for using immigrant labor for profit and they love the Chinese style of 'business-friendly' policy that Congress is now trying to implement with Trans Pacific Trade Pact and the foreign investor state policies. Move over Republicans because this is Clinton neo-liberal policies too! See why both Republican Party capture by Bush neo-cons and Democratic Party capture by Clinton neo-liberals are moving the US to third world status!

China Is Very “Business-Friendly”

February 15, 2012 Dave Johnson   Campaign for America's Future

China is very, very “business-friendly.” Corporate conservatives lecture us that we should be more “business-friendly,” in order to “compete” with China. They say we need to cut wages and benefits, work longer hours, get rid of overtime and sick pay — even lunch breaks. They say we should shed unions, get rid of environmental and safety regulations, gut government services, and especially, especially, especially we should cut taxes. But America can never be “business-friendly” enough to compete with China, and here is why.

Workers In Dormatories, 12 To A Room, Rousted At Midnight

China is very, very “business friendly.” Recent stories about Apple’s manufacturing contractors have started to reveal just how “business-friendly” China is. Recently the NY Times’ Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher exposed the conditions of workers at Apple’s Chinese suppliers, in How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work. They describe how China’s massive government subsidies and exploitation of workers mean, as Steve Jobs told President Obama, “Those jobs aren’t coming back.”

One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. … New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.

“The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”

Right. No American plant can roust workers out of nearby dorms at midnight to force them onto a 12-hour shift. And the corporate conservatives criticize America for this, not China, saying we are not “business-friendly” enough to compete. This is because we are a place where We, the People still have at least some say in how things are done. (Don’t we?) Later in the story,

The first truckloads of cut glass arrived at Foxconn City in the dead of night, according to the former Apple executive. That’s when managers woke thousands of workers, who crawled into their uniforms — white and black shirts for men, red for women — and quickly lined up to assemble, by hand, the phones.

“Business-friendly” = living 12 to a room in dorms, rousted out of bed at midnight for 12-hour shifts, working in a plant paid for by the government, using a neurotoxin cleaner that harms people but enables more production for companies like Apple.

Forced Labor Is The Real “Business-Friendly”

Arun Gupta at AlterNet, in iEmpire: Apple’s Sordid Business Practices Are Even Worse Than You Think, writes,

Researchers with the Hong Kong-based Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM) say that legions of vocational and university students, some as young as 16, are forced to take months’-long “internships” in Foxconn’s mainland China factories assembling Apple products. The details of the internship program paint a far more disturbing picture than the Times does of how Foxconn, “the Chinese hell factory,” treats its workers, relying on public humiliation, military discipline, forced labor and physical abuse as management tools to hold down costs and extract maximum profits for Apple.

… Foxconn and Apple depend on tax breaks, repression of labor, subsidies and Chinese government aid, including housing, infrastructure, transportation and recruitment, to fatten their corporate treasuries. As the students function as seasonal employees to meet increased demand for new product rollouts, Apple is directly dependent on forced labor.

… The use of hundreds of thousands of students is one way in which China’s state regulates labor in the interests of Foxconn and Apple. Other measures include banning independent unions and enforcing a household registration system that denies migrants social services and many political rights once they leave their home region, ensuring they can be easily exploited. In Shenzhen about 85 percent of the 14 million residents are migrants. Migrants work on average 286 hours a month and earn less than 60 percent of what urban workers make. Half of migrants are owed back wages and only one in 10 has health insurance. They are socially marginalized, live in extremely crowded and unsanitary conditions, perform the most dangerous and deadly jobs, and are more vulnerable to crime.

Please read the entire AlterNet piece, iEmpire: Apple’s Sordid Business Practices Are Even Worse Than You Think. These things are not “costs” that we can compete with by lowering our wages, these things are something else.

Not JUST Low Taxes — Massive Government Subsidies

These stories also describe how the Chinese government massively subsidizes these operations, assists their low-wage labor-recruitment schemes, and looks the other way at violations of labor and trade policies. The Chinese government is very “business-friendly.” They hand money to businesses so they are much more able to “compete.” They are so friendly to business that they even own many businesses.

Trade Secret Theft

Another area where China has very “business-friendly” policies is when their own businesses steal from non-Chinese businesses. This NY Times story, U.S. to Share Cautionary Tale of Trade Secret Theft With Chinese Official details just one case of the “unbelievably endemic” problem of Chinese theft of “intellectual property” — the trade secrets that keep businesses competitive. In this case China’s Sinovel sole the software that ran an American company’s products, and immediately cancelled their orders for those products because they could now make them in China:

Last March, China’s Sinovel, the world’s second largest wind turbine manufacturer, abruptly refused shipments of American Superconductor’s wind turbine electrical systems and control software. The blow was devastating; Sinovel provided more than 70 percent of the firm’s revenues.

… Last summer, evidence emerged that Sinovel had promised $1.5 million to Dejan Karabasevic, a Serbian employee of American Superconductor in Austria.

If you steal the ideas, processes, techniques, expertise, plans, designs, software and the other things that give companies a competitive edge, then you don’t have to pay them and you can just make the things yourself. When you get in bed with a very “business-friendly” country, you might find that they are more friendly to their own businesses. Because they consider themselves to be a country with a national strategy, not a self-balancing, self-regulating “market.”

Trade Deficit Drains Our Economy

As a result of our ideological blindness, refusing to understand China’s game, we have a massive trade deficit with them. This means hundreds of billions of dollars are drained from our economy, year after year. And to make up for this we borrow from them in order to keep buying from them. But this does not cause their currency to strengthen in the “markets” because China loves this game the way it is going, and intervenes against the markets to keep their currency low. And so it continues, year after year. We believe in “markets” they believe in rigging markets so they come out ahead…

Markets Can’t “Compete” With This

Corporate conservatives tell us we need to be more “business-friendly” to “compete” with China. But at the same time Steve Jobs was being a realist when he said “the jobs are never coming back” because he understood that the current political climate, controlled by a wealthy few who benefit from China’s “business-friendly” policies will not let us fight this. Why should these companies bring jobs back here, when over there they can roust thousands from dorms at midnight and make them use toxic chemicals for 12 hours a day for very low pay to make iPhone screens that he can sell at fantastically high prices? Why should they, unless We, the People tell them they can’t do that to people, and that we won’t let them profit from it?

As long as we continue to think that this is about “markets” competing, we will lose. China sees itself as a nation, and they have a national strategy to continue to be so “business-friendly” that our businesses can’t compete. Our leaders and corporations may have “moved on” past this quaint nation thing but China has not.

We, The People Need To Act To Fix This

As long as we continue to send our companies out there alone against national economic strategies that engage entire national systems utilizing the resources of nations, our companies will lose. But the executives at those companies are currently getting very rich now from these schemes, so what happens in the future is not their problem. Maybe the companies they manage won’t be around later, but that is not their problem. Others are concerned, but are forced to play the game because no one can compete with national systems like China’s.

When everyone is in a position where something isn’t their problem, or where they can’t do anything about it on their own, it means this is a larger problem, and this is where government — We, the People — needs to get involved. It is our problem but we have been convinced that we — government — shouldn’t interfere, or “protect” our industries, because “the markets” don’t like “government” — We, the People — butting in. This is a very convenient viewpoint for few who are geting very, very wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.

We Need A Plan

In U.S. must end China’s rulers’ free pass at Politico, AAM’s Scott Paul writes, Read it, read it, read it!)

We shouldn’t fear China’s citizens. But we should be worried about the actions of its authoritarian — and, yes, still communist — regime that tightly controls the People’s Republic. And we should be downright terrified by some of our own leaders’ attitudes toward China.

… China is not merely the key U.S. supplier of cheap toys, clothing and electronics: Its government is also one of our foreign financiers. China achieved this status by defying the free market and its international obligations toward more open trade and investment.

[. . .] History didn’t do in the Soviet Union. A sustained and aggressive strategy did. China engaged our business and political elites — and seduced them into believing these policies were no longer necessary.

… There has been no strategy, no effort to prevail economically.

… No one is suggesting that China is an enemy and we should just update our Cold War strategies. No one can accurately define what China’s intentions are in terms of foreign policy or defense. But on the economic front, the lessons of the past are instructive: We need a plan.

We need a plan. We need to understand that China is not competing with us in “markets’ they are competing with us as a nation. We need a national economic/industrial strategy that understands the urgent need to fight as a country to win the industries of the future.

It’s not just price, it is things a democracy cannot allow. We can’t ever be “business-friendly” ENOUGH. We have to do something else. We have to understand that We, the People — the 99% — are in a real fight here to keep our democracy, or we will lose what is left of it.

Democracy Is The Best Economics

When people have a say they demand good wages, benefits, reasonable working conditions, a clean environment, workplace safety and dignity on the job. We need more of that, not less of that. We must demand that goods made in places where people who do not have a say do not have a competitive advantage over goods made in places where people do have a say. And we must demand that those places give their people a say.

As long as we let democracy be a competitive disadvantage, We, the People will lose.

0 Comments

November 22nd, 2014

11/22/2014

0 Comments

I WILL BE BACK MONDAY TO CONTINUE THE TALK ON IMMIGRATION THIS TIME TO FOCUS ON HOW WE CAN HELP PROTECT IMMIGRANT WORKERS NOW IN THE US AND PUSH FOR EQUALITY IN THE WORKFORCE. WE DO NOT NEED COMPETITION AND TENSION BETWEEN HISPANIC AND BLACK COMMUNITIES BECAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF JOBS FOR BOTH.

I'd like to talk elections and Democratic Party Committees today.

In case anyone hadn't noticed Baltimore City is a working class city with a high level of poverty and a majority black population. The politicians reflect this dynamic. Now, when the white rich power structure in Baltimore deliberately creates high unemployment and a broad and deep poverty-----it is creating what allows for control of the city. People simply want jobs and an opportunity to participate in the city and feel that to do so they must be Hopkins Team Players. Hopkins treats Baltimore citizens just as they do developing world societies----they give a few poor people lots of money to keep control of power with the rich. THIS IS WHAT US NGOs do overseas and they are doing it here in Baltimore. How do you break this cycle?

YOU EDUCATE AS TO WHERE POLICIES TAKE THE CITY AND WHAT GOALS THE RICH IN BALTIMORE HAVE WITH THESE POLICIES. SHOUT IT OUT!

Below is a professional approach to what can be a very simple community effort. I speak to people everywhere I go about doing these audits. Parents in Baltimore are fed up with education funding that does not go where it should and programs that are supposed to exist that do not. The whole Baltimore City Schools system is corrupt.

PARENTS NEED TO GET TOGETHER AND AUDIT THEIR SCHOOLS! IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO.

This can happen all around as communities audit specifics like corporate tax breaks like TIFs and Enterprise Zone contracts for fraud, corruption, and misappropriation. Cities around the nation are bringing back hundreds of millions of dollars to their communities by auditing and holding pols accountable.

STOP ALLOWING THOSE AT THE TOP TO PROMOTE THIS CORRUPT CULTURE AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE! BE THE LEADER FOR THESE ELECTED FOLLOWERS.

Citizen Audit

Use Cases and Public Financial Management

Doug Hadden, VP Products

Future of PFM

I summarized a notion of citizen audit in public financial management at the International Consortium on Governmental Financial Management (ICGFM) Spring Conference on Monday. The conference subject, “PFM in the 21st. Century,” is an ideal venue to discuss the impact of transparency and social media in government. And, a number of attendees were fascinated with the concept. Many countries do not have sufficient government auditors. Audit limitations could be overcome by enabling citizens, businesses, media and NGOs. There are compliance, fraud and performance citizen audit dimensions. Citizen audit is enabled through open data (proactive disclosure of public financial management information on the Internet) and social media collaboration (Internet enabled feedback and discussion.) Will local government lead to citizen as auditor? Will this become a civic duty?

Timor-Leste Transparency Portal enables Citizen Audit

Compliance Use Cases

Fiscal discipline in government is partly achieved through following good practices. Public financial management in practice should follow government rules. This can be audited by citizens:

Procurement: Identify any procurements that did not follow government standards such as not enough time to respond, illegal requirements, not enough bids solicited etc. Procurement transparency requires e-procurement portals.
Budget Preparation: Identify any elements in budget preparation that did not follow rules such as not enough time for the legislature to consider the budget or improper support for budget estimates. Budget preparation transparency requires open budgets and the publication of budget books.
Recruitment: Identity improper government recruiting that does not follow civil service rules. Recruitment transparency requires e-recruitment portals.
Financial Reporting: Identify late government reporting such as failure to close accounts and report in a timely manner that does not follow the government financial law. Financial reporting transparency requires the publication of budgets, budget books and public accounts.

Fraud

Citizens can audit government financials to identify cases of fraud and corruption. Civil society can be trained to analyze government financial information. Audit opportunities include:

Revenue and Tax: Identify whether corporate taxes have been properly paid and entered the government treasury. Revenue transparency requires revenue portals and support for EITI.
Civil Service Expenditures: Identify whether senior public servants or politicians have incurred unreasonable personal and travel expenditures. Civil service expenditure transparency requires reporting on web portals.
Procurement: Identify whether companies have illegally manipulated the procurement process. Procurement transparency requires e-procurement portals that display winning bidders.
Bribery: Enable citizens to report when a public servant requested a bribe. Bribery transparency requires anonymous web site reporting.

Performance

The audit function in government has matured to focus in government efficiency and effectiveness. This is an emerging opportunity for citizen audit.Performance audit opportunities include:

Citizen outcomes: Enable citizens to report on government outputs and outcomes such as taking pictures of infrastructure program progress or reporting
Participatory budgeting: Enable citizens to participate in the budget preparation process, possibly policy formulation.
Government results: Enable citizens to evaluate whether government objectives were achieved and whether outcomes were aligned to objectives.

The advantage to government is that of citizen performance audit can enable improving performance measures. That’s because performance measures in government is so difficult to find because there is no bottom line like the private sector (profit) – as I described in an earlier post.

___________________________________________

Over the last decade or two Bill Clinton has recruited and trained black leaders to carrying the mantle of neo-liberalism and we are seeing black mayors and Senators----black education leaders. They all have one thing in common-----they are raging Wall Street pols and they do not care where these policies lead. Clinton and neo-liberalism is about dismantling all of the structures of oversight and accountability as with Republicans that in turn leads to widespread movement of government revenue everywhere except where it is supposed to go. Clinton did this as did Bush so the rich could steal billions and indeed trillions of dollars and when the top becomes corrupt they must allow the low-level administrators to be corrupt and VOILA-----THIS IS THE DYNAMIC THAT IS BALTIMORE. Other cities around the country has similar setups. The problem for Clinton and neo-liberals is that now the wealth inequity has become to steep and the need for buying the lower administrators is decreasing as power comes with dismantling justice. We have watched over a few years since the 2008 crash one black leader after another charged and sentenced for fraud and corruption in government. No charges of the people at the top allowing and involving these pols in fraud and corruption.

This is how we reverse the problem of fraud and corruption in government. The pols at the lower end must not be tempted to get involved with all of the corruption at the top. As soon as that pol allows himself or herself to become part of the crime----they are now controlled for life by those corrupt people at the top. You do what we say or we won't pad your income or will prosecute you for that fraud or malfeasance. I listened to Sheila Dixon being brought up for stealing some Xmas cards for children and right away thought-----with Baltimore Development Corporation and Johns Hopkins defrauding coffers of hundreds of millions each year taking from the poor children -----why did Sheila get the ax?

IT LOOKS LIKE SHEILA TRIED TO DO JUST A LITTLE FOR THE COMMUNITIES OF THE CITY WHEN BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT WANTED ALL THE CITY'S REVENUE TO COME TO THEM.

They knew the dirt on Sheila and used it as they will on any pol that allows themselves to become greedy. Tell me that the money a City Council are Maryland Assembly person earns is not enough to live a good life without all of the corruption!

STOP ALLOWING THE POWER IN BALTIMORE SNAG YOU WITH CORRUPTION. YOU SELL YOUR FREEDOM.

Let's look at one institution that shouted out against this for these very reasons: The Black Minority Contractors of America.

Baltimore City was once flush with black minority contractors and as we know today-----almost all have been pushed out of business. Let's be honest------in an environment of corruption these black minority contractor worked hand in hand with the corruption as does our Maryland union leaders and it is all done to get the job opportunities. DON'T SAY IT ISN'T SO! The problem when you allow fraud and corruption all around you is that it can turn on you in a minute and that is what is happening in Baltimore and Maryland right now. The entire bidding process is corrupt and now what defines minority or even saying work is going to minority contractors that is not is the new fraud. IF YOU ALLOW CORRUPTION IT ALWAYS COMES BACK TO BITE YOU.

Sham Minority Contractors Have Been Hired in Your City, Probably

By Patrick Kerkstra | May 13, 2013

Contractors at work on an environmental restoration project in Philadelphia. Credit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Philadelphia Inspector General Amy Kurland announced last week that local contractors have used “sham minority subcontractors” on 19 projects to skirt antidiscrimination requirements.

In New York, investigations into fraudulent hiring of minority- and women-owned subcontractors are so common that they have become something of a specialty for local prosecutors. The most recent instance was a $10 million settlement reached with Siemens Electrical.

The story is the same in Chicago, Seattle and Dallas. And that’s just in the last few years. Go back further, and it’s the rare city or state that hasn’t endured a scandal or four tied to well-intentioned minority contracting regulations.

The particulars of the rules vary from city to city and state to state, but the objective is always the same: Foster economic development in minority communities by requiring (or strongly encouraging) companies awarded public contracts to hire subcontractors owned by minorities or women.

It’s a laudable goal, as business ownership in America remains largely the domain of white men. Of the 4.65 million privately held firms in the nation with more than one paid employee, 89 percent are run by white principals and 62 percent are owned by men, according to U.S. Census data. (Women own 18 percent on their own, while another 20 percent of firms are owned jointly by men and women.)

Government contracting requirements are designed to reduce that imbalance, and they can work. The federal government’s version of the program, called the 8(a) Business Development Program, is designed to help minority-owned businesses “build their competitive and institutional know-how.”

This is how it’s supposed to work. Minority-owned companies register with local agencies that certify both their capability and the makeup of their ownership. In some cases, contracts are set aside for minority-owned businesses. In others, companies with large contracts are expected to subcontract out some percentage of the work to minority-owned subcontractors.

But that’s where things can get sticky. In a large number of cases across the country, contractors have taken to using sham minority subcontractors — shell companies “owned” by minorities that don’t have the actual capacity to perform the work in question. These faux contracting operations can make it look as though real work and real cash is flowing to minority-owned businesses, when in fact the money is really being passed through.

Another version of the same scandal features politically connected minority business owners, who use their juice to ensure their companies receive a big slice of the set-aside contracts, as was the case in Philadelphia in past years.

What is it about minority contracting programs that makes them such persistent sources of fraud and corruption?

The answer depends on whom you ask. Some non-minority contractors suggest privately that the root of the problem is a genuine lack of capable minority-owned firms in their industry or city, a state of affairs that can lead less scrupulous contractors to look for shortcuts to satisfy municipal requirements.

Others suggest that affirmative action in contracting is vulnerable to fraud because all parties are eager to welcome good news. Politicians sometimes embrace stats that reflect climbing rates of minority participation in contracting, even when the firms driving those spikes are shams.

Back in Philadelphia, Kurland doesn’t accept the premise that minority contracting programs are inherently prone to corruption. Rather, she said that for a variety of reasons, they just do not get the scrutiny they need.

“These programs can be effectively policed,” Kurland said. “And the press we’re getting on this can have a huge deterrent effect.”

____________________________________

What does this have to do with politicians? Well, Baltimore's level of corruption happens because Baltimore City Hall allows it and absolutely no oversight occurs. Not without coincidence, City Hall is mostly black while Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins are the rich white guys creating the policies that allow all this fraud and corruption to exist. If these black pols in City Hall had not joined into the corruption----they could fix the problems leading to black contractors becoming extinct today. THEY JOINED THE CORRUPTION AND THEY ARE SILENCED.

So, now we have Hispanic contractors being called the minority and winning all the contracts and they are joining in on the corruption just as the black contractors did. We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Montgomery County from Hispanic companies enriched from fraud just as black contractors once were. Now, those Hispanic contractors are caught and will be brought down without a voice.

BLACK CITY LEADERS ARE SILENCED AS THEY PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDS THAT ARE NOW EMBRACING HISPANIC CORPORATIONS AND IT IS THE RICH WHITE PEOPLE AT THE TOP BRINGING IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN GOVERNMENT FRAUD.

