Citizens' Oversight Maryland---Maryland Progressives
CINDY WALSH FOR MAYOR OF BALTIMORE----SOCIAL DEMOCRAT
Citizens Oversight Maryland.com
  • Home
  • Cindy Walsh for Mayor of Baltimore
    • Mayoral Election violations
    • Questionnaires from Community >
      • Education Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Housing Questionnaire
      • Emerging Youth Questionnaire
      • Health Care policy for Baltimore
      • Environmental Questionnaires
      • Livable Baltimore questionnaire
      • Labor Questionnnaire
      • Ending Food Deserts Questionnaire
      • Maryland Out of School Time Network
      • LBGTQ Questionnaire
      • Citizen Artist Baltimore Mayoral Forum on Arts & Culture Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Transit Choices Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Activating Solidarity Economies (BASE)
      • Downtown Partnership Questionnaire
      • The Northeast Baltimore Communities Of BelAir Edison Community Association (BECCA )and Frankford Improvement Association, Inc. (FIA)
      • Streets and Transportation/Neighbood Questionnaire
      • African American Tourism and business questionnaire
      • Baltimore Sun Questionnaire
      • City Paper Mayoral Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Technology Com Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Biker's Questionnair
      • Homewood Friends Meeting Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Historical Collaboration---Anthem Project
      • Tubman City News Mayoral Questionnaire
      • Maryland Public Policy Institute Questionnaire
      • AFRO questionnaire
      • WBAL Candidate's Survey
  • Blog
  • Trans Pacific Pact (TPP)
  • Progressive vs. Third Way Corporate Democrats
    • Third Way Think Tanks
  • Financial Reform/Wall Street Fraud
    • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau >
      • CFPB Actions
    • Voted to Repeal Glass-Steagall
    • Federal Reserve >
      • Federal Reserve Actions
    • Securities and Exchange Commission >
      • SEC Actions
    • Commodity Futures Trading Commission >
      • CFTC Actions
    • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency >
      • OCC Actions
    • Office of Treasury/ Inspector General for the Treasury
    • FINRA >
      • FINRA ACTIONS
  • Federal Healthcare Reform
    • Health Care Fraud in the US
    • Health and Human Services Actions
  • Social Security and Entitlement Reform
    • Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP Actions
  • Federal Education Reform
    • Education Advocates
  • Government Schedules
    • Baltimore City Council
    • Maryland State Assembly >
      • Budget and Taxation Committee
    • US Congress
  • State and Local Government
    • Baltimore City Government >
      • City Hall Actions
      • Baltimore City Council >
        • Baltimore City Council Actions
      • Baltimore Board of Estimates meeting >
        • Board of Estimates Actions
    • Governor's Office >
      • Telling the World about O'Malley
    • Lt. Governor Brown
    • Maryland General Assembly Committees >
      • Communications with Maryland Assembly
      • Budget and Taxation Committees >
        • Actions
        • Pension news
      • Finance Committees >
        • Schedule
      • Business Licensing and Regulation
      • Judicial, Rules, and Nominations Committee
      • Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee >
        • Committee Actions
    • Maryland State Attorney General >
      • Open Meetings Act
      • Maryland Courts >
        • Maryland Court System
    • States Attorney - Baltimore's Prosecutor
    • State Comptroller's Office >
      • Maryland Business Tax Reform >
        • Business Tax Reform Issues
  • Maryland Committee Actions
    • Board of Public Works >
      • Public Works Actions
    • Maryland Public Service Commission >
      • Public Meetings
    • Maryland Health Care Commission/Maryland Community Health Resources Commission >
      • MHCC/MCHRC Actions
    • Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition
  • Maryland and Baltimore Development Organizations
    • Baltimore/Maryland Development History
    • Committee Actions
    • Maryland Development Organizations
  • Maryland State Department of Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Public Schools
    • Algebra Project Award
  • Baltimore City School Board
    • Charter Schools >
      • Charter Schools---Performance
      • Charter School Issues
    • Public Schools >
      • Public School Issues
  • Progressive Issues
    • Fair and Balanced Elections
    • Labor Issues
    • Rule of Law Issues >
      • Rule of Law
    • Justice issues 2
    • Justice Issues
    • Progressive Tax Reform Issues >
      • Maryland Tax Reform Issues
      • Baltimore Tax Reform Issues
    • Strong Public Education >
      • Corporate education reform organizations
    • Healthcare for All Issues >
      • Universal Care Bill by state
  • Building Strong Media
    • Media with a Progressive Agenda (I'm still checking on that!) >
      • anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com
      • "Talk About It" Radio - WFBR 1590AM Baltimore
      • Promethius Radio Project