These Hispanic contractors will face the same situations and worse since they are often not even citizens----which is why O'Malley and Rawlings-Blake brings them to Maryland. They are even more easy to capture.

We know that wage theft happens with minority contractors as it does with while contractors and it is widespread as in Maryland and especially Baltimore. Who knows all this is happening? City Hall and the Maryland Assembly. These pols are complicit to widespread fraud.

THEY LOSE THEIR VOICE WHEN THEY JOIN THIS CLUB.

City Council Declares Wage Theft Crisis in L.A.

By City News Service

Declaring a “wage theft crisis,” Los Angeles City Council members joined worker rights groups Tuesday in calling for renewed efforts to punish employers who cheat workers out of their pay.

Wage theft occurs when employers pay less than the minimum wage, fail to pay overtime, misclassify employees as independent contractors or simply do not pay them.

Wage theft comes to an estimated $26.2 million per week in Los Angeles, according to a report put out by the Los Angeles Coalition Against Wage Theft, which includes the UCLA Labor Center.

The coalition also includes the groups 9to5, CARECEN, CHIRLA, the CLEAN Carwash Campaign, the Garment Worker Center, and the unions UFCW 770 and SEIU USWW.

Victims of wage theft tend to be low-wage workers, including those employed at car washes, restaurants and garment factories, the coalition said.

The groups were joined at a City Hall news conference by Los Angeles City Council members Gil Cedillo and Paul Koretz, who are trying to revive an earlier attempt to enforce laws against wage theft.

Koretz said workers lose money owed to them “due to violations of our state’s most basic protections.”

But the employers who are “bad apples know they can get away with it because the state bureaucracy is too slow to root them out,” he said.

“Wage theft has been a crime that is tough to remedy, because there is no easy method for workers to recover their wages,” according to Koretz.

Koretz said Los Angeles has the highest rate of wage theft in the country, with 80 percent of low-wage workers here victims of wage theft.

“It is urgent that the city do something about this very debilitating and devastating problem that afflicts so many hardworking people,” he said.

“Hard work should pay,” Cedillo said. “People who work hard in important sectors of our economy, the service sector, they should be paid a living wage.”

He said wage theft exists in many forms in LA.

“There are employers out there that take advantage of some of the hardest working and most underpaid employees,” Cedillo said. He said some of those workers are afraid to speak up because of their immigration status.”

He added that when people come to the United States to work and do not “comply” with immigration laws, “we throw them in jail, we separate their families.”

“And in the midst of this human rights crisis, at the very same time, we allow employers to exploit these conditions,” Cedillo said.

Koretz and Cedillo said the stealing of wages also hurts local economies because workers have less to spend at local businesses, and many employers are hurt because wage theft creates an unfair advantage for some businesses.

The councilmen want the City Attorney’s Office to work with police, the UCLA Downtown Labor Center and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network to craft an ordinance that would “criminalize the practice of wage theft in the city … and increase tracking and enforcement of wage theft.”

The council members said victims of wage theft would be able to report the violations to the city, but no other details were given on how the city could improve enforcement efforts.
________________________________________

So, now Hispanic pols are getting elected and they are the ones now entrenched in this culture of fraud and corruption and they will, like black contractors and pols be made silent and will be pushed out when not needed to exploit labor anymore.

The tensions between Hispanics and blacks will grow as Baltimore's policies of allowing black unemployment to grow does just that. This tension between two people of color is deliberate and you know what? The fraud and corruption keeps people silent and left to their own devices.

NO SNITCHING COMES FROM BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT AND JOHNS HOPKINS AND THEIR CULTURE OF CORRUPTION IN ALL THAT IS PUBLIC POLICY!

SEE NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL, AND HEAR NO EVIL IS THE HOPKINS CREDO.

You look at Baltimore City employees forced to work in this mess and they are sick of it!

0 Comments

November 21st, 2014

11/21/2014

0 Comments

OBAMA USED EXECUTIVE ORDER FOR IMMIGRATION TO PLEASE US CORPORATIONS WITH THE HIGH-SKILLED FOREIGN WORKER CLAUSE-----THE HAND OUT TO EXISTING IMMIGRANTS-----NOT TOO MUCH. REMEMBER, OBAMA IS TRYING TO FAST-TRACK TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT AND US IMMIGRANTS WILL NOT FAIR WELL IF TPP IS INSTALLED.

Let's look at why Obama used this executive order------cheap high-end labor.

As someone with Science degrees I love STEM. Let's consider the degree of saturation that corporate education reform has placed on STEM. Think as well that US global corporations are telling us they will hire what they see as the best of the best in the world -----where will the jobs for US grads in STEM be? It looks to me this STEM is everything in K-12 is more about transitioning out our broad democratic liberal arts and humanities education and tying our schools with what is simply a product-based education. Remember, the goal for Americans is to move back to a domestic economy fueled by regional and small businesses with higher wages and quality of life. This requires a broad-based education with US citizens wanting to start their own businesses that may have nothing to do with STEM. Please, do not allow these global corporate pols use our economy to create stagnation and high-unemployment.

Project Tomorrow: Stem Integration in K-12 Education

projecttomorrowblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/stem... CachedMay 06, 2014 ·

What is STEM? Is it isolated or integrated? While K-12 students usually study science and mathematics separately, all four disciplines within STEM are ...

'Conclusion: Now is not the time to increase the number of H-1B visas and STEM green cards'

This is more than anyone wants to know about how we have enough US STEM grads to fill most jobs the tech industry needs so please skim through to next article. It is good to see what corporations driving these policies are trying to say and what the reality is----and it all centers on taking the US workforce to the lowest possible.

STEM labor shortages?Microsoft report distorts reality about computing occupations

By Daniel Costa | November 19, 2012

Policy Memorandum #195 View PDF Download PDF
Press release Share this page:

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email More Sharing Services 86 Microsoft Corporation recently published a report warning that there will not be enough American college graduates in computer science to fill all of the available job openings in computer-related occupations between now and 2020 (Microsoft 2012). Microsoft uses Bureau of Labor Statistics projections to claim that from 2010 to 2020 there will be an additional “1.2 million job openings in computing professions that require at least a bachelor’s degree” (Microsoft 2012, 6). Microsoft warns that since only about 40,000 Americans graduate with a bachelor’s degree in computer science each year, many of the 120,000 projected job openings in computing occupations each year will go unfilled. As further evidence to support its claim of present and future labor shortages in computer-related occupations, Microsoft points to the 6,000 job openings at the company, 3,400 of which are for “researchers, developers and engineers” (Microsoft 2012, 3).

As part of its analysis, the Microsoft report asserts that the U.S. educational system is failing to produce enough graduates in the broader science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines (also known as the STEM fields). It recommends that Congress address the alleged shortage of STEM workers between now and 2020 in part by making 20,000 new H-1B temporary “nonimmigrant” guest worker visas available each year for employers that hire foreign graduates with degrees in STEM fields from U.S. universities. In addition, the report suggests that Congress recapture unused permanent immigrant visas (“green cards”) and make 20,000 of them available annually over the next 10 years to foreign graduates in STEM fields. Microsoft claims that the federal government could raise $5 billion over a decade if it charges employers $10,000 for every new STEM H-1B visa and $15,000 for each STEM green card. These funds would then be redistributed to states “where STEM education investments are needed” (Microsoft 2012, 5).

The report also calls for strengthening the U.S. pipeline for educating and training STEM workers by: “1) strengthening K–12 STEM education, 2) broadening access to computer science in high schools, 3) increasing STEM capacity in higher education, with a special focus on computer science, and 4) helping more students obtain post-secondary credentials and degrees by addressing the college completion crisis” (Microsoft 2012, 10).

The study that produced these recommendations contains a number of flaws, the most obvious of which are addressed in this memorandum. Specifically, this paper finds:

The Microsoft report projects a labor shortage over the next eight years by incorrectly assuming that only individuals with a bachelor’s degree in computer science can fill jobs in computer-related occupations. Data analyzed for this memorandum as well as other studies show that less than one-fourth to less than one-half of workers in computing occupations have a computer science degree.

The report and Microsoft officials say a labor shortage already exists in computer-related occupations, citing as evidence the fact that the present unemployment rate of workers in those occupations (3.4 percent) is less than the 4 percent unemployment rate that prevails when the national economy is at full employment (generally understood as a 4 to 5 percent unemployment rate). But Microsoft is misleading when it uses the 4 percent full-employment unemployment rate for all workers as the point of reference. Data analyses suggest that for workers in computer-related occupations—and especially for those who hold a college degree (i.e., the workers Microsoft claims there is a shortage of)—the actual full-employment unemployment rate is closer to 2 percent.

Further evidence that there is no shortage of workers in computer-related occupations is apparent in wage trend data. For example, from 2000 to 2011, the average hourly wage for workers possessing at least a bachelor’s degree in computer and math occupations rose less than half a percent per year, compared with the sharp wage increases we would see if a labor shortage existed in these occupations.

Granting Microsoft’s request to increase the supply of STEM workers and workers in computing occupations with college degrees through additional H-1B visas and STEM green cards would propel unemployment rates in these occupations even higher, absent substantial new job creation. This is because unemployment rates for these workers are approximately double where they would stand if these labor markets were at full employment. These higher unemployment rates will keep wages from rising, which may be a desirable outcome for Microsoft but not for workers or the U.S. economy.

Contrary to its report and public statements, Microsoft (and other employers in STEM fields) already have plenty of avenues to hire and retain new foreign graduates to work in STEM occupations. Recent research suggesting that the most highly educated graduates in STEM fields are in fact remaining in the United States for the long term supports this conclusion. Keeping the best and brightest foreign STEM workers in the United States to fill labor shortages in STEM occupations should be a national priority, but recent data show that no significant labor shortages exist, and suggest that an adequate number of foreign graduates in STEM fields are already remaining in the United States to fill the limited job openings available in the stagnating U.S. labor market.

Computer science graduates aren’t the only workers in computer-related occupations The first significant problem with Microsoft’s report is the assumption that job openings “in computing” not filled by college graduates with computer science (CS) degrees will go unfilled. It is a well-known fact that computer science graduates are not the only source of new hires in computing. In the late 1990s, the Department of Commerce (DOC) published a report warning of looming labor shortages in the information technology (IT) sector, citing the lack of college graduates with CS degrees as a principal reason (DOC 1997). The Government Accounting Office (GAO)1 later published a report chastising the DOC for its faulty methodologies, noting that “IT workers come from a variety of educational backgrounds and have a variety of educational credentials such as master’s degrees, associate degrees, or special certifications” (GAO 1998, 8). National Science Foundation (NSF) data at the time indicated that “only about 25 percent of those employed in computer and information science jobs in 1993 actually had degrees in computer and information science” (GAO 1998, 5).

The same is true in the main computer-related occupations, according to the most recent comparable NSF data, presented in Table 1. As the table shows, even in the occupation where one would most expect workers to hold a CS degree—computer and information science researchers—only 43 percent (approximately two out of every five) hold a CS degree. A similar percentage (41 percent) of computer software engineers have CS degrees, as do computer system analysts (39 percent); and 17 percent to 29 percent of workers in the remaining listed computer-related occupations earned a CS degree. Professor Norman Matloff of the University of California, Davis, recently conducted a similar analysis of data from the NSF’s National Survey of College Graduates, which showed that “only 40.2% of those with Software Engineer, Programmer or Computer Scientist titles came to the profession from a CS degree” (Matloff 2012, 5). It is important to note that neither of these data sets includes workers with less than a bachelor’s-level education; as Matloff mentions in his paper, many titans of the tech world, including Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and Mark Zuckerberg, do not have a college degree in any field.

Table 1
Share of computer and information science workers with computer/information science or science and engineering degree, by occupation, 2003 Occupation Employed in this occupation % with at least one S&E degree % with at least one computer/information science degree % whose highest degree is in computer/information sciences Total 1,772,000 69% 32% 30% Computer and information scientists, research 40,000 76 43 40 Computer support specialists 223,000 51 17 16 Computer system analysts 424,000 68 39 36 Database administrators 90,000 67 29 26 Network and computer systems administrators 166,000 63 28 25 Network systems and data communications analysts 123,000 53 21 19 Other computer information science occupations 173,000 54 21 19 Computer engineers – software 534,000 85 41 38 Note: S&E stands for “science and engineering,” which includes computer/math sciences, biological/agricultural/environmental life sciences, physical sciences, and social sciences and engineering.

Source: 2003 National Survey of College Graduates (NSF 2012a)

Current data from the Occupational Information Network database tell a similar story, further highlighting the flawed nature of the Microsoft report’s assumption that everyone in the computing professions has or needs a university-level CS degree. For example, 47 percent of web developers do not have a four-year college degree (O*NET 2012a), let alone a degree in CS, and 41 percent of computer systems analysts do not have a four-year college degree (O*NET 2012b).

Thus, calculating the number of students graduating with a bachelor’s degree in CS each year is not a methodologically credible way to measure the future supply of potential workers in these occupations, and it is illogical for Microsoft to hinge its claim of a labor shortage on this single statistic. Workers in computer-related occupations come from a variety of educational backgrounds, and always have.

A note about the STEM pipeline A 2007 study by professors Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown University and Hal Salzman of Rutgers University that assessed the adequacy of America’s STEM education pipeline and the perceived labor market shortages of scientists and engineers contradicts Microsoft’s main conclusions. Anyone interested in the subject will find the entire report valuable, but two points made by Lowell and Salzman are particularly relevant. They find that there is a sufficient supply of students well-prepared to enter the fields of science and engineering, arguing that “the available evidence indicates an ample supply of students whose preparation and performance has been increasing over the past decades” (Lowell and Salzman 2007, 40).

They add that there is also an adequate supply of experienced STEM workers, writing, “Purported labor market shortages for scientists and engineers are anecdotal and also not supported by the available evidence” (Lowell and Salzman 2007, 43).

Keep in mind that this analysis was conducted just before the recession that began in December 2007. Since then, the number of STEM degrees awarded to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents has remained relatively constant, increasing slightly (NSF 2012b), while unemployment rates for all workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher—including those in computer-related occupations and in STEM fields overall--have increased, and remain stubbornly high compared with their unemployment rates before the Great Recession.

Persistent high unemployment in computer-related and STEM occupations The Microsoft report states that “unemployment in computer-related occupations has fallen to just 3.4 percent, or less than the traditional rate for ‘full-employment’” (Microsoft 2012, 3).2 Brad Smith, Microsoft’s executive vice president and general counsel, presented the report on Sept. 27 at the Brookings Institution, explaining exactly what Microsoft thinks this means:

If you look at the occupation that we know best—computer-related occupations—the unemployment rate is only 3.4 percent. Since the traditional definition of full employment is about 4 percent, that tells us that we have a shortage. (Smith 2012)

This is misleading. Microsoft and Mr. Smith claim a labor shortage exists in computer-related occupations and hence call for an increase in foreign workers educated at U.S. universities with at least a bachelor’s degree. But to establish the claim, they cite the unemployment rate during periods of full employment for the entire national economy, not for engineers, scientists, or college-educated workers in computer occupations. The full-employment unemployment rate for all college-educated workers is not 4 percent—nor is it 4 percent for computer-related occupations.

Figure A
U.S. unemployment rate, all workers and college graduates, 1992–2011Note: Shaded areas denote recessions.

Source: Current Population Survey public data series

Figure A shows that since 1992, whenever the national unemployment rate of all workers has been in the 4–5 percent range (i.e., at or near full employment), the unemployment rate of college graduates has never been higher than 2.3 percent (which it reached in 2001). Over the past 20 years, including in recessionary periods, the unemployment rate of college graduates has averaged 2.7 percent. Thus, the unemployment rate of college graduates when the national economy is at full employment is closer to 2 percent.

Furthermore, Microsoft’s claim that a 4 percent unemployment rate equates to full employment of workers in computer and mathematical occupations is also misleading. Figure B shows the relevant unemployment data for computer and mathematical occupations,3 the occupational category on which Smith and Microsoft focus most of their analysis, and which they sometimes refer to as “computer-related occupations.” For comparison, the national unemployment rate of all workers is included.

Figure B
Unemployment rates of all workers and workers in computer and mathematical occupations, 2000–2011 (relative to unemployment rates at full employment)Note: Top horizontal shaded bar shows that the unemployment rate of all workers at cyclical peak (full employment) ranges from 4 percent to 5 percent. Bottom horizontal dotted line shows that the unemployment rate for workers in computer and mathematical occupations at cyclical peak is around 2 percent. Vertical shaded bars denote recessions.

Sources: Current Population Survey (CPS) public data series, unpublished Bureau of Labor Statistics analysis of CPS basic monthly microdata, and EPI analysis of CPS basic monthly microdata

The data in Figure B paint a picture similar to that presented in Figure A. Although the unemployment rate is lower in computer occupations than in the labor market overall, changes in the unemployment rate of workers in computer occupations have generally tracked fluctuations in the national unemployment rate. Since the end of the recession that ended in November 2001, whenever the national economy has been at full employment (with an unemployment rate between 4 and 5 percent), the unemployment rate of workers in computer occupations has not surpassed 2.4 percent; for college-educated workers in the occupation, it did not rise above 2.2 percent. Thus, what we consider full employment in these occupations is an unemployment rate much closer to 2 percent, rather than 4 percent as Microsoft claims, especially when it comes to college-educated workers. As Figure B shows, for all workers in computer occupations as well as for everyone else, elevated levels of joblessness have not yet fully subsided.

College-educated workers across the broader spectrum of STEM occupations have fared similarly. Figure C shows the unemployment rates of college-educated workers in all STEM and non-STEM occupations4 between 1994 and 2011.

Figure C
Unemployment rates of all workers, and workers in STEM and non-STEM occupations with at least a bachelor’s degree, 1994–2011Note: Estimates are for the civilian labor force age 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree or higher education. Shaded areas denote recessions.

Source: Current Population Survey (CPS) public data series and unpublished Economics and Statistics Administration (Department of Commerce) analysis of CPS basic monthly microdata

As the figure shows, when the entire economy has been at full employment (i.e., at an unemployment rate between 4 and 5 percent), the unemployment rate of college-educated workers in STEM fields ranged from 1.2 to 1.7 percent, except in 2001, as a recession was underway, when it reached 2.6 percent (the overall unemployment rate in 2001 was still 4.7 percent, but increasing rapidly). As of 2011, the unemployment rate of college-educated STEM workers was still 3.4 percent—more than double the 1.4 percent rate it stood at immediately preceding the recession that began in late 2007. This means that contrary to Microsoft’s claims, there are too many educated, experienced STEM workers who are trying to find a job; there is not a shortage of them.

It is true that unemployment rates of workers in computer-related occupations, of all college-educated workers, and of college-educated workers in STEM and computer-related occupations have fluctuated with changes in business cycles, similarly to the way the national unemployment rate fluctuates. But, taken together, figures A, B, and C demonstrate these groups of workers have unemployment rates that are consistently lower than the national unemployment rate of all workers. They also lead to the reasonable conclusion that full employment for these workers is an unemployment rate at or near 2 percent. If there were a shortage of college-educated workers available to fill jobs in STEM and computer-related occupations, their unemployment rates would be expected to remain low when the overall unemployment rate climbs. That has not occurred—instead, the unemployment rates (and the resulting pool of educated, jobless workers) in STEM and computer-related occupations have increased at a rate similar to the national unemployment rate. And as with the national unemployment rate, they have yet to rebound to prerecession levels.

Stagnant wages for workers in computer-related occupations Microsoft is proposing that the government increase the supply of STEM workers with college degrees even though their unemployment rate is already double the rate at which full employment occurs for such workers. Microsoft’s proposal is unsurprising, since adding workers to the STEM labor supply during times of high unemployment and insufficient job creation would propel STEM unemployment rates even higher, thereby preventing wages in these occupations from rising. If this occurs, more STEM workers would have little choice but to accept whatever terms and conditions are offered by employers. This wage suppression is already occurring in computer and mathematical occupations. Figure D shows the average hourly wage for college-educated workers in computer and mathematical occupations over the last 11 years.

Figure D
Average hourly wage in computer and mathematical occupations, workers with at least a bachelor’s degree, 2000–2011 (2012 dollars)Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey basic monthly microdata

The average hourly wage for college-educated workers in computer and math occupations rose 5.3 percent over 11 years, from $37.27 in 2000 to $39.24 in 2011 (in 2012 dollars), which translates to an average wage increase of less than half a percent per year. If a labor shortage existed in these occupations, one would expect wages to rise sharply as employers try to lure scarce workers to their firms. As Figure D shows, that has not occurred. Furthermore, Microsoft does not have any difficulty convincing job applicants to accept the terms and conditions of employment it offers. Despite wages for computer occupations having basically remained flat over the past decade, Fox Business reported last year that Microsoft has a 93 percent offer-acceptance rate (Willis 2011), meaning that almost every job offer Microsoft makes is accepted.

Conclusion: Now is not the time to increase the number of H-1B visas and STEM green cards Microsoft’s methodology for determining whether there is a shortage of workers in computer-related occupations looks solely at unemployment rates of workers in these occupations relative to what the overall unemployment rate would be if the entire economy were at full employment. Microsoft concluded that since the unemployment rate for workers in computer-related occupations (3.4 percent) was lower than the overall unemployment rate under full employment (which they set at 4 percent), shortages exist. But Microsoft used the unemployment rate for all workers under full employment as its point of comparison, rather than the much lower roughly 2 percent full-employment unemployment rate for workers in computer-related occupations, as well as for college-educated workers in computer-related occupations—i.e., the specific group of workers Microsoft claims there is a shortage of. Using the correct measurement of full employment in computer-related occupations leads to the conclusion that no labor shortages exist in these occupations. The unemployment rate for computer-related occupations still remains much higher than it would be under full unemployment, and is far from receding to its prerecession level.

Microsoft’s assumption that only 40,000 CS grads per year will result in tens of thousands of computer-related jobs going unfilled is contradicted by all the basic, publicly available data.

It is noteworthy that although Microsoft laments its 6,000 unfilled job openings, it laid off at least 5,000 employees during the recession (Sayer 2009). How many of these job openings are replacing employees who were laid off? And how many other technology companies face a similar situation? Many other large technology companies, including Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Cisco, and Yahoo, have announced layoffs of thousands of workers throughout 2012.5

Despite all of the layoffs, last year employers were granted almost 130,000 H-1B visas, allowing them to hire college-educated workers from abroad (State Department 2012), 20,000 of which are reserved for foreign graduates of U.S. universities. All of these H-1B workers are available to employers to fill what they claim to be labor shortages in STEM fields. It is important to note that 130,000 is not an insignificant number of workers in terms of the total STEM workforce. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, between 2010 and 2011, the employment level of the entire U.S. STEM workforce (including workers at all education levels) grew by only 92,492 jobs (ESA 2012). In addition to the H-1Bs, employers are also able to hire new foreign graduates with STEM degrees from U.S. universities for 29 months through the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, a program that has no set limit, or “cap,” and no minimum or prevailing wage requirements to protect foreign and American workers from wage suppression and depression (U.S. ICE 2012; Thibodeau 2012a). EPI has documented and criticized various problems inherent in both the H-1B and OPT programs (Hira 2010; Thibodeau 2012b), but employers continue to make heavy use of them. Thus, it is clear that employers have plenty of avenues to hire and retain new foreign graduates in STEM. This is further evidenced by research by Michael Finn, senior economist at the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, showing that nearly two-thirds of the most highly educated foreign graduates from U.S. universities in science and engineering remain in the United States for the long term.6

Once the unemployment rate for college-educated workers in computer-related occupations begins to approach the true measure of full employment for the occupation, it will make sense to debate whether new STEM green cards should be created and if H-1B levels should increase. When the economy is operating near full employment, it might be sensible to adjust public policies to help employers secure additional workers to keep the economy growing at full speed, but even then it might be preferable to first allow wages to rise, sending a market signal to U.S. students to enter the STEM fields.7 Unfortunately, there are no indicators that this pace of growth will occur anytime soon. Until then, the nation would be better served if Microsoft filled its 3,400 job openings for “researchers, developers and engineers” by hiring and retraining some of the 141,000 unemployed workers in computer occupations who are actively looking for work around the country (BLS 2012a).

--Daniel Costa is an attorney and immigration policy analyst. His areas of research include a wide range of labor migration issues, including the management of U.S. guest worker programs, both high- and less-skilled migration, and immigrant workers’ rights. Daniel’s analyses of these topics have appeared in numerous national and local media outlets.

________________________________________

What is the one job that will see people all over the world competing for work that will be paid the lowest wage? Computer coding.

Know the fastest education track in the developing world? Computer coding. This is with whom these US grads will be competing. Coding can be done anywhere in the world. Knowing how to code is a good thing and can be learned without an emphasis.

If your teacher is shouting against mind-numbing computer coding especially in elementary school----THEY ARE RIGHT!

For those wondering where the national NAACP has been throughout what has been the complete dismantlement of all of MLK's civil rights legacy-----here you have it. Jealous was placed at the head of NAACP to capture what was a civil rights organization to one that backs all of Clinton global corporate neo-liberalism. This is his reward for backing what has been one Republican policy to end social safety nets, equal opportunity housing and education, the moving of wealth from the working and middle-class through the massive mortgage fraud with almost no justice yet occurring. The rich simply bought Jealous. We want to note that the movement of all low-income citizens to computer coding-----from prisoners to underserved charter schools----represents what will be tomorrow's assembly line work -----poverty jobs.

Newswire : Ben Jealous, former NAACP president becomes venture capitalist

on March 5, 2014 · No Comments · in Events, Government, News, News Wire, School News Ben Jealous

Just months after stepping down as head of the nation’s largest civil rights organization, former NAACP President Benjamin Jealous is changing his career from an East Coast political activist to a West Coast venture capitalist, a switch he hopes will help further his goal of growing opportunities for blacks and Latinos in the booming tech economy

“My life’s mission has been leveling the playing field and closing gaps in opportunity and success,” Jealous, 41, told The Associated Press before Tuesday’s announcement. “I’m excited about trying a different approach.”

The Northern California native and self-confessed computer geek will be joining entrepreneurs Mitchell Kapor and Freada Kapor Klein at their venture capital investment firm that backs information technology start-ups committed to making a positive social impact.

Fred Turner, who studies culture and technology as an associate professor at Stanford University, said it’s “fascinating that a person of his caliber and experience would move into this space.”

Turner said there’s a deep question going on in the U.S. about how to accomplish positive social change. “In the Silicon Valley they approach it entrepreneurially, in Washington they approach it politically,” Turner said. “These are two very different modes.”

Jealous said he and his family will remain in Silver Spring, Md., but he’ll commute to the West Coast about once a month.

Jealous, who was widely credited with improving the NAACP’s finances, donor base and outreach, said he will never completely drop out of politics. “It’s in my DNA,” he said.

He declined to specify his new salary but said it was about the same as it was at the NAACP—$285,000 in 2011, according to tax forms.

When he announced his departure from the organization in September 2013, Jealous said he planned to pursue university teaching and spend time with his young family. But Jealous says the opportunity to work with Kapor Capital was just too tempting, putting him on the cutting edge of helping people who are slipping further behind as the national economy grows.

The divide is greater in the Silicon Valley than the rest of the country. Blacks and Latinos, already earning about half as much as whites and Asians, saw per capita income drop 5 percent for blacks in the past two years, and 2 percent for Latinos, according to an annual Silicon Valley Index.

The disparity is clear when it comes to jobs as well. Just 4 percent of the nation’s 1.1 million software developers are black, and 5 percent are Latino, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“Silicon Valley holds itself up as a meritocracy, but it’s actually embarrassingly un-diverse,” said Freada Kapor Klein. “We expect Ben is going to help us change that.”

Kapor Capital’s portfolio currently has 46 percent of its investments in firms with founders who are women and people of color from an underrepresented background.

Mitch Kapor said Jealous’ ability and understanding about how to make a social impact will be a huge asset to the firm’s investment goals.

Kapor said he looks for companies that are “closing gaps of access and opportunity for underserved communities or involve a disruptive democratization of a sector.”

These include Pigeon.ly, a start-up that offers low-cost phone and photo sharing for prisoners and their families outside, and Regalii, an international remittance platform that helps immigrants send money to their families in Latin America.

Silicon Valley Community Foundation President Emmett Carson said the region attracts great talent, and Jealous “will blend human rights and entrepreneurship in an effective way.”

Jealous grew up in Pacific Grove, about 100 miles from the Silicon Valley, during the pivotal years when personal computing was just starting to gain traction. He was captivated and chose a long commute, on foot and by bus, to attend a magnet school for computer science.

For his new job, Jealous said he’s going to be getting a crash course in technology, investing and even software coding.

“I’m going to have a computer coding tutor for the first time since I was in fifth grade,” he said.

—By The Associated Press.

_____________________________________________

Here are the nations already steeped in cheap computer processing-----and this is where US labor with computer coding skills will look to compete. Remember, this technology can be done anywhere in the world----learning the basics to computer coding is a good thing to know----being tracked into these lower end processing jobs will end in poverty! We see US global tech corporations telling us that they will hire the best of the best in the world for the higher paying jobs-----so where will all the US citizens having all this training work?

That's what Trans Pacific Trade Pact is about-----and training US citizens to compete in the industry with the lowest worldwide wages does not bode well for labor and justice! Countries with the Cheapest Labor

Countries with the Cheapest Labor

Sammy Said The Richest
• 04.01.13

With the world getting smaller by the minute because of the never ending advance of modern technology, companies have deemed it wise to outsource the manufacture of its products and the service that it provides to countries where the labor is dirt cheap. After all, in the world of capitalism, it is the duty of the company’s management team to maximize its profits and minimize the expenses.

Investing in other countries will entail a lot of costs, however. You have to make sure that there is sufficient workforce available that has enough education for the product or service that you will provide. Sure, that’s not much of a problem if it would only involve simple manufacturing production lines, but outsourcing today includes services in the fields of accounting, web technology and other areas that require a decent level of educational attainment. You also have to factor in the ability of the locals to converse in your own language, the safety and security of the environment and the consistency and reliability of local laws and regulations.

One also has to take into account the infrastructure facilities, from public transportation and traffic levels to Internet and communication facilities and cost of utilities. For companies that outsource manufacturing, shipping costs must also be factored in, as well as taxes that need to be paid. Even the level of corruption is something to think about.

Yet, despite all these tangible and intangible costs, the labor cost of these countries are so low that even if you add all these things together, everything will still come out lower than the astronomical labor costs in Western countries that amount from $19 and above. The high labor cost in advanced societies is the reason why businesses are willing to risk cultural differences and shoulder training expenses in other countries.

If labor cost is the only factor, these are the top 10 countries with the cheapest rates.

10. Egypt – $0.80 per hour

With a population of over 80 million, Egypt’s advantage is that it is not that far from Europe, which is why it is a favored destination for European garment manufacturers. It can also be utilized for call centers and other information technology services. Political stability and religious extremism may be an issue, however.

9. Sri Lanka – $0.62 per hour Sri Lanka has a large workforce that has the ability to speak in English. This has allowed it to host call centers, as well as provide services for accounting and business processes. Most of it are from the United Kingdom because of its status as a former British colony. Its advantage is that it is the only country in South Asia to have a high human development index.

8. Senegal – $0.52 per hour

Senegal offers cheap labor and decent information technology infrastructure ideal for call centers. Of course, the problem is that its main language is French, so its investment appeal is limited to companies in French-speaking countries.

7. Kenya – $0.50 per hour

Kenya offers cheap labor that can be used for call centers and business processing activities. Take note, however, that Kenya’s bureaucracy is known to be corrupt and it has scored lowly in most corruption indexes the past few years. Its people speaks fluent English because the country used to be a colony of the United Kingdom.

6. India – $0.48 per hour

India is a popular destination for outsourcing activities because of its people’s ability to speak English and its large pool of computer engineering graduates. Call centers and software programming are done here. With more than a billion people and most living in poverty, it is also a good source of cheap labor for the manufacture of textile and parts. Traffic may be crazy in some areas, however. Law and order are also causes for concern.

5. Vietnam – $0.39 per hour

Though still officially a communist state, Vietnam has opened its doors for business through a series of economic and political reforms. The country is mainly used for information technology services, particularly in the fields of software design and digital game creation and development. Traffic and petty crimes may be a problem, but it’s not really that worse compared to other countries.

4. Ghana – $0.32 per hour

Ghana has a population that is quite conversant in the English language. It thus makes for a good destination for call centers. Investors should check the level of education of the workforce however, as well as the communication infrastructure critical for the success of call centers. Still, its education level has slowly been rising and technology services have also been improving.

3. Pakistan – $0.32 per hour

Just like India, Pakistan has a population that can speak in English. It can be a good source for call centers and IT services like software design and web development. Business processing can also be done here. But just like India, law and order may be a problem. Add to that the incessant threat of terrorists, as the country is in the frontline of the war against terrorism.

2. Bangladesh – $0.23 per hour

Bangladesh actually has a significant pool of college graduates just waiting to be tapped. It is also a good place for those with simple requirements in the field of information technology. Production facilities also abound in the country. Investors have to factor in, however, several areas of concern. Child laborers are used in the country’s factories. The country also has one of the most corrupt bureaucracies in the world. Flooding during the monsoon season will also interrupt operations.

1. Madagascar – $0.18 per hour On a per hour basis, Madagascar has the cheapest labor rate in the world. Corruption in the country may be prevalent, but it is not that worse off compared to other similar countries. It ranks around just about the middle in corruption indexes. The country can provide accounting and IT services. Manufacture of clothes and other garments is also done here.

__________________________________________
This article is very long but great look at what the state of the state in immigrant status in the US is today. It is important to see that the Obama jesture to what was a few million immigrants with a policy that will end in 3 years was really not much. With Obama pushing as hard as he can for Trans Pacific Trade Pact and global corporations deciding immigration policy for themselves at that point-----even those immigrants now here legally are going to be brought to the level of those nations listed in the above article.

PLEASE SHOUT OUT THAT IMMIGRATION REFORM THAT IS NOT CITIZENSHIP NOW WILL END BADLY FOR NOT ONLY THE IMMIGRANTS BEING BROUGHT TO THE US BUT FOR THE US WORKERS AS WELL.

GET RID OF WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS!

Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States

April 28, 2014 Spotlight By Chiamaka Nwosu, Jeanne Batalova, and Gregory Auclair Migration Policy Institute

Immigration has been a touchstone of the American experience since the country’s founding. And the United States remains the world’s top destination for immigrants, accounting for about 20 percent of all international migrants. (Photo: David Sachs/SEIU)

Nearly 41 million immigrants lived in the United States in 2012—a historical numeric high for a country that has been a major destination for international migrants throughout its history. About 20 percent of all international migrants reside in the United States, which accounts for less than 5 percent of the world’s population.

This article compiles in one helpful resource some of the most frequently sought-after current and historical facts and figures about immigrants and immigration in the United States. It answers questions such as: which countries are the main sources for immigration to the United States? How many immigrants enter each year? How many became U.S. citizens last year? How many unauthorized immigrants are in the United States? Do immigrants have health insurance? How many immigrants live in poverty? How many unauthorized youth received a temporary reprieve from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) process? How many unauthorized migrants were recently deported?

The article brings together resources from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI); the U.S. Census Bureau's 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) and 2000 decennial census; and data from the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and State; the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project; Mexico's National Population Council (CONAPO); and Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI).

How many immigrants reside in the United States?

According to estimates from the 2012 ACS, the U.S. immigrant population stood at almost 40.8 million, or 13 percent of the total U.S. population of 313.9 million. Between 2011 and 2012, the foreign-born population increased by about 447,000, or 1.1 percent.

Check out the figure Number and Share of Total U.S. Population, 1850-2012 in MPI’s Data Hub (click on image) to see how immigrants’ share of the overall population has fluctuated over time.

Definitions "Foreign born" and "immigrants" are used interchangeably and refer to persons with no U.S. citizenship at birth. This population includes naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, refugees and asylees, persons on certain temporary visas, and the unauthorized. Geographical regions: MPI follows the definition of Latin America as put forth by the UN and U.S. Census Bureau, which includes Central America (including Mexico), the Caribbean, and South America. For more information about geographical regions, see the U.S. Census Bureau site and United Nations Statistics Division.

What are the historical numbers and shares of immigrants in the United States?

Data on the nativity of the U.S. population were first collected in the 1850 decennial census. That year, there were 2.2 million immigrants in the United States, representing almost 10 percent of the total population.

Between 1860 and 1920, immigrants as a share of the total population fluctuated between 13 and 15 percent, peaking at 15 percent in 1890, mainly due to high levels of European immigration.

Restrictive immigration legislation of 1921 and 1924, coupled with the Great Depression and World War II, led to a sharp drop in new arrivals in the United States. As a result, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population continued to decline between the 1930s and 1970s, reaching a record low of approximately 5 percent in 1970 (9.6 million). Since 1970, however, the share and number have increased rapidly, mainly due to large-scale immigration from Latin America and Asia made possible by changes to admission rules adopted by Congress in 1965.

Table 1: Numerical Size and Share of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 1970-2012

Read about U.S. immigration trends and policies in the 20th century in Immigration and the United States: Recession Affects Flows, Prospects for Reform.

How do today's top source countries compare to those 50 years ago?

In 2012, Mexican-born immigrants accounted for approximately 28 percent of the nearly 40.8 million foreign born in the United States, making them by far the largest immigrant group in the country. India was the second largest, closely followed by the China (including Hong Kong but not Taiwan), and the Philippines (each accounting for about 5 percent). El Salvador, Vietnam, Cuba, and Korea (each 3 percent), as well as the Dominican Republic and Guatemala (2 percent each), also were among the top ten countries of origin. Together, immigrants from these ten countries made up close to 60 percent of the U.S. immigrant population in 2012.

The predominance of immigrants from Latin American and Asian countries in the late 20th and early 21st centuries starkly contrasts with the trend seen in 1960 when immigrants tended to be from European countries. Italian-born immigrants made up 13 percent of all foreign born in 1960, followed by those born in Germany and Canada (accounting for about 10 percent each). In 1960s no single country accounted for more than 15 percent of the total immigrant population.

To view the top ten source countries by decade from 1960 to 2012, use the MPI Data Hub's Countries of Birth for U.S. Immigrants, 1960-Present interactive tool.
To learn more about individual immigrant populations, check out our Spotlights on Mexican, Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, and Central American immigrants.

Definitions College-educated persons are defined as adults 25 years and older with a bachelor's degree or higher. The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. Race categories include both racial and national-origin groups.

Hispanics or Latinos are not a racial category. They include those people who classified themselves in one of the specific Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino categories listed on the Census 2000 questionnaire — "Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano," "Puerto Rican", or "Cuban" — as well as those who indicate that they are "other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino."

Persons who indicated that they are "other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" include those whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the Dominican Republic, or people identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on.

Read more about Census Bureau definitions here.

Demographic, Educational, and Linguistic Characteristics Note: Some percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Are there equal shares of men and women in the U.S. immigrant population?

In 2012, approximately 51 percent of the immigrant population was female; the share has fluctuated slightly during the past three decades. Women accounted for 53 percent of immigrants in 1980, 51 percent in 1990, and 50 percent in 2000.

See how the male-to-female ratio among immigrants changed between 1870 and 2012.

What is the age distribution of the immigrant population?

Overall, the immigrant population in 2012 was older than the U.S.-born population: The median age of immigrants was 42.6 years, compared to 35.9 years among the native born.

In 2012, fewer than 1 percent of the foreign-born population was under the age of 5 (compared to 7 percent of the native-born population); 6 percent were ages 5 to 17 (compared to 19 percent in the U.S. -born population); 80 percent were ages 18 to 64 (60 percent for the native born); and the same proportions of immigrant and U.S.-born populations were age 65 and older (13 percent).

See the age-sex pyramids of the total, native-born, and immigrant populations from 1970 to now as well as for the seven largest immigrant-origin groups in 2011.

How many immigrants have entered the United States since 2000?

Thirty percent of the 40.8 million foreign born residing in the United States in 2012 entered between 2000 and 2009, 7 percent entered since 2010, and the majority (63 percent) entered before 2000.

How many immigrants are naturalized U.S. citizens?

In 2012, close to 46 percent of immigrants (18.7 million) were naturalized U.S. citizens. The remaining 54 percent (22.1 million) included lawful permanent residents, unauthorized immigrants, and legal residents on temporary visas, such as students and temporary workers.

Of the 18.7 million naturalized citizens in 2012, 11 percent have naturalized since 2010, 38 percent between 2000 and 2009, and 51 percent prior to 2000.

What is the racial composition of the immigrant population?