      • Clearing the Fog
      • Democracy Now
      • Black Agenda Radio
      • World Truth. TV Your Alternative News Network.
      • Daily Censured
      • Bill Moyers Journal
      • Center for Public Integrity
      • Public Radio International
      • Baltimore Brew
      • Free Press
    • Far Left/Socialist Media
    • Media with a Third Way Agenda >
      • MSNBC
      • Center for Media and Democracy
      • Public Radio and TV >
        • NPR and MPT News
      • TruthOut
  • Progressive Organizations
    • Political Organizations >
      • Progressives United
      • Democracy for America
    • Labor Organizations >
      • United Workers
      • Unite Here Local 7
      • ROC-NY works to build power and win justice
    • Justice Organizations >
      • APC Baltimore
      • Occupy Baltimore
    • Rule of Law Organizations >
      • Bill of Rights Defense Committee
      • National Lawyers Guild
      • National ACLU
    • Tax Reform Organizations
    • Healthcare for All Organizations >
      • Healthcare is a Human Right - Maryland
      • PNHP Physicians for a National Health Program
      • Healthcare NOW- Maryland
    • Public Education Organizations >
      • Parents Across America
      • Philadelphia Public School Notebook thenotebook.org
      • Chicago Teachers Union/Blog
      • Ed Wize Blog
      • Educators for a Democratic Union
      • Big Education Ape
    • Elections Organizations >
      • League of Women Voters
  • Progressive Actions
    • Labor Actions
    • Justice Actions
    • Tax Reform Actions >
      • Baltimore Tax Actions
      • Maryland Tax Reform Actions
    • Healthcare Actions
    • Public Education Actions
    • Rule of Law Actions >
      • Suing Federal and State government
    • Free and Fair Elections Actions
  • Maryland/Baltimore Voting Districts - your politicians and their votes
    • 2014 ELECTION OF STATE OFFICES
    • Maryland Assembly/Baltimore
  • Petitions, Complaints, and Freedom of Information Requests
    • Complaints - Government and Consumer >
      • Sample Complaints
    • Petitions >
      • Sample Petitions
    • Freedom of Information >
      • Sample Letters
  • State of the Democratic Party
  • Misc
    • WBFF TV
    • WBAL TV
    • WJZ TV
    • WMAR TV
    • WOLB Radio---Radio One
    • The Gazette
    • Baltimore Sun Media Group
  • Misc 2
    • Maryland Public Television
    • WYPR
    • WEAA
    • Maryland Reporter
  • Misc 3
    • University of Maryland
    • Morgan State University
  • Misc 4
    • Baltimore Education Coalition
    • BUILD Baltimore
    • Church of the Great Commission
    • Maryland Democratic Party
    • Pennsylvania Avenue AME Zion Church
    • Maryland Municipal League
    • Maryland League of Women Voters
  • Untitled
  • Untitled
  • Standard of Review
  • Untitled
  • WALSH FOR GOVERNOR - CANDIDATE INFORMATION AND PLATFORM
    • Campaign Finance/Campaign donations
    • Speaking Events
    • Why Heather Mizeur is NOT a progressive
    • Campaign responses to Community Organization Questionnaires
    • Cindy Walsh vs Maryland Board of Elections >
      • Leniency from court for self-representing plaintiffs
      • Amended Complaint
      • Plaintiff request for expedited trial date
      • Response to Motion to Dismiss--Brown, Gansler, Mackie, and Lamone
      • Injunction and Mandamus
      • DECISION/APPEAL TO SPECIAL COURT OF APPEALS---Baltimore City Circuit Court response to Cindy Walsh complaint >
        • Brief for Maryland Court of Special Appeals >
          • Cover Page ---yellow
          • Table of Contents
          • Table of Authorities
          • Leniency for Pro Se Representation
          • Statement of Case
          • Questions Presented
          • Statement of Facts
          • Argument
          • Conclusion/Font and Type Size
          • Record Extract
          • Appendix
          • Motion for Reconsideration
          • Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss
          • Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
      • General Election fraud and recount complaints
    • Cindy Walsh goes to Federal Court for Maryland election violations >
      • Complaints filed with the FCC, the IRS, and the FBI
      • Zapple Doctrine---Media Time for Major Party candidates
      • Complaint filed with the US Justice Department for election fraud and court irregularities.
      • US Attorney General, Maryland Attorney General, and Maryland Board of Elections are charged with enforcing election law
      • Private media has a responsibility to allow access to all candidates in an election race. >
        • Print press accountable to false statement of facts
      • Polling should not determine a candidate's viability especially if the polling is arbitrary
      • Viability of a candidate
      • Public media violates election law regarding do no damage to candidate's campaign
      • 501c3 Organizations violate election law in doing no damage to a candidate in a race >
        • 501c3 violations of election law-----private capital
      • Voter apathy increases when elections are not free and fair
  • Maryland Board of Elections certifies election on July 10, 2014
  • Maryland Elections ---2016