Of the foreign born in the United States in 2012, 48 percent reported their race as white, 9 percent as black, 25 percent as Asian, and 16 percent as some other race; more than 2 percent reported having two or more races.

How many immigrants are of Hispanic origin?

In 2012, 46 percent (18.9 million) immigrants reported having Hispanic or Latino origins.

How many Hispanics in the United States are immigrants?

The majority of Hispanics in the United States are native-born. Of the 53 million people in 2012 who identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino, 36 percent (18.9 million) were immigrants.

Use our State Immigration Data Profiles tool to learn more on the demographic characteristics of immigrants and the U.S.-born in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia as well as nationally.

Which languages are the most frequently spoken at home?

In 2012, approximately 79 percent (232.1 million) of the U.S. population* ages 5 and older stated that they speak only English at home. The remaining 21 percent (61.9 million) reported speaking a language other than English at home. Spanish was by far the most common language spoken within this category (62 percent), followed by Chinese (including Mandarin and Cantonese, almost 5 percent), Tagalog (almost 3 percent), Vietnamese (2 percent), French (including Cajun and Patois, 2 percent), Korean (almost 2 percent), German (almost 2 percent), Arabic (almost 2 percent), and Russian (1 percent).

Note: *Refers to the 294 million people ages 5 and older who resided in the United States at the time of the survey.

What is the size of the Limited English Proficient population?

In 2012, there were 25 million Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals ages 5 and older in the United States, accounting for 8.5 percent of the 294 million people ages 5 and older. Spanish speakers - accounted for 64 percent (16.1 million) of the total LEP population. The next two languages most commonly spoken by LEP individuals were Chinese, including Mandarin and Cantonese (1.6 million, or 6.5 percent) and Vietnamese (835,000, or 3.3 percent).

Note: The term "Limited English Proficient" refers to any person ages 5 and older who reported speaking English "not at all," "not well," or "well" on their survey questionnaire. Individuals who reported speaking only English or speaking English "very well" are considered proficient in English.

Read more about the LEP population in this fact sheet Limited English Proficient Individuals in the United States: Number, Share, Growth, and Linguistic Diversity.
Click here for data on the total LEP population by state in 1990, 2000, and 2010.
And for linguistic diversity of the LEP population by state and county, check out these 2007-2011 data.

What percentage of immigrants are LEP?

In 2012, approximately 50 percent (20.3 million) of the 40.6 million immigrants ages 5 and older were LEP.

What percentage of the adult foreign-born population is college educated?

In 2012, there were 35.1 million immigrants ages 25 and older. Of those, 28 percent (9.8 million) had a bachelor's degree or higher (compared to 29.4 percent, or 51.1 million, of the native-born population). Nearly 31 percent (10.8 million) of immigrants lacked a high school diploma, compared to10.2 percent (17.7 million) native-born adults.

Use our State Immigration Data Profiles tool for more information on the language and educational characteristics of immigrants and the U.S. born in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and for the nation overall.

Distribution by Key States and Cities What were the top five states in terms of the number of immigrants, share of immigrants in the total state population, absolute growth, and percent growth between 1990 and 2000 and between 2000 and 2012?

In 2012, the top five U.S. states by number of immigrants were California (10.3 million), New York (4.4 million), Texas (4.3 million), Florida (3.7 million), and New Jersey (1.9 million).

When classified by the share of immigrants out of the total state population, the top five states in 2012 were California (27 percent), New York (23 percent), New Jersey (21 percent), Florida, and Nevada (19 percent each).

Between 1990 and 2000, the five states with the largest absolute growth of the immigrant population were California (2.4 million), Texas (1.4 million), New York (1 million), Florida (1 million), and Illinois (577,000).

Between 2000 and 2012, the five states with the largest absolute growth of the immigrant population were California (1.4 million), Texas (1.4 million), Florida (1.1 million), New York (560,000), and New Jersey (407,000).

Between 1990 and 2000, the five states with the largest percent growth* of the immigrant population were North Carolina (274 percent), Georgia (233 percent), Nevada (202 percent), Arkansas (196 percent), and Utah (171 percent).

Between 2000 and 2012, the five states with the largest percent growth* of the immigrant population were South Carolina (91 percent), Alabama (87 percent), Tennessee (83 percent), Arkansas (75 percent), and Wyoming (74 percent),

Note: *In some states, the starting population of the foreign born was rather small. Thus, relatively small absolute increases in the immigrant population in these states have translated into high percent growth.

For more information on the top states of residence for the foreign born, see State Immigration Trends: Number and Share of Total State Population, 1990-2012.

Mexican Immigrants How many Mexican immigrants are in the United States?

Nearly 11.6 million immigrants from Mexico reside in the United States, according to the 2012 ACS, accounting for 28.3 percent of all U.S. immigrants.

See how the number and share of Mexican immigrants has evolved since 1850.

In which U.S. states do the Mexican born live?

Mexican immigrants are primarily concentrated in the West and Southwest, and more than half live in California or Texas. In 2012, the top five states with the largest proportion of Mexican immigrants were California (37 percent of the total Mexican immigrant population), Texas (22 percent), Illinois (6 percent), Arizona (4 percent), and Florida (2 percent).

Use this interactive map to learn the top states and counties where different immigrant populations, including those from Mexico, reside in the United States.

In 2012, the foreign born from Mexico accounted for over half of the immigrant population in New Mexico (70 percent), Arizona (59 percent), Texas (59 percent), Idaho (51 percent), and Arkansas (50 percent). By contrast, Mexican-born individuals accounted for 2 percent or less of the immigrant population in Vermont (2 percent), Massachusetts (1.5 percent), and Maine (0.5 percent).

How many Mexican-born workers are in the U.S. labor force?

About 69 percent (7.6 million) of the 11 million immigrants from Mexico ages 16 and older were in the civilian labor force in 2012. This rate is slightly higher than the labor force participation of the total foreign-born population ages 16 and older (67 percent of 38.8 million immigrants in the civilian labor force) and the native-born population ages 16 and older (63 percent of 209.8 million U.S. born in the labor force).

How has the emigration rate from Mexico changed over time?

According to Mexico's National Survey of Occupations and Employment (Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo or ENOE), the emigration rate from Mexico has remained relatively steady over the past three years, after a drop in 2007 following the start of the recession in the United States and around the world. In fall 2009, 5.4 migrants per 1,000 residents of Mexico left for the United States; in fall 2010 that rate declined to 3.3 per 1,000. In fall 2011, it increased to 3.8 per 1,000, but dropped again in 2012 to its 2010 rate of 3.3 per 1,000 Mexico residents.

The immigration rate to Mexico (i.e., the number of people who move to Mexico from abroad, who are overwhelmingly return migrants) has entered a moderate decline, dropping from 3.7 per 1,000 residents in fall 2008 to 2.1 per 1,000 in fall 2012.

Note: ENOE asks Mexican households to enumerate any members of the household are who living abroad at the time of the interview. Accordingly, it does not capture the emigration of entire families where no member of the household remains in Mexico.

Which areas/regions do most Mexican migrants come from?

According to the Survey of Migration on the Northern Border of Mexico* (Encuesta de Migración en la Frontera Norte de México, or EMIF), the flow of immigrants heading from Mexico to the United States decreased in recent years. In 2012, an estimated 276,000 immigrants crossed the country's northern border en route to the United States, a 13 percent decrease from 2011’s estimate of 317,000 individuals.

In 2010, traditional sending states such as Michoacán, Guanajuato, and Jalisco accounted for the largest numbers of the 492,000 Mexican migrants who headed toward the United States, representing nearly 16 percent, 11 percent, and 10 percent of the northward flows respectively. (For an overall map of flows by Mexican state, visit the INEGI website). This is a shift from recent years when larger shares of migrants came from new sending states in southern and eastern Mexico. The most significant drops were recorded in the states of Chiapas and Veracruz. Between 2007 and 2010, migrants from Chiapas declined from 12 percent to 7 percent of the total outflow from Mexico. Similarly, migrants from Veracruz declined from nearly 8 percent to 3 percent of the total outflow over the same period.

Note: *EMIF is an annual sample survey of migration flows along Mexico's northern border region conducted by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs (SRE) and Labor and Social Welfare (STPS), the National Migration Institute (INM), the National Population Council (CONAPO), and the College of the Northern Border (COLEF) in Tijuana. It excludes Mexicans entering the United States by air, migrants under the age of 15, and non-Mexican nationals crossing the Southwest border. The category "migrants headed toward the United States" is restricted to those migrants who are traveling to the United States or a Mexican border city, are ages 15 and older, were not born in the United States, and do not have an immediate return itinerary.

Read more about the characteristics of Mexicans migrating to the United States from Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, INEGI (in Spanish).
More information on Mexican migration is available at EMIF (in Spanish).

Health Insurance Coverage How many immigrants in the United States have health insurance?

According to the 2012 ACS, approximately one-third of immigrants (33 percent) are uninsured, compared to 12 percent of the native-born population. Approximately 49 percent of all immigrants in the United States had private health insurance (compared to 68 percent of the native born), and 24 percent had public health insurance coverage (compared to 32 percent of the native born).

Note: Health insurance coverage is only calculated for the civilian, noninstitutionalized population.

Definitions "Civilian labor force" — civilian persons ages 16 and older who were either employed or unemployed in the week prior to participation in the American Community Survey. Workforce Characteristics What is the foreign-born share of the total U.S. civilian labor force?

Immigrants accounted for more than 16 percent (25.7 million) of the 157.6 million workers in the civilian labor force in 2012. Between 1970 and 2012, the percentage of foreign-born workers in the civilian labor force tripled, from 5 percent to 16 percent. Over the same period, the foreign-born share of the total population grew from almost 5 percent to nearly 13 percent.

For more on the share of immigrants in the civilian labor force since 1980, see Immigrant Share of the U.S. Population and Civilian Labor Force (Nationwide and by State).

What types of jobs do immigrants hold?

Of the 23.7 million employed foreign-born workers ages 16 and older in 2012, 30 percent worked in management, professional, and related occupations; 25 percent in service occupations; 17 percent in sales and office occupations; 16 percent in production, transportation, and material moving occupations; and 13 percent in natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations.

Table 2. Share of Immigrant and U.S.-Born Workers By Select Occupation, 2012
Note: The perecentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Use our State Immigration Data Profiles tool for more information on the workforce characteristics of immigrants and the U.S. born in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as nationally.

Definitions "Second-generation immigrant children" — any native-born child with at least one foreign-born parent.

"First-generation immigrant children" — any foreign-born child with foreign-born parents.

"Children with immigrant parents" — both first- and second-generation immigrant children.

Note: The estimates in this section include only children ages 17 and under who reside with at least one parent.

Children with Immigrant Parents How many children in the United States live with immigrant parents?

In 2012, 17.4 million children under age 18 lived at home with at least one immigrant parent. They accounted for 25 percent of the 70.2 million children under age 18 in the United States.

The 15.2 million second-generation children—those who were born in the United States to at least one foreign-born parent—accounted for 88 percent of all children with immigrant parents. The remaining 12 percent (2.2 million) were children living in the United States in 2012 who were born outside the United States to foreign-born parents..

For state-by-state information on children living with immigrant parents, including both first- and second-generation children, see the Children in U.S. Immigrant Families tool.
Read more about second-generation immigrant children in this Source special issue.

How has the number of children living with immigrant parents changed?

Between 1990 and 2000, the number of children ages 17 and under with immigrant parents grew 60 percent, from 8.2 million to 13.1 million. Between 2000 and 2012, the number grew 33 percent from 13.1 million to 17.4 million.

For first-generation immigrant children (those born outside the United States), population growth was sizeable between 1990 and 2000, when the population grew by 43 percent (from 1.9 million to 2.7 million), but declined 20 percent between 2000 and 2012, from 2.7 million to 2.2 million.

The number of second-generation immigrant children (born in the United States to foreign-born parents) has grown steadily since 1990. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of second-generation immigrant children grew 65 percent (from 6.3 million to 10.4 million). Between 2000 and 2012, this population grew by 46 percent (from 10.4 million to 15.2 million).

In 1990, 13 percent of all children in the United States were living with immigrant parents, rising to 19 percent in 2000 and 25 percent in 2012. The share of second-generation children among all children with immigrant parents has grown from 77 percent in 1990 to 80 percent in 2000 and to 88 percent in 2012.

How many children living with immigrant parents are in low-income families?

There were 31.1 million children under 18 living in poor families (i.e., with family incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold) in the United States. Of them, almost 9.6 million (or 31 percent) were children of immigrants.

For state-level estimates, see State Immigration Data Profiles (under Demographic and Social Profiles)

What are the top five states in terms of the number of children living with immigrant parents?

In 2012, the top five states by the total number of children living with immigrant parents were California (4.4 million), Texas (2.3 million), New York (1.5 million), Florida (1.2 million), and Illinois (777,000). These five states accounted for 59 percent of all children with immigrant parents.

What are the top five states by share of children living with immigrant parents in the state's total child population?

In terms of the share of children with immigrant parents, the top five states in 2012 were California (50 percent of all children in the state), Nevada (39 percent), New Jersey and New York (36 percent each), and Texas (34 percent).

What are the top five states in terms of the absolute growth of the number of children living with immigrant parents?

Between 1990 and 2000, the five states with the largest absolute growth of the total number of children with immigrant parents were California (1.3 million), Texas (643,000), Florida (384,000), New York (366,000), and Illinois (231,000).

Between 2000 and 2012, the five states with the largest absolute growth of the total number of children living with immigrant parents were Texas (733,000), California (332,000), Florida (328,000), Georgia (243,000), and North Carolina (210,000).

What are the top five states in terms of the percent growth of the number of children living with immigrant parents between 1990 and 2000 and between 2000 and 2012?

Between 1990 and 2000, the five states with the largest percent growth of the total population of children with immigrant parents were Nevada (about 233 percent), North Carolina (about 224 percent), Georgia (about 194 percent), Nebraska (174 percent), and Arkansas (170 percent).

Between 2000 and 2012, the five states with the largest percent growth of the total population of children living with immigrant parents were Tennessee (141 percent), North Carolina, and Alabama (125 percent each), Kentucky (124 percent), and South Carolina (122 percent).

Annual Flows How many immigrants obtain lawful permanent residence in the United States?

In 2012, 1,031,631 foreign nationals became lawful permanent residents (LPRs), also known as green-card holders, according to DHS data. The total number decreased slightly from 2011 (1,062,040). New arrivals comprised approximately 47 percent (484,072) of those granted LPR status in 2012. The majority of green-card recipients in 2012 (547,559, or 53 percent) were status adjusters—persons who were already living in the United States before 2012, but whose green-card applications were approved that year. Most status adjusters were formerly one of the following: refugees, asylees, temporary workers, foreign students, family members of U.S. citizens or green-card holders, or unauthorized immigrants.

See the chart Legal Immigration to the United States: Fiscal Years 1820 to 2012.

Under which categories do permanent immigrants enter?

Of the roughly 1 million new LPRs in 2012, 46 percent were an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, 20 percent entered through a family-sponsored preference, and 14 percent entered through an employment-based preference. Another 15 percent adjusted from refugee or asylee status, and 4 percent were diversity-lottery winners.

Which countries did permanent immigrants come from?

The top five countries of birth for new LPRs in 2012 were Mexico (14 percent), China (8 percent), India (6 percent), the Philippines (6 percent), and the Dominican Republic (4 percent). Approximately 394,000 new LPRs were from one of the top five countries of birth, accounting for about 38 percent of all persons who received LPR status in 2012.

Persons born in the next five countries—Cuba and Vietnam (3 percent each), and Haiti, Colombia, and Korea (2 percent each)—made up another 12 percent of all LPRs. The top ten countries of birth made up half of total LPRs for 2012.

Read more about LPRs in 2012 in Green Card Holders and Legal Immigration to the United States.

How many people apply for permanent immigration to the United States through the green-card lottery?

The Immigration Act of 1990 established the Diversity Visa Lottery (also known as the DV lottery or the green-card lottery) to allow entry to immigrants from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. The law states that 55,000 diversity visas are made available each fiscal year, of which 5,000 must be used for applicants under the Nicaraguan and Central America Relief Act of 1997, thus reducing the available number to other nationalities to 50,000. In 2012, 40,320 people received LPR status as diversity immigrants, representing 4 percent of the 1 million new LPRs.

Before receiving permission to immigrate to the United States, lottery winners must provide proof of a high school education or its equivalent or show two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience. They also must pass a medical exam and a background check.

Overall interest in the DV lottery is significantly higher than the 50,000 available visas; more than 9.4 million qualified applications were registered for the DV-2014 program. (The application number varies each year depending on which countries are eligible). Check out the full list of qualified entries by country for DV-2007 to DV-2013 here.

What is the total number of temporary admissions to the United States?

The total number of nonimmigrant (temporary) admissions for 2012 was approximately 165.5 million, including primarily tourists, business travelers, and international students. That figure includes an estimated 111.6 million admissions of travelers who are exempt from completing the I-94 arrival/departure form at the port of entry. (Canadians who travel to the United States for business or pleasure, and Mexicans who possess a nonresident Border Crossing Card (i.e., laser visa) are exempt from completing this form).

Total temporary admissions of I-94 nonimmigrants increased slightly from 53.1 million to 53.9 million (1.5 percent) from 2011 to 2012.

Note: Nonimmigrant admissions represent the number of arrivals, not the number of individuals admitted to the United States. DHS only reports characteristics of nonimmigrants that have to complete an I-94 arrival/departure form.

How do nonimmigrant admissions break down by visa category?

Temporary visitors (tourists and business travelers) account for an overwhelming majority of all nonimmigrant admissions. In 2012, they represented 89 percent (47.7 million) of all admissions to the United States. Of those, 42 million were tourist admissions and 5.7 million were business-traveler admissions.

Temporary workers and trainees (as well as their spouses and children), including H-1B "specialty occupation" workers, registered nurses, temporary agricultural workers, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) professional workers, treaty traders, and intracompany transferees, among others, accounted for about 3 million arrivals (more than 6 percent of total I-94 admissions)

Students, who entered the United States to study at academic or vocational institutes, made up about 4 percent (close to 1.7 million) of the total arrivals including their family members but not including exchange visitors.

According to recent estimates by DHS, about 1.9 million foreign nationals on various temporary visas resided in the United States on January 1, 2012 (Note: this estimate excludes tourists and other short-term visitors). Of the 1.9 million, 45 percent were temporary workers and their families, followed by foreign students and their families (40 percent). Nearly half of the 1.9 million temporary visa holders were from Asia. Another quarter came from Europe and Canada. The top five countries of origin—India, China, South Korea, Canada, and Mexico—accounted for half of the 1.9 million residents on temporary visas.

Read about the size of nonimmigrant population in Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Resident Nonimmigrant Population in the United States.

How many visas does the Department of State issue?

The Department of State (DOS) reports the number of visas issued to foreign nationals who wish to enter the United States for the purpose of traveling, conducting business, working, studying, and for other reasons.

In 2012, DOS issued 8,927,090 nonimmigrant visas, which is a 19 percent increase from the 7,507,939 visas issued in 2011.

The vast majority (77 percent) of the 8.9 million nonimmigrant visas issued in 2012 were temporary business and tourist visas (B-1, B-2, and BCC visas). The next largest visa class (F-1, F-2, and F-3) was for academic students and exchange visitors and their family members, who comprised 6 percent of all nonimmigrant visas issued, followed by the J-1 and J-2 visa categories for exchange visitors and their spouses and children (4 percent).

The distribution of the 8.9 million visas issued to foreign nationals in 2012 by region shows that the majority of temporary visas were issued to nationals from Asia (35 percent) and North America (24 percent, including Central America and the Caribbean), South America (24 percent), Europe (11 percent), Africa (4 percent), and Oceania (0.5 percent).

Note: The number of visas issued does not necessarily match the number of foreign nationals who entered the United States in the same year because some nonimmigrant visas may not be used.

For more information, see the Department of State publication Report of the Visa Office 2012.

Notes on Refugees and Asylees What is the difference between a refugee and an asylee? In the United States, the main difference is the person's location at the time of application.

Refugees are generally outside of the United States when they are considered for resettlement, whereas asylum seekers submit their applications while they are physically present in or at a port of entry to the United States.

Asylum seekers can submit an asylum request either affirmatively or defensively. An asylum seeker present in the United States may submit an asylum request either with a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officer (affirmative request), or, if apprehended, with an immigration judge as part of a removal hearing (defensive request). During the interview, an asylum officer will determine whether the applicant meets the definition of a refugee.