November 30th, 2015

11/30/2015

0 Comments

 
This week I will look at corporate fraud and

HOW ARE OBAMA AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS DOING IN ENFORCING ALL THOSE FEDERAL LAWS THEY TOLD US WERE HOLDING CORPORATIONS ACCOUNTABLE?



Australia was one of the most progressive social democracies in the developed world------just a few decades ago and today-----it is totally controlled by global corporate neo-liberals. We saw how it happened in the US----all the lying, cheating, and stealing that makes it hard to know a democratic primary candidate. What we see below is what will take hold here in the US------we already see it at the national level and as this article states-----Dodd Frank placed protections for whistleblowers while posing progressive while absolutely nothing has been done to enforce these laws----SOUND FAMILIAR.


The point is this-----if we do not reverse this hold on the Democratic Party by Clinton/Obama neo-liberals we will see this corporate autocratic hold broaden-----it is critical and easy to reverse----

BE THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IN ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL PRIMARY ELECTIONS---THERE IS STILL TIME TO FILE.


'What is alarming is that even with the additional protection offered by SOX for corporate whistleblowers, the Wall Street Journal identified 300 whistle-blower employees who had filed claims against their previous employer for been penalised and none had been reinstated'.

*******************************************************

posted on 24 November 2015
Troublemakers And Traitors - It's No Fun Being A Whistleblower


from The Conversation
-- this post authored by Jeanette Van Akkeren and Julie-Anne Tarr, Queensland University of Technology
Death threats, smear campaigns and financial ruin - it may sound like a John Grisham novel, but the sad reality is that this has been the consequence for many public and corporate whistleblowers.


VA whistleblowers detail retaliation at hearing


07/08/14 03:33 PM--Updated 07/08/14 10:25 PM
facebook twitter 1 save share group 6
By Meredith Clark
Transfers, harassment, altered personnel records, mysterious breaks between paychecks.

Those are just some of the forms of retaliation described by four whistleblowers from four different regional VA systems, who testified Tuesday night before the House Veterans Affairs Committee. The hearing is likely to add to current Veterans Affairs secretary nominee Robert McDonald’s long list of agency problems that have come to light since news of the VA scandal broke in April.

****************************************************************
Veterans Affairs whistleblowers face 'long slog' in fighting retaliation
By Mark Flatten (@markflatten) • 5/22/14 10:45 AM
Retaliation comes quickly to whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Those who have revealed potentially lethal lapses in health care say they have been ridiculed, transferred, demoted and sometimes fired by agency managers attempting to cover up wrongdoing and silence anyone who dares challenge their dangerous practices.
The fates of those who have already stepped forward are critical now. The agency's inspector general is investigating reports across the country that patient records were falsified or destroyed to hide long wait times for medical care.
The IG is checking multiple allegations of phony appointment logs and other practices that endangered veterans' lives in 26 veterans' medical facilities nationwide.


Getting to the truth will depend in part on the willingness of rank-and-file employees to tell what they know, and have faith that they will be protected.
"My individual case is horrible," said Oliver Mitchell, a former Marine who in 2009 exposed the mass cancellation of medical appointments to hide long backlogs at the veterans’ hospital in Los Angeles.
Mitchell was stripped of his duties, put on administrative leave and eventually separated from the agency shortly after he reported the purging of medical appointments to the inspector general.
The IG closed Mitchell's complaint after VA officials claimed the "mass purge" of appointments was within policy. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the agency that is supposed to protect whistleblowers, also dropped his case.
Mitchell said he got no help from either office.