How many immigrants enter the United States as refugees, and where are they from?

In 2012, 58,179 refugees were admitted to the United States, a roughly 3 percent increase from 2011 (56,384). Bhutan, Burma, and Iraq were the primary countries of nationality for refugees admitted in 2010, 2011, and 2012. The nationals of these three countries made up 71 percent (41,393) of all refugees admitted in 2012. The next seven countries of origin for refugee resettlements in 2012 were Somalia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Eritrea, Sudan, and Ethiopia. Altogether, nationals of these ten countries totaled 94 percent (54,916) of all refugee arrivals in 2012.

Each year, the President and Congress set the annual refugee admissions ceiling and regional allocations. For fiscal year (FY) 2014 the ceiling was set at 70,000, same as 2013 (down from 80,000 between 2008 and 2011). The Near East/South Asia regions received 47 percent (33,000) of the total regional allocations in response to the refugee crises in Iraq and Burma.

How many foreign born enter the United States as asylees, and where are they from?

In 2012, 29,484 principal applicants and their spouses and/or unmarried children under the age of 21 were granted asylum after seeking protection upon arriving or after arrival in the United States. An additional 13,049 individuals outside of the United States were approved for asylum status as immediate family members of principal applicants. (Note that this number reflects travel documents issued to these family members, not their arrival to the United States.)

Asylees from the top five countries of origin for asylum seekers made up 55 percent (16,228) of all asylees in 2012. China was the top country of origin, with 10,151 Chinese receiving asylum in 2012, accounting for 34 percent of all asylum grants that year. The next four largest origin groups were from Egypt (2,882), Ethiopia (1,122), Venezuela (1,099), and Nepal (974). Together, nationals of these five countries made up more than half of all individuals who received asylum status in 2012.

For more information, see Refugees and Asylees in the United States.

Illegal Immigration and DACA Statistics How many unauthorized immigrants are in the United States?

According to DHS’ Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), an estimated 11.5 million unauthorized immigrants resided in the United States in January 2011. The latest available estimates from DHS, released in March 2012, suggest that the unauthorized population was virtually unchanged compared to the revised 2010 estimate of 11.6 million. The largest shares of the 11.5 million unauthorized immigrants resided in California (25 percent), Texas (16 percent), and Florida and New York (6 percent each). Between 2000 and 2011, Georgia’s unauthorized population nearly doubled (from about 220,000 to 440,000), while the number of unauthorized migrants in Florida decreased by 9 percent (from 800,000 to 740,000). These figures can be compared to 36 percent growth between 2000 and 2011 at the national level. Georgia was home to 4 percent of the nation’s unauthorized immigrants in 2011.

The Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project also produced estimates of the size and characteristics of the unauthorized immigrant population. According to recent Pew data, there were 11.7 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States in March 2012. The difference between the size of the unauthorized immigrant population from 2011 (11.5 million) to 2012 (11.7 million) is not statistically significant.

Note: The data sources and estimating methodologies used by the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) and Pew to describe the unauthorized population are different. Hence the estimates are not fully comparable, and we urge readers not to mix them. The two organizations cover somewhat different topics. For instance, OIS has estimates on the unauthorized population by period of entry, origin, state of residence, age, and sex. In addition to covering trends over time, Pew estimates include national and state-level estimates of the unauthorized labor force, as well as data on children with unauthorized parents.

Where are unauthorized migrants from?

According to DHS estimates, about 8.9 million unauthorized immigrants in 2011 were born in North America (which includes Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and Canada). About 1.3 million were from Asia, 800,000 from South America, 300,000 from Europe, and 200,000 from the remaining parts of the world. Mexico (59 percent), El Salvador (6 percent), and Guatemala (5 percent) were the top three countries of birth of the unauthorized immigrant population.

See Table 3 in the OIS report for the top ten countries of birth of the unauthorized in the United States in 2011.

How many U.S. children have unauthorized immigrant parents?

About 5.5 million children living in the United States in 2010 (the most recently available estimates) had at least one parent who was an unauthorized immigrant, according to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project. Of this group, about 82 percent (4.5 million) were U.S. citizens by birth and 18 percent (1 million) were unauthorized immigrants themselves. The number of children with unauthorized immigrant parents has significantly increased since 2000, when there were 3.6 million such children. However, over the same period, the number of unauthorized immigrant children declined from 1.5 to 1.0 million, while the number of U.S.-born children with unauthorized immigrant parents grew from 2.1 million to 4.5 million.

Read the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project’s fact sheet on unauthorized immigrants.

How many apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants are there per year?

There were more than 600,000 apprehensions in 2012 (643,474) by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the two agencies within DHS responsible for the identification and removal of inadmissible noncitizens. About 365,000 (57 percent of all apprehensions) were reported by the Border Patrol in 2012, up 25,000 from 2011 (approximately 340,000), a year which had the lowest number of apprehensions by the Border Patrol since 1971. About 98 percent of Border Patrol apprehensions occurred along the Southwest border. Additionally, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations made 262,769 administrative arrests (or 41 percent of total apprehensions in 2012) and ICE Homeland Security Investigations made 15,937 administrative arrests (or 3 percent).

The leading countries of nationality of those apprehended in 2012 were Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Nationals from these four countries comprised 92 percent of all apprehensions, with Mexican nationals comprising the overwhelming majority—70 percent—in 2012 (down from 76 percent in 2011).

Note: Apprehensions are events, not individuals. In other words, the same individual can be apprehended more than once with each apprehension counted separately.

How many people are deported per year?

Foreign-born individuals who must leave the United States are categorized as either "removals" or "returns." Both removals and returns result in the departure of a foreign-born individual from the United States. There were 649,352 removals and returns in 2012, a 9 percent drop from 2011 (710,573 removals and returns).

In 2012, returns accounted for 35 percent (or 229,968) of total removals and returns, while removals comprised 65 percent (or 419,384)—an all-time high for removals. The number of removals has generally increased since 1990 when there were 30,039 removals. At the same time the number of returns has declined, from 1.02 million in 1990 to 229,968 in 2012 (the lowest since 1969).

Notes: Removals (deportations) are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable unauthorized immigrant out of the United States based on an order of removal. An unauthorized immigrant who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent re-entry owing to the fact of the removal. Returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable unauthorized immigrant out of the United States not based on an order of removal. Most of the voluntary departures are of Mexican nationals who have been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and are returned to Mexico.

The government fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30. All figures for immigration control and enforcement given here are for the government fiscal year.

Read MPI's report with key current and historical data, The Deportation Dilemma: Reconciling Tough and Humane Enforcement
Read DHS' Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2012.

How many Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) applications were received in 2012?

On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain unauthorized immigrants who entered the United States as children would be able to apply for deferred action, granting relief from deportation and work authorization for two years. MPI estimates that approximately 1.9 million people could be eligible for the DACA initiative. Prospective beneficiaries have to meet a series of requirements, including the following:

Entered the United States before the age of 16
Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007
Are currently in school, have graduated from high school or earned a GED, or are honorably discharged veterans of the U.S. armed forces (including the Coast Guard)
Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors; or otherwise pose a threat to public safety or national security.

MPI estimated that about 1.09 million unauthorized youths and young adults were eligible to apply because they met both age and education criteria. Between August 15, 2012, when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications, and December 2013 a total of 610,694 of applications were accepted for consideration by the agency. Thus, as of December 2013 (the most recent data offered by USCIS at the time of this article’s publication), about 56 percent of the currently eligible population had applied.

The top states of residence for DACA applicants (refers to applications accepted) are California (29 percent), Texas (16 percent), Illinois and New York (5 percent each), and Florida (4 percent).

The top countries of origin are Mexico (77 percent), El Salvador (4 percent), Honduras (3 percent), Guatemala (3 percent), and Peru (1 percent).

By the end of December 2013, 521,815 of the accepted applications had been approved and 15,968 denied.

For the most up-to-date DACA application and approval estimates, click here.
Read more about the DACA-eligible populationin the MPI fact sheet Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals at the One-Year Mark: A Profile of Currently Eligible Youth and Applicants.
For more information from USCIS on the DACA program, click here.

Naturalization Trends How many foreign born are naturalized citizens?

In 2012, 18.7 million immigrants were naturalized U.S. citizens, accounting for 46 percent of the foreign-born population (40.8 million) and 6 percent of the total U.S. population (313.9 million) according to ACS estimates.

How many immigrants naturalize?

According to DHS data, USCIS naturalized 757,434 LPRs in 2012. The total number of immigrants naturalized increased by 9 percent between 2011 and 2012.

From a historical perspective, the number of naturalizations has increased dramatically in recent decades. On average, 141,000 LPRs naturalized each year between 1970 and 1979, 205,000 in the 1980s; 498,000 in the 1990s, and 682,000 during the 2000s.

The number of naturalizations reached an all-time high in 2008 (1,046,539) before falling by almost 29 percent in 2009. The sharp 59 percent increase in naturalizations between 2007 and 2008 (from 660,477 to 1,046,539) came as a result of impending application fee increases and the promotion of naturalization in advance of the 2008 presidential elections.

For more background information on naturalization trends, see Naturalization Trends in the United States.

How many foreign nationals become U.S. citizens through military naturalization?

In 2012, 7,257 foreign-born military personal naturalized as U.S. citizens, 13 percent less than in 2011 when the number of military naturalizations was 8,373.

For more historical data on naturalization, see Number of Immigrants Who Became U.S. Citizens, 1910 to 2012.

Since September 2002, 89,095 foreign-born military personnel have naturalized on U.S. soil. Another 10,719 have become citizens overseas or aboard Navy ships.

Read USCIS’ Naturalization through Military Service: Fact Sheet.

What are the countries of origin of newly naturalized citizens?

Of those who naturalized in 2012, 13 percent were born in Mexico (102,181), and 6 percent each in the Philippines and India (44,958 and 42,928 respectively). Immigrants from these three countries, together with those from Dominican Republic (33,351), China (31,868), Cuba (31,244), Colombia (23,972), Vietnam (23,490), Haiti (19,114), and El Salvador (16,685), comprised the top ten countries of birth for newly naturalized citizens in 2012 and accounted for approximately 49 percent of all naturalizations that year.

Where do newly naturalized citizens live in the United States?

In 2012, 54 percent of all newly naturalized citizens lived in one of four states. California has the largest number of newly naturalized citizens, comprising 21 percent (158,850) of the total newly naturalized. Thirteen percent (100,890) of the newly naturalized resided in Florida in 2012, 12 percent in New York (93,584), and 8 percent in Texas (57,762).

Approximately 16 percent of those who naturalized in 2012 lived in the greater New York metropolitan area (123,891) and 9 percent each in the greater Miami and Los Angeles metropolitan areas (68,072 and 65,679 respectively). These areas, together with the greater Washington DC metropolitan area (4 percent), Chicago (4 percent), San Francisco and Houston (about 3 percent each), and the greater Boston area (2 percent) were home to half of new U.S. citizens in 2012.

How many green-card holders are eligible to naturalize?

According to the latest available USCIS estimates, 13.3 million LPRs resided in the United States in January 1, 2012. Of them, about 8.8 million were eligible to naturalize.

How long does it take on average for green-card holders to naturalize?

To be naturalized, LPRs must meet a number of criteria, including being at least 18 years of age, have resided in the United States with LPR status continuously for at least five years, and pass an English and civic exam.

According to USCIS estimates, immigrants who naturalized in 2012 spent a median of seven years in LPR status before becoming U.S. citizens. The time varied by country of origin: African born spent about 5 years in LPR status before naturalization, followed by those born in Asia and South America (both 6 years), Europe (7 years), Oceania (8 years), and North America (including Mexico and Central America, 10 years).

Visa Backlogs How many visa applications for permanent immigration (green cards) are backlogged?

Two types of backlogs impact issuance of green cards. The first is due to visa availability. The government caps employment-based, permanent visas for foreign workers and their families at 140,000 per year world-wide. Family-sponsored preferences are limited to 226,000 visas per year. Also, no country can receive more than 7 percent of the total annual number of family-sponsored and employment-based visas (approximately 25,600 visas).

The second type of backlog is due to processing delays of applicants' documents, which is related to government processing capacity as well as increased background and criminal checks.

Once the Department of State grants a visa to an immigrant, USCIS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conduct background checks.

In May 2014, the government was processing some family-related visas applications filed as far back as July 1990, and it was still processing some employment-related visa applications from October 2003.

Here are two examples of how long the waiting times have been for some applicants who became eligible to apply for a green card in May 2014:

An unmarried adult child from Mexico of a U.S. citizen had to wait for about 20.5 years.
A sibling from the Philippines of a U.S. citizen had to wait for about 23.5 years.

Recent years have witnessed dramatic reductions in the backlogs for certain categories of immigrants, particularly the immediate family members (spouses and children) of LPRs (i.e., see Preference 2A). However, citizens of large immigrant origin countries such as Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines, typically face the longest waiting times. For more details about the waiting time by immigration category and country of origin, see the U.S. Department of State’s Visa Bulletin that is updated monthly.

Another useful indicator to understand the waiting times is the number of people whose documents are on hold because there are no immigrant visas available for a given family/employment preference or a given country of origin. According to the data on the petitions submitted to the Department of State (DOS), there were about 4.3 million applicants (including spouses and minor children) who on November 1, 2013 were on the waiting list. The overwhelming majority of these applicants were family-sponsored applicants and their immediate family members (4.2 million). About 112,000 were employment-sponsored applicants and their family. Of the overall 4.3 million applicants, 1.3 million were citizens of Mexico, followed by those from the Philippines (437,000) and India (327,000). What these DOS data do not show is the number of family- and employment-based prospective immigrants who are waiting to adjust their status to LPR from within the United States. Their applications are likely to be processed by USCIS. To our knowledge, the number of people who await for green cards from within the United States has not been published by USCIS. In other words, the overall number of people waiting for a green card–within and outside of the United States–is larger than the 4.3 million reported by DOS.

0 Comments

November 20th, 2014

11/20/2014

0 Comments

'But in June 2012, the French firm Veolia sued the Egyptian government for raising the minimum wage'.

Oh, you mean Trans Pacific Trade Pact will negate all US labor and justice laws?

I liked an interview on Baltimore TV news right after the elections that sent a neo-liberal Democratic leadership in the Senate and our Wall Street neo-liberal governor packing. Mikulski is Baltimore's Senator and she is team Johns Hopkins-----as I always say----the most neo-conservative institution in the world. Mikulski's District of Baltimore looks like a third world nation with poverty, crime, and tons of corporate fraud and government corruption moving taxpayer revenue and social service funding to Johns Hopkins to distribute and it all goes to the top! So, Mikulski, as with this Maryland governor team O'Malley/Brown are not Democrats and are working to dismantle War on Poverty, New Deal, and labor and justice equal protection laws. Maryland has already done much of this and Baltimore has for decades.

This TV news interview had Mikulski facing sideways not looking into the camera as she lamented 'I HOPE WE DON'T LOSE OUR NEW DEAL PROGRAMS'. This is why Mikulski is termed 'progressive'. She speaks like a progressive and then serves as a neo-conservative as her district shows. It was Baltimore's neo-liberals and neo-conservatives that handed trillions of Federal, state, and local taxpayer money to Johns Hopkins to build a global corporation that is now autocratic and repressive as a third world institution would be.

MIKULSKI LAMENTS THE COMING DISMANTLING OF NEW DEAL WITH REPUBLICANS IN CHARGE WHEN NEW DEAL HAS BEEN GONE IN MIKULSKI'S DISTRICT FOR DECADES!

Citizens in Maryland who like conservative Democrats had better wake up to what Clinton neo-liberals have planned. None of it has to do with conservative or American -----it is all global as with the Bush neo-cons in Maryland. We can do better than this-----GET RID OF THESE GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS!

The New Deal was a direct response to the Great Depression and a rogue Wall Street financial industry that filled the economy with corporate fraud and government corruption-----SOUND FAMILIAR? Indeed. Lucky for the US we had a progressive in office with the goal of holding the rich accountable and wanting to rebuild a strong Democratic system. Fast forward to today and we are ready to have what will be the same level of economic crash as the Great Depression again brought about by the rich to capture all the nations wealth and again it is full of fraud and corruption. Just as exists today in Mikulski's Baltimore. So, we have pols in office that want this collapse and are working for it to create the wealth inequity that existed before the Great Depression. These pols are not progressive and they are not liberal-----they are Clinton Wall Street neo-liberals who have worked from the Clinton era to create the same conditions for economic collapse and wealth inequity that existed before the Great Depression and FDR. Mikulski is PRO-ENDING NEW DEAL AS ARE ALL CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS.

Let's take a look at what we mean by New Deal legislation.

The New Deal-----Roosevelt Institution

1933

List of New Deal Legislation

On March 4, 1933, when FDR took the oath of office to become the 32nd President of the United States, America was a country in the midst of the worst economic crisis in its history. Since the onset of the Great Depression—initiated by the crash of the stock market in the fall of 1929—over $75 billion in equity capital had been lost on Wall Street, the gross national product had plunged from a high of $104 billion to a mere $74 billion, and U.S. exports had fallen by 62 percent. Over thirteen million people, nearly 25 percent of the workforce, were now unemployed. In some cities, the jobless rate was even higher. In Chicago it had climbed to 40 percent, in Detroit, a staggering 50 percent. Caught in a web of despair, thousands of shabbily dressed men and women walked the streets in search of work, or a bit of food, doled out from one of the hundreds of soup kitchens set up by private charities to keep the wage-less from starvation. In rural America, meanwhile, thousands of tons of unmarketable crops sat rotting in gain storage bins, while farm income plummeted and thousands of families were forced to abandon their homesteads. Reeling from the pressures of such a massive economic downturn, more than 11,000 banks had closed their doors, and the U.S. banking system had all but ceased to function. The nation, in short, appeared to be falling into an economic abyss that might well result in the total breakdown of order. Some observers even feared that without immediate and dramatic action, the country might well slip into revolution.

FDR's response to this unprecedented crisis was to initiate the "New Deal" — a series of economic measures designed to alleviate the worst effects of the depression, reinvigorate the economy, and restore the confidence of the American people in their banks and other key institutions. The New Deal was orchestrated by a core group of FDR advisors brought in from academia and industry known as the "Brains Trust" who, in their first "hundred days" in office, helped FDR enact fifteen major laws. One of the most significant of these was the Banking Act of 1933, which finally brought an end to the panic that gripped the nation's banking system. The success of the Banking Act, depended in large measure on the willingness of the American people to once again place their faith—and money—in their local banks. To ensure this, FDR turned to the radio, and in the first of his many "fireside chats," convinced the American people the crisis was over and that their deposits—backed by the newly established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) — were safe.

Other significant New Deal measures included the establishment of the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA). The most famous measure of the New Deal was the 1935 Social Security Act, which led to the establishment of the Social Security Administration and the creation of a national system of old-age pensions and unemployment compensation. Social Security also granted federal financial support to dependant children, the handicapped, and the blind. The New Deal also led to the establishment of a number of significant regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), set up to stave off a further crash of the Stock Market, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which ultimately made home ownership affordable for millions of average Americans, as well as the National Labor Relations Board, the Civil Aeronautics Authority, and the Federal Communications Commission.

While the New Deal did much to lessen the worst affects of the Great Depression, its measures were not sweeping enough to restore the nation to full employment. Critics of FDR's policies, on both the right and the left, use this fact as a reason to condemn it. Conservatives argue, for example, that it went too far, and brought too much government intervention in the economy, while those on the left argue that it did not go far enough, and that in order to be truly effective, the Roosevelt Administration should have engaged in a far more comprehensive program of direct federal aid to the poor and unemployed. But the New Deal's greatest achievements transcend mere economic statistics, for in a world where democracy was under siege, and the exponents of fascism and communism flourished, the New Deal offered hope and restored the faith of the American people in their representative institutions. It also transformed the federal government into an active instrument of social justice and established a network of laws and institutions designed to protect the American economy from the worst excesses of liberal capitalism.

One of the most striking benefits of the New Deal was that it restored the confidence of a deeply discouraged population. FDR's use of the media, particularly his mastery of radio communication with the American people through his "Fireside Chats," restored the spirit of the nation as he worked to lift the economy out of the Great Depression.

New Deal Legislation

March 9            Emergency Banking Act

March 20          Government Economy Act

March 22          Beer-Wine Revenue Act

March 31          Creation of Civilian Conservation Corps

April 19            Abandonment of Gold Standard

May 12            Federal Emergency Relief Act

May 12            Agricultural Adjustment Act

May 12            Emergency Farm Mortgage Act

May 18            Tennessee Valley Authority Act

May 27            Securities Act

June 5              Abrogation of Gold Payment Clause

June 13    Home Owners Loan Act

June 16            Glass-Steagall Banking Act

June 16            National Industrial Recovery Act

June 16            Emergency Railroad Transportation Act

June 16            Farm Credit Act

The War Years 1939-1945

The policies of the New Deal changed the nature of government in the United States. But domestic reform was not the only area in which FDR transformed America. The United States of the 1930s was still feeling the devastating effects of the Great Depression, and was bitter about American involvement in World War I. The national mood was to turn away from the rest of the world and deny the country's international responsibilities. In the absence of American support, the League of Nations foundered and the dictatorships flourished. Piece by piece Hitler's Germany expanded at the expense of her neighbors. Italy invaded Abyssinia. Franco launched his fascist crusade in Spain, and the Japanese invaded China.

Restrained by neutrality laws passed in the late 1930s that did not distinguish between aggressor and victim, Franklin D. Roosevelt could do little to assist the targets of aggression. But he understood the need for American leadership in opposition to fascism, and so began a long, eloquent campaign of popular education designed to awaken the American people from their isolationist slumber. "Let no one imagine," he warned, "that America may expect mercy" in the event that the fascists in Europe and Asia should prevail. Indeed, it was sheer folly, he insisted, to believe as the isolationists did, that the United States could survive "as a lone island in a world dominated by force...handcuffed, hungry and fed through the bars from day to day by the contemptuous, unpitying masters of other continents."

As the German Army marched across Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Low Countries and France in 1939-40 at the outbreak of the Second World War, FDR turned the United States into the "arsenal of democracy." When Great Britain stood alone, and few thought she could survive, he overruled his own Chiefs of Staff and insisted that American arms shipments to the British must not only continue, but expand, resulting in the passage of the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941. He also began a massive rearmament campaign the results of which were nothing short of remarkable. In June 1939, the United States possessed an army of a mere 186,000 men that ranked 19th among nations. By mid 1943, the total number of men and women under arms in the United States stood at twelve million, the largest and most powerful assembly of land, sea, and air forces the world had ever seen.

Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and American entry into the war, FDR assembled a remarkable team of generals and admirals, and with Churchill, crafted the 'Grand Alliance' that ultimately destroyed the twin evils of German Nazism and Japanese militarism. As the instigator of the Manhattan Project, he became the father of the nuclear age. Determined not to let America once again revert to isolationism after the war, FDR committed the United States to a host of international mechanisms in 1944, such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, that would guarantee American involvement in the wider world and ultimately give rise to the "global economy." Finally, and most importantly, through his call for a world based on the "Four Freedoms"—Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear—and his determination to establish a United Nations committed to collective security, human rights, national self determination, and economic justice, FDR provided the vision and framework for the world we live in today.

The Final Year 1945

In the spring of 1945, after four long years as commander-in-chief and an exhausting trip to the Crimean Peninsula to meet with Soviet Premier, Joseph Stalin, and British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, FDR traveled to Warm Springs for a much-needed rest. He would never return to the White House again. On April 12, 1945, while posing for a portrait by the well-known watercolor artist Elizabeth Shoumatoff, FDR noted that he had a terrific headache, slumped in his chair, and passed out. Within two hours he was pronounced dead, the victim of a massive cerebral hemorrhage.

The nation, still in the final throngs of the struggle to defeat Hitler, was stunned by the news. It did not seem possible that the man who had exuded so much energy and confidence during the dark days of depression and war was no longer there to lead. On the morning of April 13, FDR's train departed Warm Springs for the last time. As it made its way slowly northward, first to Washington and then to Hyde Park, thousands of grieving mourners lined the tracks, many of whom wept openly. Two days later the train finally arrived at the platform that stood at the foot of the long trail that winds its way down to the Hudson from Springwood. FDR had come home.

___________________________________

Reagan and Clinton neo-liberalism and Bush neo-conservatism had as a goal to dismantle all of this New Deal legislation. All of what FDR did was not progressive as we see with his building of the IMF and global structures that are now the structures for global expansion that is far from progressive. I want to believe that maybe he did not see how these policies would be hijacked by the rich and used against this progressive democracy he had envisioned.

As you see, all of the FHA, SEC, National Labor Board, and other regulatory agencies built to prevent another economic collapse are the same agencies that Reagan and Clinton started to dismantle and it was Clinton's policies against the SEC and Glass Steagall wall that allowed the rich to roll in and do the same thing they did before the Great Depression. This was a plan-----no Republican plot. You see Social Security and worker's compensation for example came at this time and it is Obama that installed myRA to end Social Security. HAVE YOU HEARD MIKULSKI OR ANY MARYLAND POLS SHOUTING THIS? Of course not, all Maryland pols are neo-liberals and neo-cons.

Wall Street has captured the SEC, the FHA, and the agriculture programs for big AG.....Glass Steagall was the Clinton's first target as was all of our New Deal public universities.

The Civilian Conservation Corp created, maintained, and protected our national and state parks system and now neo-liberals are allowing public land to be exposed to strip mining for rare earth minerals-----the most toxic of minerals and fracking .   Now the Civilian Corp is the AmeriCorp which neo-liberals use to dismantle the rest of public sector agencies and it has nothing to do with Conservation---it is simply a plan to move public policy away from communities and install Trans Pacific Trade Pact public structures.

Not surprisingly, Mikulski's Baltimore is ground zero for Americorp as neo-conservative Johns Hopkins takes control of all avenues of public policy. It has become Fascist. Nothing Democratic about one institution capturing all public policy and revenue sources! For those that think it is good for a city with high crime and poverty to have an AmeriCorp base you have to know who controls these youth and what their goals are. I see many a AmeriCorp reject the direction taken in Baltimore City and leave. Our public schools are controlled by Johns Hopkins through this program for example and not many people like what is happening in their public schools.

AmeriCorps

AmeriCorps engages more than 75,000 Americans in intensive service each year at nonprofits, schools, public agencies, and community and faith-based groups across the country.

Since the program’s founding in 1994, more than 900,000 AmeriCorps members have contributed more than 1.2 billion hours in service across America while tackling pressing problems and mobilizing millions of volunteers for the organizations they serve.

AmeriCorps Programs

AmeriCorps programs do more than move communities forward; they serve their members by creating jobs and providing pathways to opportunity for young people entering the workforce. AmeriCorps places thousands of young adults into intensive service positions where they learn valuable work skills, earn money for education, and develop an appreciation for citizenship.

Baltimore to Welcome New AmeriCorps

NCCC Campus

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Dec 13, 2012WASHINGTON, D.C. –

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) will hold a dedication ceremony on Monday, December 17, for the new AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) Atlantic Region Campus at its future home in Baltimore, Md. at the former Sacred Heart of Mary School.
CNCS CEO Wendy Spencer, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, and Archbishop William E. Lori will deliver remarks and will join in cutting the ceremonial ribbon. In addition, AmeriCorps NCCC director, Kate Raftery, will be available to answer questions on the campus’ daily operations.
AmeriCorps NCCC is a full-time, residential, national service program in which 1,200 young adults between the ages of 18 to 24 serve nationwide. During their 10-month terms, members work in teams of eight to 12 on projects that address critical needs related to natural and other disasters, infrastructure improvement, environmental stewardship and conservation, energy conservation, and urban and rural development.
The Atlantic Region Campus serves 10 states – Conn., Del., Mass., Md., Maine, N.H., N.J., Pa., R.I., and Vt. in addition to D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Currently, the campus is located in Perryville, Md. and hosts more than 160 AmeriCorps NCCC members each year. In the new location, the program anticipates it could house as many as 240 members.

_____________________________________________
This is what will end New Deal and all of our Democratic structures and guess who is right there with the most involved global corporate neo-conservative institution------Maryland's Mikulski who states she doesn't want to see New Deal dismantled. TPP will indeed allow all US laws to be ignored if they take away from profits by global corporations. BYE BYE LABOR AND JUSTICE LAWS AND ALL OF NEW DEAL!!!

TPP and Clinton/Obama are pushing around the world for nations to dismantle all of their public structures, programs and services just as they are doing here in the US with public private partnerships and imploding public agencies with Wall Street debt.

Mikulski knows this is the goal and as with all other neo-liberals-----they are silent and working the entire Obama terms in office passing laws and building structures for TPP! If you cannot see how AmeriCorp as it is used today ties in with Trans Pacific Trade Pact-----you are not looking!

WE CAN REVERSE THIS BY SIMPLY GETTING RID OF NEO-LIBERALS BY RUNNING AND VOTING FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL PRIMARIES!

Secret TPP Deal Would Void Democracy

July 08, 2013 / Jane Slaughter

TPP talks held in British Columbia in June were kept secret, but Canadian activists learned about them the day before from an article in the Peruvian media. Opponents hustled to hold an emergency teach-in and to project messages about the TPP on downtown Vancouver buildings. More talks will take place July 15-25 in Malaysia. Photo: Citizens Trade Campaign.

Many people know NAFTA has cost U.S. workers 700,000 jobs. But how many know another effect was to drive Mexican small farmers out of business?

In the brave new world of free trade, Costco makes tortilla chips and salsa in the U.S. and trucks them to its stores in Mexico.

Congress will soon debate whether to “fast-track” a trade deal that would make job-killers like NAFTA look puny. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would give corporations the right to sue national governments if they passed any law, regulation, or court ruling interfering with a corporation’s “expected future profits.”

They could also sue over local or state laws they didn’t like. The TPP would cover 40 percent of the world’s economy.

Existing laws and regulations on food safety, environmental protection, drug prices, local contracting, and internet freedom would all be up for challenge. And the decision-makers on such suits would not be local judges and juries; they’d be affiliated with the World Bank, an institution dedicated to corporate interests.

CAN IT BE STOPPED? Citizen groups believe they can stop the TPP if there is enough outcry. They point to previous victories over the WTO (World Trade Organization) and FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas).

What Is the TPP? It might as well stand for “Take Power from the People,” a Detroit postal worker said.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership has been under hush-hush negotiations since 2008. It includes the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and, soon, Japan.

A “docking mechanism” would allow other countries, including China, to join over time.

The contents have not been made public, but are known to the 600 “corporate advisors” helping write it, such as Chevron, Halliburton, Walmart, Ford, GE, AT&T, Cargill, Pfizer, and the Semiconductor Industry Association. Some information has come to light through leaks.

Like most trade agreements, the TPP is mostly not about trade but about giving corporations more rights to interfere with local laws.

TPP tribunals staffed by corporate lawyers, outside the control of any government, would rule whether a country’s taxpayers must pay monetary damages to wronged corporations.

Negotiations begin in July on a Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and the European Union. Stopping TPP would help derail it, too.

Most unions, however, have been slow to get on board—even though the TPP would jeopardize, according to the AFL-CIO, millions of jobs. The Teamsters and Communications Workers have been the most active.

Greg Junemann, president of the Professional and Technical Engineers, says unions have given up, certain that “what Obama wants to do, they [Congress] are going to do.” Junemann, with other union heads, sits on a labor advisory committee (LAC) on trade—which, he said, has been completely ignored.

In a June 6 letter, LAC chair Thomas Buffenbarger of the Machinists sharply criticized the administration for “restrictions on information that is shared with LAC members,” “unwillingness to share bracketed text or tabled positions from our negotiating partners,” and “refusal to include labor representatives on Industry Trade Advisory Committees.”

FAST TRACK Over the opposition of many unions, President Obama signed corporate-friendly trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia in fall 2011.

He singled out the TPP as a priority in this year’s State of the Union speech and wants Congress to give him “fast-track” authority.

Veterans of the fight against Bill Clinton’s NAFTA will remember fast track—Congress gives away its ability to amend an international agreement, in favor of a simple up-or-down vote. Each house may debate the bill for no more than 20 hours.

Fast track is likely to come up in late summer or early fall. But most Democrats in the House are opposed to fast track and the TPP, says Arthur Stamoulis of the Citizens Trade Campaign, and many Republicans will also vote against it (some because they want to deny Obama any appearance of success).

Junemann counters that, in the end, doing what big business wants will weigh more with Republicans than hurting Obama.

In any case, “there is no way they can get TPP through without fast track,” Stamoulis said. “When we defeated the FTAA [in the early 2000s], the first step was cross-border people’s movements dragging the proposal out of the shadows, shining a light on it, and introducing accountability and scrutiny to the negotiations.”

Light and scrutiny have both been sorely lacking thus far, but leaks about TPP’s contents are alarming.

LOCAL LAWS TRUMPED Corporations could sue governments over laws not to their liking. They are already doing so under existing “trade” agreements, but TPP would vastly expand the number of corporations and countries involved.

For example, Australia passed a law requiring plain packaging for cigarettes (no Joe Camel). U.S.-based Philip Morris is in court over predicted lost sales.

After the Fukushima disaster, Germany enacted a moratorium on nuclear power; a Swedish energy company is now suing the German government. Bechtel sued Bolivia for undoing the privatization of its water supply.

Corporations have already collected $365 million by suing governments, usually in developing countries, under existing treaties, and $13 billion more is pending in suits under NAFTA and the Central America (CAFTA) and Peru FTAs.

Most suits thus far are over environmental issues. But in June 2012, the French firm Veolia sued the Egyptian government for raising the minimum wage.

Under TPP, the corporation would sue the federal government, whether the case pertained to a federal, state, or local law or court decision. If the tribunal awarded damages to the corporation, the federal government would pay.

So if the government doesn’t want more suits, it has to change its laws (or pressure the local government to do so). Under NAFTA, the U.S. chemical company Ethyl Corp. sued Canada because it had banned the use of a gasoline additive called MMT, as a public health measure. Canada backed down, allowed MMT, and paid Ethyl $13 million.

TPP would give international firms equal access to federal government contracts.
TPP would include aggressive intellectual property rules to protect Big Pharma’s patents and restrict access to generic medicines. The consequences for those unable to afford HIV drugs, for example, especially in poor countries, would include hundreds of thousands of deaths.
The U.S. Department of Energy has the authority to regulate exports of natural gas—but not to countries that have free trade agreements with the U.S. TPP would mean stepped-up natural gas exports, without review, to Japan, the world’s largest importer of natural gas, and therefore increased to find that gas.

And presumably, when U.S. states, counties, and cities ban fracking, energy companies from any interested country could try to get those bans overturned. (Domestic oil and gas companies are already suing over local fracking bans, such as in Longmont, Colorado, and Dryden, New York.)

JOBS GONE These new rights for corporations are horrifying, but the most widespread effect of TPP would be job loss. The minimum wage in Vietnam, for example, is $2.23 a day, so labor-intensive industries are already eager to move there. The TPP would accelerate that process:

It would remove U.S. tariffs on goods produced in Vietnam and any other TPP country.
Manufacturers in capital-intensive industries (heavy machinery factories, paper mills, semiconductors), who might be reluctant to risk investment, would be protected against the threat of other countries’ passing new environmental or regulatory costs.
TPP’s protections against loss of “intellectual property” would reassure investors about building in Vietnam, where the majority of college grads are in math and science. Such concerns are currently a major disincentive for IT or research work in Vietnam, as its intellectual property practices are far looser than those in the U.S.

Through arm-twisting and over the objections of the unions who’d worked to get him elected, Bill Clinton pushed through NAFTA in 1993. But by the early 2000s, “free trade” had a track record.

The Free Trade Area of the Americas would have extended NAFTA to 31 more countries in the hemisphere. Some Latin American countries, notably Brazil, said no. Big protests were held in Quebec City in 2001 and in Miami in 2003, and the FTAA died.

To stop fast track and the TPP, Citizens Trade Campaign suggests three actions: Contact your Congressperson and urge a “no” vote. Spread the word widely about the TPP, through all channels. And if TPP negotiations are held in North America, mobilize to greet the bargainers—à la Seattle 1999.

See Expose the TPP. The Citizens Trade Campaign site has fact sheets, monthly briefings, and more. See a video interview on “Democracy Now!”

0 Comments

November 19th, 2014

11/19/2014

1 Comment

I have spoken these few days about education reform looking at classroom conditions for teachers and how their pensions and wages are being slashed. Teachers are the next middle-class to poverty category. So, when Arnie Duncan's US Department of Education and their policy machine the National Education Association speak of excellent educators at the same time creating schools as businesses.....can anyone believe this is about actual quality or simply an education teacher's union-busting goal to get rid of current educators to bring in staff that work towards Race to the Top education privatization goals. THAT IS INDEED WHAT THIS POLICY IS FOR----PURGING DEMOCRATIC PUBLIC EDUCATORS AND REPLACING WITH EDUCATION AS BUSINESS STAFF.

THINK HOW OUR UNIVERSITIES WENT FROM FULL TIME PROFESSIONAL ACADEMICS TO PART TIME ADJUNCTS LIVING AT POVERTY-----THAT IS WHAT NEO-LIBERALS WITH ARNE DUNCAN AND OBAMA ARE DOING NEXT.

We see this in Maryland as education funding is always on the burner for cuts and in Baltimore City we have a tiered funding system that attaches to students just so O'Malley and Rawlings-Blake can create winners and losers in schools according to how much money parents earn. This is a Republican policy courtesy of politicians running as Democrats.
I always remind Republican voters in Maryland that the goal of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism is to move everyone to poverty just as a third world nation does. So, these tiered levels created today in Maryland will be what just about all schools will see.

First, let's remind ourselves where all these terms come----failing schools, revenue shortfalls and starved budgets-----and quality teachers and education equity. Does anyone think creating tiered funding and charter structures has anything to do with equity? Of course not----they are simply 'progressive words' used by corporate pols.

Private firms eyeing profits from U.S. public schools By Stephanie Simon

NEW YORK Thu Aug 2, 2012 7:46pm IST

Think about the upcoming rollout of new national academic standards for public schools, he urged the crowd. If they're as rigorous as advertised, a huge number of schools will suddenly look really bad, their students testing way behind in reading and math. They'll want help, quick. And private, for-profit vendors selling lesson plans, educational software and student assessments will be right there to provide it.

"You start to see entire ecosystems of investment opportunity lining up," said Lytle, a partner at The Parthenon Group, a Boston consulting firm. "It could get really, really big."

Indeed, investors of all stripes are beginning to sense big profit potential in public education.

The K-12 market is tantalizingly huge: The U.S. spends more than $500 billion a year to educate kids from ages five through 18. The entire education sector, including college and mid-career training, represents nearly 9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, more than the energy or technology sectors.

Traditionally, public education has been a tough market for private firms to break into -- fraught with politics, tangled in bureaucracy and fragmented into tens of thousands of individual schools and school districts from coast to coast.

Now investors are signaling optimism that a golden moment has arrived. They're pouring private equity and venture capital into scores of companies that aim to profit by taking over broad swaths of public education.

The conference last week at the University Club, billed as a how-to on "private equity investing in for-profit education companies," drew a full house of about 100.

OUTSOURCING BASICS

In the venture capital world, transactions in the K-12 education sector soared to a record $389 million last year, up from $13 million in 2005. That includes major investments from some of the most respected venture capitalists in Silicon Valley, according to GSV Advisors, an investment firm in Chicago that specializes in education.

The goal: an education revolution in which public schools outsource to private vendors such critical tasks as teaching math, educating disabled students, even writing report cards, said Michael Moe, the founder of GSV.

"It's time," Moe said. "Everybody's excited about it."

Not quite everyone.

The push to privatize has alarmed some parents and teachers, as well as union leaders who fear their members will lose their jobs or their autonomy in the classroom.

Many of these protesters have rallied behind education historian Diane Ravitch, a professor at New York University, who blogs and tweets a steady stream of alarms about corporate profiteers invading public schools.

Ravitch argues that schools have, in effect, been set up by a bipartisan education reform movement that places an enormous emphasis on standardized test scores, labels poor performers as "failing" schools and relentlessly pushes local districts to transform low-ranked schools by firing the staff and turning the building over to private management.

President Barack Obama and both Democratic and Republican policymakers in the states have embraced those principles. Local school districts from Memphis to Philadelphia to Dallas, meanwhile, have hired private consultants to advise them on improving education; the strategists typically call for a broader role for private companies in public schools.

"This is a new frontier," Ravitch said. "The private equity guys and the hedge fund guys are circling public education."

Some of the products and services offered by private vendors may well be good for kids and schools, Ravitch said. But she has no confidence in their overall quality because "the bottom line is that they're seeking profit first."

Vendors looking for a toehold in public schools often donate generously to local politicians and spend big on marketing, so even companies with dismal academic results can rack up contracts and rake in tax dollars, Ravitch said.

"They're taking education, which ought to be in a different sphere where we're constantly concerned about raising quality, and they're applying a business metric: How do we cut costs?" Ravitch said.

BUDGET PRESSURES

Investors retort that public school districts are compelled to use that metric anyway because of reduced funding from states and the soaring cost of teacher pensions and health benefits. Public schools struggling to balance budgets have fired teachers, slashed course offerings and imposed a long list of fees, charging students to ride the bus, to sing in the chorus, even to take honors English.

The time is ripe, they say, for schools to try something new -- like turning to the private sector for help.

"Education is behind healthcare and other sectors that have utilized outsourcing to become more efficient," private equity investor Larry Shagrin said in the keynote address to the New York conference.

He credited the reform movement with forcing public schools to catch up. "There's more receptivity to change than ever before," said Shagrin, a partner with Brockway Moran & Partners Inc, in Boca Raton, Florida. "That creates opportunity."

Speakers at the conference identified several promising arenas for privatization.

Education entrepreneur John Katzman urged investors to look for companies developing software that can replace teachers for segments of the school day, driving down labor costs.

"How do we use technology so that we require fewer highly qualified teachers?" asked Katzman, who founded the Princeton Review test-prep company and now focuses on online learning.

Such businesses already have been drawing significant interest. Venture capital firms have bet more than $9 million on Schoology, an online learning platform that promises to take over the dreary jobs of writing and grading quizzes, giving students feedback about their progress and generating report cards.

DreamBox Learning has received $18 million from investors to refine and promote software that drills students in math. The software is billed as "adaptive," meaning it analyzes responses to problems and then poses follow-up questions precisely pitched to a student's abilities.

The charter school chain Rocketship, a nonprofit based in San Jose, California, turns kids over to DreamBox for two hours a day. The chain boasts that it pays its teachers more because it needs fewer of them, thanks to such programs. Last year, Rocketship commissioned a study that showed students who used DreamBox heavily for 16 weeks scored on average 2.3 points higher on a standardized math test than their peers.

SPECIAL ED AS A GROWTH MARKET

Another niche spotlighted at the private equity conference: special education.

Mark Claypool, president of Educational Services of America, told the crowd his company has enjoyed three straight years of 15 percent to 20 percent growth as more and more school districts have hired him to run their special-needs programs.

Autism in particular, he said, is a growth market, with school districts seeking better, cheaper ways to serve the growing number of students struggling with that disorder.

ESA, which is based in Nashville, Tennessee, now serves 12,000 students with learning disabilities or behavioral problems in 250 school districts nationwide.

"The knee-jerk reaction [to private providers like ESA] is, 'You're just in this to make money. The profit motive is going to trump quality,' " Claypool said. "That's crazy, because frankly, there are really a whole lot easier ways to make a living." Claypool, a former social worker, said he got into the field out of frustration over what he saw as limited options for children with learning disabilities.

Claypool and others point out that private firms have always made money off public education; they have constructed the schools, provided the buses and processed the burgers served at lunch. Big publishers such as Pearson, McGraw-Hill and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt have made hundreds of millions of dollars selling public school districts textbooks and standardized tests.

Critics see the newest rush to private vendors as more worrisome because school districts are outsourcing not just supplies but the very core of education: the daily interaction between student and teacher, the presentation of new material, the quick checks to see which kids have risen to the challenge and which are hopelessly confused.

At the more than 5,500 charter schools nationwide, private management companies -- some of them for-profit -- are in full control of running public schools with public dollars.

"I look around the world and I don't see any country doing this but us," Ravitch said. "Why is that?"

_____________________

So, a strong education sector are now to be replaced by teachers seeing children staring at computer screens all day doing workbook style lessons with no interactions as a good thing. It is cheap and is all that is needed for 90% of students needing only to know how to work. The Ivy League schools are going to put out the leaders after all say Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons and we add a dash of the wealthy from around the world as immigrants and we don't need you 90% of Americans to have any more education as needed for ordinary jobs!

That's how we did it in the Dark Ages!

Look at this Race to the top talking points on quality educators and then look at a model taken from when America had the best education system and achievement in the world----pre-Reagan/Clinton neo-liberal education reforms---Finland

The Excellent Educators for All Initiative contains three components:

• Comprehensive Educator Equity Plans. ED is asking states to analyze their data and consult with teachers, principals, districts, parents and community organizations to create new, comprehensive educator equity plans that put in place locally developed solutions to ensure every student has effective educators.

• An Educator Equity Support Network. The Department is investing $4.2 million to launch a new technical assistance network to support states and districts in developing and implementing their plans to ensure all students have access to great educators. The network will work to develop model plans, share promising practices, provide communities of practice for educators to discuss challenges and share lessons learned with each other, and create a network of support for educators working in high-need schools.

• Educator Equity Profiles. The Department will publish Educator Equity profiles this fall. The profiles will help states identify gaps in access to quality teaching for low-income and minority students, as well as shine a spotlight on high-need schools that are beating the odds and successfully recruiting and retaining effective educators.

After the announcement, eight teachers and two principals participated in a panel discussion at the Department with Duncan, Wade Henderson, Randi Weingarten and Chris Minnich about educational equity. They discussed what educators need to be effective in high-need schools. Chattanooga Principal Neelie Parker said that her biggest challenge is "finding the workforce to do the work. You need [teachers with] a very different skill set . . . and knowledge about dealing with poverty." Teacher Justin Minkel described the importance of working in a culture that values collaboration, mutual support, and professional autonomy. "Responsibility and delight can coexist," he added, quoting author Philip Pullman.

______________________________________________

Why is Finland always used as a comparison for people advocating against education privatization? First, Finland is now ranked at the top in the world and they are top because the education policy they adopted decades ago was the US model for equal protection public education. FINLAND IS TOPS TODAY BECAUSE THEY ADOPTED THE EDUCATION POLICIES FROM WHEN THE US WAS #1........

The point should be for all citizens ----why would we go with the most autocratic structure of neo-liberal education structure when we can simply return to the public education policies that made the US #1 in the world. Our CEOs and leaders all graduated from these public schools with structures now seen in Finland and no other education structure has shown the most education equity. What is being pushed today makes competition and corruption with education scores being skewed to make schools look better and thus raising the stock value of that private charter chain. Please stand up for strong public education by

GETTING RID OF THESE WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS BY RUNNING AND VOTING FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL PRIMARIES.

When you see national justice organizations and churches backing these education reforms in Baltimore City you need to look for new leadership. They are simply doing what they are told and not working for what is best for children or public education.

Let's take a look at what Finland sees as important for teachers and principals-----

The Children Must Play

By Samuel E. Abrams

While observing recess outside the Kallahti Comprehensive School on the eastern edge of Helsinki on a chilly day in April 2009, I asked Principal Timo Heikkinen if students go out when it’s very cold. Heikkinen said they do. I then asked Heikkinen if they go out when it’s very, very cold. Heikkinen smiled and said, “If minus 15 [Celsius] and windy, maybe not, but otherwise, yes. The children can’t learn if they don’t play. The children must play.”

In comparison to the United States and many other industrialized nations, the Finns have implemented a radically different model of educational reform--based on a balanced curriculum and professionalization, not testing. Not only do Finnish educational authorities provide students with far more recess than their U.S. counterparts--75 minutes a day in Finnish elementary schools versus an average of 27 minutes in the U.S.--but they also mandate lots of arts and crafts, more learning by doing, rigorous standards for teacher certification, higher teacher pay, and attractive working conditions. This is a far cry from the U.S. concentration on testing in reading and math since the enactment of No Child Left Behind in 2002, which has led school districts across the country, according to a survey by the Center on Education Policy, to significantly narrow their curricula. And the Finns’ efforts are paying off: In December, the results from the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), an exam in reading, math, and science given every three years since 2000 to approximately 5,000 15-year-olds per nation around the world, revealed that, for the fourth consecutive time, Finnish students posted stellar scores. The United States, meanwhile, lagged in the middle of the pack.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined his plans for reforming U.S. public education, including distributing competitive grants, raising test scores, and holding teachers accountable for student achievement. But there is much Finland can teach America’s reformers, and the rest of the world, about what outside of testing and rigid modes of management and assessment can make a nation’s schools truly excellent.

Finland’s schools weren’t always so successful. In the 1960s, they were middling at best. In 1971, a government commission concluded that, poor as the nation was in natural resources, it had to modernize its economy and could only do so by first improving its schools. To that end, the government agreed to reduce class size, boost teacher pay, and require that, by 1979, all teachers complete a rigorous master’s program.

Today, teaching is such a desirable profession that only one in ten applicants to the country’s eight master’s programs in education is accepted. In the United States, on the other hand, college graduates may become teachers without earning a master’s. What’s more, Finnish teachers earn very competitive salaries: High school teachers with 15 years of experience make 102 percent of what their fellow university graduates do. In the United States, by contrast, they earn just 65 percent.

Though, unlike U.S. education reformers, Finnish authorities haven’t outsourced school management to for-profit or non-profit organizations, implemented merit pay, or ranked teachers and schools according to test results, they’ve made excellent use of business strategies. They’ve won the war for talent by making teaching so appealing. In choosing principals, superintendents, and policymakers from inside the education world rather than looking outside it, Finnish authorities have likewise taken a page from the corporate playbook: Great organizations, as the business historian Alfred Chandler documented, cultivate talent from within. Of the many officials I interviewed at the Finnish Ministry of Education, the National Board of Education, the Education Evaluation Council, and the Helsinki Department of Education, all had been teachers for at least four years.

The Finnish approach to pedagogy is also distinct. In grades seven through nine, for instance, classes in science--the subject in which Finnish students have done especially well on PISA--are capped at 16 so students may do labs each lesson. And students in grades one through nine spend from four to eleven periods each week taking classes in art, music, cooking, carpentry, metalwork, and textiles. These classes provide natural venues for learning math and science, nurture critical cooperative skills, and implicitly cultivate respect for people who make their living working with their hands.

But perhaps most striking on the list of what makes Finland’s school system unique is that the country has deliberately rejected the prevailing standardization movement. While nations around the world introduced heavy standardized testing regimes in the 1990s, the Finnish National Board of Education concluded that such tests would consume too much instructional time, cost too much to construct, proctor, and grade, and generate undue stress. The Finnish answer to standardized tests has been to give exams to small but statistically significant samples of students and to trust teachers--so much so that the National Board of Education closed its inspectorate in 1991. Teachers in Finland design their own courses, using a national curriculum as a guide, not a blueprint, and spend about 80 percent as much time leading classes as their U.S. counterparts do, so that they have sufficient opportunity to plan lessons and collaborate with colleagues. The only point at which all Finnish students take standardized exams is as high school seniors if they wish to go to university.

Regard for students’ well-being is evident in more subtle ways, as well. Since 1985, students have not been tracked (or grouped by ability) until the tenth grade. Furthermore, since 1991, authorities have rejected the practice of holding back underachievers, concluding that the consequences of grade repetition were too stigmatizing to be effective and that students would be better off being tutored by learning specialists in areas of academic weakness.

The Finnish business community and conservative members of the country’s parliament criticized the end of tracking as a recipe for mass mediocrity--but they went silent following the publication of the 2000 PISA results. “PISA was a lucky gift for Finnish educators,” said Kari Louhivuori, the principal of the Kirkkojärvi Comprehensive School in Espoo, who began his career as a teacher in 1974. “We were under attack from traditional forces and needed outside validation of our new way.” (Some testing is thus ultimately necessary, Louhivuori conceded, if only to prove that regular testing is not.) What’s more, there is now strong proof of the economic benefits of the Finnish educational reformation, particularly in the country’s high-tech sector, which is distinguished by Nokia in telecommunications, Orion in medical diagnostics and pharmaceuticals, Polar in heart-rate monitors, Vaisala in meteorological measurement, and VTI in accelerometers. Flanking highways out of Helsinki are research centers for these companies, as well as ones for Ericsson, IBM, and SAP.

The reflexive critique of comparing the Finnish and U.S. educational systems is to say that Finland’s PISA results are consequences of the country being a much smaller, more homogeneous nation (5.3 million people, only 4 percent of whom are foreign-born). How could it possibly offer lessons to a country the size of the United States? The answer is next door. Norway is also small (4.8 million people) and nearly as homogeneous (10 percent foreign-born), but it is more akin to the United States than to Finland in its approach to education: Teachers don’t need master’s degrees; high school teachers with 15 years of experience earn only 70 percent of what fellow university graduates make; and in 2004,* authorities implemented a national system of standardized testing. The need for talent in the classroom is now so great that the Norwegian government is spending $3.3 million on an ad campaign to attract people to teaching and, last year, launched its own version of Teach for America in collaboration with Statoil--called Teach First Norway--to recruit teachers of math and science.

Moreover, much as in the United States, classes in Norway are typically too large and equipment too scarce to run science labs. A science teacher at a middle school in Oslo told me that labs are unfortunately the exception, not the rule, and that she couldn’t recall doing any labs as a student a decade ago. Unsurprisingly, much as in 2000, 2003, and 2006, Norway in 2009 posted mediocre PISA scores, indicating that it is not necessarily size and homogeneity but, rather, policy choices that lead to a country’s educational success.

The Finns have made clear that, in any country, no matter its size or composition, there is much wisdom to minimizing testing and instead investing in broader curricula, smaller classes, and better training, pay, and treatment of teachers. The United States should take heed.

*CORRECTION: This article originally stated that the testing regime was created in 2006. It was created in 2004.

Samuel E. Abrams is a visiting scholar at Teachers College, Columbia University, and he is writing a book on school reform.

_________________________________________

Dr. Hunter O’Hara and Dr. Merrie Tinkersley visited Finland, and this is what they learned:

“American Educators Find Surprises in Helsinki and at Home in the United States”

On the basis of Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores, Finnish public schools have ranked at the top, or very near the top in the world in the areas of mathematics, reading and science. Seven teacher education seniors and three teacher education faculty at The University of Tampa traveled to Finland to determine the nature of Finnish success with public education. We visited three public schools; 1) grades K-8, 2) grades 1-6, and 3) grades 9-12. We also visited Metropolia University and the University of Helsinki. At U.H. we had an extended conversation with a teacher education professor.

Prior to our visit, we understood that Finland prides itself for creating school equality across the nation. During our visit, we felt we were able to develop a realistic perception of Finnish public schools. We also spoke with Finnish students, teachers, administrators and parents. We expected to see extraordinarily dynamic, innovative teachers and pedagogy. We anticipated being dazzled with Finnish approaches to instruction, teaching strategies and techniques……such was not the case.

We observed examples of group inquiry/investigation, interdisciplinary thematic instruction, content-driven flexible conversation as well as the use of film for instructional purposes. Approaches such as these are not novel and are modeled, taught and practiced in multiple teacher education courses and internships at The University of Tampa. In terms of teaching strategies, nothing we viewed seemed visionary, extraordinary or new. Rather we noted that some teachers were using very traditional methods such a lecture/question and answer.

What Is Different About Finnish Schools?

Surprisingly for several of us, we did not see technology used in classrooms at all. We saw no use of standardized testing. In fact, we verified that there is no standardized testing in Finland unless the classroom teacher requests such a test for her or his own diagnostic purposes; but never for accountability. Progress is monitored, but the design and timing of exams are left up to the classroom teacher. We saw an egalitarian curriculum that includes substantial coursework in the fine arts, social sciences, the humanities and physical education in addition to mathematics, science and reading. High quality learner-created artwork adorns classrooms and all hallways. Not unlike the United States just a few decades ago, pianos are found in elementary classrooms.

We found that learning environments are noncompetitive. Instead of competition, the focus is on group learning pursuits and class multilogues. Physical education courses focus on fitness rather than competitive gaming. Finnish students do not even compete in inter-school athletics.

Finnish Culture and The Classroom

We did see significant cultural identifiers that directly impact the functioning of the school community and learning pursuits. Finnish learners are afforded a great deal of autonomy and freedom. Correspondingly, significant levels of maturity are expected of learners. Learners are trusted and expected to complete tasks without policing. Starting in first grade, students are expected to serve themselves at lunch and breakfast (free of charge) and to clear after themselves- regardless of their developmental level. Learners spend a significant amount of time in the out of doors pursuing projects and play regardless of temperatures (for Finns, there is no such thing as bad weather, only inadequate clothing). They know how to manage their frigid climate well. Learners act autonomously on a frequent basis and are free to take their time during transitions and while they are engaged in various projects. For example, there is no lining up and single -file –silent- walking between locations at the elementary level.

Just as cold temperatures predominate the weather, mutual trust predominates Finnish human interaction. As teachers trust learners, learners trust teachers to have their best interests at heart. School administrators trust teachers and learners, and Finnish communities trust teachers and principals to do their jobs well. Just as teachers trust learners, the Finnish government trusts Finnish teachers to structure facilitate and maintain successful learning environments. One principal shared, “I trust that teachers are going to do their own work in their own way.” Another principal indicated to us, “The focus is on trust, instead of accountability, and there are no high stakes tests. What happens in the classroom is up to the teacher.” Schools are never ranked and teachers track their own students. Finns trust their teacher credentialing process. Unlike many United States charter schools, Finns who have no credentials in education do not meddle in school affairs. Due to the prestige and free teacher preparation at the universities, Finland is able to admit only ten percent of the applicants into the teacher preparation programs. The Finnish government does not police schools in terms of learner performance, and the national standards for the various content areas are a succinct few pages.

All Schools Equal in Finland

There are no charter schools in Finland, no school vouchers, no “grading” of schools and no magnet schools. Unlike the United States, the intent in Finland is to assure that all schools are of equal quality. Again, that quality certainly does not owe it’s success to test driven instruction and curricula, nor does it have to do with “teacher accountability” campaigns as they have been called in the United States. Such approaches would have no place in a trust -centered nation like Finland. As has been made clear by their world ranking, Finnish schools are successful without the above questionable practices. Finnish teachers are highly respected and their prestige ranks with that of doctors and lawyers. Again, Finnish teacher preparation is paid for by the Finnish government. All teachers are prepared traditionally through a five year university preparation program. There is no alternative teacher certification in Finland.

Finnish teachers are fully unionized and they earn decent wages. We learned from faculty and administrators in Finland that there is no place for a scripted curriculum if administrators hire well qualified, traditionally prepared teachers. Moreover to be effective in their profession, teachers must be afforded professional autonomy and academic freedom. Many of these essential, teaching success-inducing components have been eroded in the United States over the past few decades.

Naturally, as educators we found Finnish schools to be very attractive, and yet we never lost our faith in the American public schools that had prepared us- the very schools to which we had also dedicated our professional lives. Quite plainly, the successes we saw in Finland should occur in the United States. Not only that, we were made aware that the entire design and implementation of the Finnish school system was based on American education research! As a matter of fact, the United States generates eighty percent of the research in education worldwide. If American education research is a good enough to base the design of one of the very most successful public education systems in the world, why is it not good enough to use in the United States? Furthermore, if we had the answers in the United States, why were we traveling to Finland to find our own answers?

American education privatizers are deliberately ignoring past education research and creating new data and statistics that make their policies look like the best since sliced bread. Of course these reforms have been in flux for several years and not implemented so the data is not real. We have decades of education research that proves the reform policies of today are the opposite of what is needed for quality and equality!

____________________________________________

This is a great look at what is happening across the nation. If you can imagine San Francisco being a neo-liberal haven controlled by global corporations think what neo-conservative havens like Baltimore are doing with public school funding. They are completely dismantling equal protection and all established public funding policy that funds all schools near equal levels. Baltimore is ground zero for churches and corporations sending large donations to an individual school while schools across the city are being closed because corporations are not paying taxes and being given all tax revenue to boost corporate profits. Public funding is deliberately being dismantled and the only institutions able to fund services will be churches and corporations and their donations. This is the structure from the Dark Ages where people were not citizens and had no rights and today's democratic humanities and liberal arts-based instruction was only for the rich.....which is where these education reforms are going. The rich only need 10% of US population to work as administrators in this corporate rule scheme and 10% of America is a very small subset of gender, race, creed. This is what we see in the autocratic governments today----this article is long but please glance through!

This is a good look at the inequity of allowing one school to prosper from affluent donations while others are starved of funds. I attended middle-class schools that operated fine with public education budgets and not much PTA action. Bake sales brought extraneous funds----what we have in Baltimore is a school funding situation that hands most of public education funding to corporate education non-profits that then tell parents and students what to do rather than making sure each school is funded well enough to do what is needed. What used to be centralized pooling of donated funds to education to be shared equally to all schools now has Exelon donating $1 million to this charter and the Episcopal Church donating hundreds of thousands to another.

NO ONE WANTS PRIVATE NON-PROFITS WITH MONEY TELLING THEM WHAT THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS WILL LOOK LIKE! NOBODY!

How Budget Cuts and PTA Fundraising Undermined Equity in San Francisco Public Schools

By Jeremy Adam Smith San Francisco Public Press — Feb 3 2014 - 5:09pm

PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRIVATE MONEY: Parent fundraising for elementary education in S.F. skyrocketed 800 percent in 10 years. The largesse saved some classroom programs, but widened the gap between rich and poor.

Part of a special report on education inequality in San Francisco. A version of this story ran in the winter 2014 print edition.

Evelyn Cheung is the principal of Junipero Serra Elementary School in Bernal Heights. Matthew Reedy is the principal of Grattan Elementary in the Haight. Both San Francisco public schools faced five straight years of districtwide budget cuts — which hit hardest in 2010 with a $113 million shortfall and last school year came to a more manageable $13 million.

But the belt tightening did not hurt the two schools equally. Cheung was forced to lay off staff and take other drastic steps, like freezing supply purchases for a year. By contrast, Reedy hired new staff and expanded his school’s academic programs, helping raise standardized test scores.

Why? The difference lay in the ability of their parent-teacher associations to raise money. The Grattan PTA has budgeted hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, amounting to almost $1,000 per pupil. At Junipero Serra, where most students come from poor and immigrant families, the PTA raises approximately $25 per pupil.

“Every principal knows which schools have it and which schools don’t,” Cheung said. “We know who are the haves and who are the have-nots. The system just isn’t equitable.”

In an era of shrinking public investment in schools, parents have struggled to hold the line one school at a time. Since the pre-recession year 2007, elementary school PTAs in San Francisco collectively managed to more than quadruple their spending on schools.

With this money, some schools have been able to pay teachers and staff, buy computers and school supplies, and underwrite class outings and enrichment activities. These expenses, previously covered by the taxpayers, are increasingly the responsibility of parents.

But school district finance data, PTA tax records and demographic profiles reveal an unintended byproduct of parents’ heroic efforts: The growing reliance on private dollars has widened inequities between the impoverished majority and the small number of schools where affluent parents cluster.

Unlike some California school districts, which centralize and redistribute funds raised by parents, San Francisco so far has permitted all money raised at a school to stay there. This gives some schools an enormous advantage. School district data show that in 2011 (the most recent year tax records were available), parents of children at just 10 elementary schools raised $2.77 million — more money than those at the other 61 combined.

By bringing in as much as $1,500 per student, the top fundraising schools appear to have been largely insulated from the effects of budgets cuts. Meanwhile, parents at high-poverty schools such as Junipero Serra are seeing shrinking resources for their children. This means laid-off staff, dilapidated libraries, outdated computers and a dearth of essential supplies like pencils and paper.

PDF preview

Photo essay: Two PTA Presidents, Two Realities

Rachel Norton, president of the San Francisco Board of Education, said she and her colleagues were aware of significant disparities in the fundraising capacities of PTAs in the district. But administrators do not track donations, nor do they attempt to interfere with school fundraising.

“I’d never ding parents for raising money to provide more services and extras for their schools, especially in a state like California that has chronically underfunded schools,” Norton said. “The more economically diverse students the schools attract, the better off the schools will be.”

But fewer and fewer schools in San Francisco are attracting economically diverse students. The number of children from poor families is rising across the district, and there are more schools with high concentrations of poverty than there were 10 years ago. Meanwhile, the number of mixed-income schools is shrinking.

The district’s “lottery” system is supposed to keep schools racially and economically diverse by giving preference to students from disadvantaged backgrounds and neighborhoods when assigning spots. But data suggest it has largely failed at that task, perhaps since affluent parents have had the time and skills to game the system, and tend to cluster in certain schools.

Critics of rising income inequality say school districts across the country, in a rush to save public schools with private dollars, created a system in which education is improving for the affluent and declining for the poor.

“Parent fundraising has become more important as state and local funds have dwindled,” said Robert Reich, a former U.S. secretary of labor and now a political science professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who advocates for policies to close the gap between rich and poor.

“If we take the ideal of equal opportunity seriously,” Reich said, “we’ve got to commit ourselves to creating a system of public education in which kids from poor and working-class families have a genuinely equal opportunity to succeed. And we’re falling far short.”

In an effort to address unequal parent fundraising head-on, some Bay Area school districts have pioneered novel solutions that might be instructive to San Francisco. One is aggregating private dollars, and directing them to the schools that need the most help. Other California districts prohibit PTAs from paying for teacher salaries or training, a common practice that can significantly widen inequities among schools.

But with an expected influx of state money this year, San Francisco will have new policy options to address the growing inequities in the district. The city’s schools stand to bring in as much as $21.7 million more as soon as September, through Gov. Jerry Brown’s newly enacted Local Control Funding Formula, which provides extra funds to districts with many disadvantaged students. If student populations remain stable, this new money could grow to $184.6 million annually in eight years.

With a current school district budget $667 million, the new funds would represent an increase of 27 percent.

As San Francisco’s Board of Education prepares to hold public meetings this spring on how to spend the extra funds, the fate of increasingly unequal public schools could be in the hands of parents themselves. That may mean endorsing reforms to ensure more equitable local funding, or agreeing to share fundraising proceeds among schools.

SOME SCHOOLS DODGED CUTS Matthew Reedy started working as a teacher at Grattan Elementary in the Haight in 2002. That was the year the district’s Weighted Student Formula took effect. The policy, devised as a way to help disadvantaged children, provides schools with a base rate of funding for each student, currently $2,896, and adds dollars based on need, such as the number of children receiving special education services, free and reduced-price lunches and lessons in English as a second language. So per-capita funding for schools is highly variable but generally biased toward schools with disadvantaged students.

The goal is not strict equality, but rather equity, meaning preferential funding for schools that need it most. San Francisco schools with many poor and immigrant students have bigger budgets on a per-pupil basis than do affluent schools, whose students are less expensive to educate.

When the formula went into effect in 2002, Reedy said, affluent schools such as Grattan lost funding, and parents felt compelled to make up the difference.

That year, elementary school PTAs in San Francisco brought in a total of just $592,000. But through 2011, their combined budgets had ballooned to $5.32 million, an increase of about 800 percent.

(The Public Press examined data from elementary schools only based on the tax records of legally recognized PTAs.)

As parent fundraising increased, so did the gap between the richest and poorest schools.

In 2010, Reedy became Grattan’s principal. Today, only 21 percent of 359 students there qualify for free and reduced-price lunch. That is one-third the district average, making it one of the wealthiest schools in a district whose students overall have gotten poorer. Not surprisingly, the Grattan PTA is one of the most successful fundraisers in the district.

In the 2012–2013 school year, the PTA at Grattan had a budget of $353,000, about $983 per pupil, on top of the base $2,896 the school receives from the district for each student. The parents rely on an array of labor-intensive fundraising methods: “Count Me In!” parties with ticket prices up to $75, wine raffles and auctions, foundation grants, “Dine Out for Grattan” nights at participating restaurants, and a sophisticated e-newsletter and website.

See Flickr for a photo essay on fundraising for public education by Tearsa Joy Hammock and Luke Thomas

Reedy said Grattan has been spared the sting of budget cuts, thanks entirely to these parent fundraising efforts. “We’ve been able to take PTA money and donate it to our general fund to prevent layoffs,” he said.

Not only did the PTA protect jobs, it expanded Grattan’s academic programs by hiring reading specialists and a technology teacher, and adding a bilingual clerk and a parent liaison to the staff. The PTA also funds an extra teacher, helping Grattan actually reduce its average class size. In all, this school year the Grattan PTA is paying all or part of the salaries of six staff, totaling nearly $224,000. PTA money also supported the library, a garden that doubles as a science lab and a computer lab that is often cited as one of Grattan’s key strengths, among other programs.

Like many principals, Reedy sets spending priorities in consultation with a school site council, which includes parents, teachers and neighbors. Their decision to invest PTA funds in academics has paid off. From 2008 to 2013, Grattan improved standardized test scores from 787 to 923 points on a scale of 1,000, making it one of the district’s academically best-performing elementary schools.

While the sums raised by Grattan’s PTA may seem tiny compared with a district budget of $667 million, Grattan’s example reveals how small — but concentrated — amounts of private money can keep an entire school afloat. For schools with the means, parent fundraising is a solution to budget cuts.

But our analysis finds that the majority of San Francisco schools are unable to raise money at the same level. Indeed, reliance on parent fundraising appears to undermine the equitability goal of the district’s own funding methods.

HOW CUTS CREATE INEQUITY Junipero Serra Elementary is situated between Holly Courts, a low-income housing project, and the hilltop Holly Park in Bernal Heights. Visitors hear more Spanish than English in the school’s hallways — 90 percent of the 269 students are immigrants or the children of immigrants, mainly from Latin America.

As principal, Evelyn Cheung has had to make hard choices in the past five years, in consultation with teachers and parents. One year they stopped buying supplies. The budget for the library fell to $500. Cheung was forced to lay off classroom aides, the nurse, the social worker and all “consultancies” — mainly arts teachers. The layoffs hurt morale more than other cuts, Cheung said, “because it’s people.”

“They have emotional ties, and there are bad feelings when someone is laid off,” she said.

Why can’t Junipero Serra fundraise its way around budget cuts? In part, because the parents have less to give, at least as measured by free or reduced-price lunches. At Junipero Serra, 86 percent of students qualify, more than four times as many as at Grattan.

To qualify for reduced-price lunch in California, a family of four must make less than $42,643 a year. To qualify for free lunch, less than $29,965. Researchers use these markers as proxies to measure poverty.

But those incomes are more meager in San Francisco, which in the past two years has had the most expensive housing in the country, straining the ability of poor families to pay for basic necessities. In San Francisco, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment is now $3,942 a month — a stunning rise of $1,000 since the start of 2013.

The desperate situation faced by most of Junipero Serra’s families is, in fact, shared by 63 percent of families throughout San Francisco’s public school system. This represents a 10 percent increase since the start of the recession, which coincided with the start of the budget cuts.

This poverty has also become more concentrated. Data from the district show that the number of schools in which more than three-quarters of students are eligible for subsidized lunch has more than tripled in the past decade. Schools in which fewer than one-quarter qualify increased slightly. Meanwhile, the middle class is disappearing: The portion of schools in between those extremes of poverty and wealth fell, from 66 percent to 52 percent.

While Cheung lauded the ideals behind the weighted student formula, and similar federal programs such as Title I, she said current funding levels were not enough for schools with large numbers of disadvantaged students.

“Many of my parents don’t have the resources that many middle-class families have,” Cheung said. “We have to provide a computer lab and technology training for the kids because they don’t have computers at home. And they will go to middle school very far behind if we don’t provide that support.”

The disadvantages do not stop with electronic devices. “Many of our Spanish-speaking families work two jobs,” Cheung said.

Inflexible schedules that often come with working-class jobs make it hard for parents to volunteer in the classroom, which might otherwise make up for the layoffs of classroom aides, or help kids stay on top of homework — assuming the immigrant parents can read assignments in English. Hectic schedules create barriers to getting involved in the PTA, hurting the school’s chances to raise money and buffer against shortfalls. (See print edition photo essay, “Two PTA Presidents, Two Realities.”)

“They care a lot and they’re involved, but not in the traditional ways,” Cheung said.

THE TWO SIDES OF FUNDRAISING This is how budget cuts perpetuate inequity: Affluent families are able to make up for lost funding by donating both time and money, whereas schools with poor families struggle to fill the gap. School district data show that as the number of students getting free and reduced-price lunch rises, PTA budgets fall. At the 44 elementary schools where a majority of the students live in poverty, fundraising is insufficient to offset budget cuts. Those cuts add stress to communities already struggling with low wages, financial instability and discrimination.

Despite these challenges, Junipero Serra has improved its academic performance. It saw its standardized test scores rise by 36 points in the past two years, to 752. But that is still below what the state deems “adequate yearly progress” and almost 200 points behind Grattan.

Cheung attributes the modest gains to “superhuman” efforts by teaching staff, doing more with less. “It’s a waste of time to be frustrated,” she said. “We just need to build on the strengths that we have.”

For Cheung, the problem is not that other schools have more money — it is that the needs are so different.

After including PTA contributions, per-pupil expenditures for Grattan and Junipero Serra come to within a few hundred dollars of each other. But this equivalency is misleading. Under the district’s weighted student formula, Junipero Serra is supposed to receive more money than Grattan.

The “extra” money going to Junipero Serra through the funding formula is for basic necessities: subsidized lunches, special education, English-language instruction and computers, to which the kids have little access at home. So Cheung’s expenses are higher than Reedy’s, and parents are not as able to help in the classroom to make up for layoffs.

While the kids at Junipero Serra start life on first base, most of Grattan’s are already on third. It is not hard to see why education inequality, as Robert Reich describes it, persists. Grattan does not need to cope with the same chronic insecurities confronting Junipero Serra, where families struggle with the stresses of living on the financial edge both at school and in the home.

“We shouldn’t have to fight so hard to provide kids with a strong foundational education,” Chueng said.

PARENTS NOT TO BLAME Alvarado Elementary in Noe Valley is, in a way, an exception to this trend toward inequity, and might represent the best-case scenario in a system that overall is rigged against poor students.

The school draws poor and working-class Latino students from the Mission, as well as affluent white and Asian families from Noe Valley and the Castro. As a result, it is more diverse than both impoverished schools like Junipero Serra and affluent schools like Grattan. Forty-two percent of Alvarado students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.

Carl Bettag, a product designer and father of twin fourth-graders, leads fundraising efforts for Alvarado’s PTA, which this year aims to raise $375,000, or about $721 per pupil. That is considerably more than Junipero Serra, but less than Grattan.

With this money, the Alvarado PTA has staved off layoffs, supported literacy programs and launched and maintained a regionally famous arts program. It has initiated environmental programs, such as solar panels, that also provide learning opportunities.

Bettag said the low-income students at Alvarado benefit most from the fundraising prowess of middle-class families in an income-diverse school.

“If you were to walk into Alvarado, you would find a vibrant, functional school, but you would not find a gold-plated school,” he said. “The science room does not have a sink! Some of the computers don’t work. Alvarado needs all the money and support it’s getting. We have 500 students at the school. It’s the 200 students who are on free and reduced lunch that benefit most from all the effort and money that goes into the school.”

Bettag said he could not ask parents at Alvarado to contribute for other schools, and he was not sure that he should.

“The fundamental problem is that the public schools are woefully underfinanced, and nothing that the PTAs do is going to fix that problem,” he said. “The real problem is not at the local level. It’s at the state level.”

Reich agrees. After serving as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, he has campaigned against economic inequality through books, articles, speeches, TV appearances and most recently the film “Inequality for All.”

“Parents should not be blamed for school inequality,” Reich said. “They should be thanked for making donations to their children’s schools. The problem is not with them. The problem lies much deeper. The problem is that we have a system of school finance that is topsy-turvy. Poor kids tend to end up in the worst schools, with minimal facilities, when they should be getting the best we as a society can offer.”

Unlike School Board President Norton, Reich said he does not believe that a hands-off approach is best for tax-deductible parent donations. Donations by parents to their children’s schools are not charity, Reich argued. It is the opposite — helping one’s own offspring instead of the less fortunate. These tax deductions diminish government revenues that could have gone to rich and poor schools alike.

NO EASY SOLUTIONS Can the system be improved, or are we doomed to perpetuate the cycle of inequality? This problem is not unique to San Francisco. As anti-tax sentiment in recent years has reduced school funding nationwide, parents are increasingly fundraising to keep their own kids’ schools afloat.

In response, some California districts created centralized PTA foundations to redistribute funds to schools based on need (see story on the solution used in the East Bay city of Albany). Others prohibited PTAs from raising funds for personnel or professional development.

The Santa Monica-Malibu school district embraced both solutions in 2011, under Superintendent Sandra Lyon. Today the district’s education foundation is the only way parents can donate money to support teachers and staff.

The key worry about such systems is that they will reduce the incentive for parents to support public schools beyond what they already pay in taxes. Lyon said her district struggled with the transition: “There are still some who believe parent money should stay at their children’s schools, and they are strongly against the change.”

The reform caused some affluent Malibu residents to try to break off from more working-class Santa Monica to create a separate school district. At least one Malibu school refused to participate in revenue sharing.

Overall, the district’s PTAs are struggling to raise as much as in previous years, Lyon said. Still, she sees progress. The foundation launched a $4 million campaign last spring, and by late fall 2013 it had raised $2.4 million.

“Some of our wealthiest Santa Monica schools have the greatest participation,” Lyon said. “Indeed, across Santa Monica schools, some of the loudest opponents have become the biggest champions and are leading the charges at their schools.”

Lyon has seen a culture change in a district heavily divided by social class. “Schools are collaborating in ways they had not done before,” she said. “The inequity in schools had bothered many for years, and so there has been support for the notion that we are working to create a better education for all students.”

The Santa Monica-Malibu district is one-fifth the size of San Francisco Unified. Every education leader interviewed dismissed the idea that such a system would work in San Francisco, largely because of the district’s size and diversity. Most defended the status quo.

If San Francisco moved to such a system, Carl Bettag said, “I think you’d get a lot of parents pulling their kids out of public schools and putting them in private schools. I’d pull my kids.”

Many educators fear losing support from affluent parents, who have the option to quit the public schools altogether and enroll their children in private schools — or flee to suburban schools. Harvey Milk Elementary principal Tracy Peoples said fundraising can create that kind of parental engagement.

“For schools like ours that do not qualify for additional funding based on test scores or student demographics, we depend on the parent community to step in to help raise additional funds for our students,” Peoples said.

Because the San Francisco Unified School District does not keep track of donations to PTAs, parents and educators have not had an accurate picture of how they factor into inequities among individual schools.

But as California moves this year to pour millions of dollars into diverse, high-poverty districts like San Francisco, parents and educators must ask themselves hard questions about which students were hurt most by five years of budgets cuts — and who was rescued by PTA fundraising.

Some parents have led a grassroots movement to counteract the inequities. Alvarado parent Todd David worked with peers in 2008 to launch EdMatch, a Web-based volunteer effort to enlist corporations and philanthropists to match funds raised for San Francisco public schools. The money was distributed to the most impoverished.

“EdMatch is a good system,” board president Rachel Norton said, “because it encourages people to voluntarily opt in, without penalizing parents who are working really hard.” But EdMatch, while noble in intent, has struggled more than five years to increase participation, raising only $100,000 last year — well short of its $6 million goal.

FROM CHARITY TO ADVOCACY The most effective solutions may be political, not charitable.

Reich counsels parents troubled by growing public-school inequities to turn their energies from giving to advocating for reform. He said they should work to raise tax rates for the wealthy, decouple school budgets from property taxes and target state and local resources to the poorest schools.

In a Sept. 4 op-ed for The New York Times, Stanford political science professor Rob Reich (no relation to the coincidentally named Robert Reich) went a step further, proposing that the federal government create a special charitable status for school-based PTAs, so that those who give to poor schools get double deductions and those who give to affluent schools get none.

Norton said the changes in state funding have sparked other possible reform ideas specific to San Francisco.

“We desperately need to reweight the student formula,” she said. This may be the most decisive battle to be waged in the next year on behalf of poor and immigrant schools such as Junipero Serra.

“A well-educated populace is the key to a healthy democracy,” said David, the Alvarado parent, who turned to full-time education activism after a successful Wall Street career. “Public education is an investment, not an expenditure. My grandparents were immigrants. They came to the United States, they got a public education, they lived the American dream. Education is the one way we know that can help each person rise, generation after generation. If you care about the future of America, education for all kids is in all our interests.”

Jeremy Adam Smith is a fellow with the Institute for Justice and Journalism. He edits the website of U.C. Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center and is author or coeditor of four books, including “The Daddy Shift,” “Rad Dad” and “The Compassionate Instinct.” His son briefly attended both Junipero Serra and Grattan.

1 Comment

<<Previous

Author

Archives

Categories