______________________________________________

What we saw right after this Dodd Frank 'attack on fraud' the SEC is pretending exists today------are these corporate agreements that say-----employees cannot be whistleblowers. Now, Rule of Law REQUIRES citizens to inform authorities when they know of crime ------if not, they are aiding and abetting these crimes.  It would be a quick act of Constitutional law for the SEC to say----THESE AGREEMENTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CANNOT STAND.

If you Google SEC and whistleblower cases you would think something is being done-----it is like the provisions in Medicare that state they are fighting Medicare fraud.  ALL OF THIS IS JUST PROGRESSIVE POSING.  The SEC and the Medicare Administration has done little to fight fraud or to encourage whistleblowers.



Agreements may discourage fraud reports

By Scott Higham , Kaley Belval
Monday, June 30th, 2014
In November 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy asked contract employees at the Hanford plutonium processing plant in Washington state to take an unusual oath.
The DOE wanted them to sign nondisclosure agreements that prevented them from reporting wrongdoing at the nation’s most contaminated nuclear facility without getting approval from an agency supervisor. The agreements also barred them from using any information for financial gain, a possible violation of federal whistleblower laws, which allow employees to collect reward money for reporting wrongdoing.
Donna Busche reluctantly signed the agreement.
“It was a gag order,” said Busche, 51, who served as the manager of environmental and nuclear safety at the Hanford waste treatment facility for a federal contractor until she was fired in February after raising safety concerns. “The message was pretty clear: ‘Don’t say anything to anyone, or else.’ ”
The company that fired Busche, URS, has said her termination was unrelated to her whistleblowing. Busche and another employee testified before Congress in March at a hearing called by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to examine the handling of whistleblowers at Hanford.
An Energy spokesman denied that the nondisclosure agreements violated federal law.
The DOE fully complies with the law,” Brendan Daly said. “We not only encourage but require contractors to report waste, fraud and abuse, with no retaliation.”
Lawyers who represent whistleblowers like Busche say they are seeing a rise in the use of overly restrictive nondisclosure agreements, which prevent employees from reporting fraud, even to government investigators. The agreements incorporate language that goes beyond those that had traditionally protected proprietary information, the attorneys said. In recent months, agreements criticized as overly restrictive have surfaced at Kellogg, Brown and Root, one of the nation’s largest defense contractors, and International Relief and Development, a nonprofit organization in Arlington County, Va. The nonprofit collected more than $1 billion in tax dollars for war-related projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the agreements at KBR, and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction is examining the agreements used by IRD. Both companies have denied wrongdoing, and IRD changed the wording of its agreements after they were written about in The Washington Post.
Fear of retaliation for reporting fraud in the workplace is on the rise, according to surveys of federal employees and workers on Wall Street. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is investigating reports that the Department of Veterans Affairs retaliated against 37 workers who had come forward with allegations of wrongdoing. Some of those employees had tried to report problems with the VA’s medical appointment scheduling system, which is now the subject of a growing national controversy.
The federal government has been encouraging whistleblowers to come forward and trying to protect them since the Civil War, when Congress passed the False Claims Act to punish war profiteers. Under the act, whistleblowers are entitled to collect a percentage of the fraud they uncover. In one of the largest such cases, American banker Bradley Birkenfeld reported secret deposits by U.S. citizens in the Swiss bank UBS. In 2012, he collected a $104 million bounty.
Other famous whistleblowers include Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon’s secret history of the Vietnam War to the New York Times; Karen Silkwood, who reported safety issues at a nuclear facility run by Kerr-McKee and died in a mysterious car crash; and A. Ernest Fitzgerald, an Air Force official during the Nixon administration who blew the whistle on widespread fraud at the Pentagon, including $400 hammers and $600 toilet seats.
Increased protectionPressure to bolster whistleblower laws and provide more protection for those who come forward mounted after reports of fraud in the banking and financial services industries that led to the Great Recession of 2007-09. In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which established the Office of the Whistleblower at the SEC. The law also created a bounty program at the SEC to pay whistleblowers.
On June 16, the new SEC whistleblower office announced that it had filed its first civil case, involving a whistleblower who accused a hedge fund of retaliation after the whistleblower reported improper trading activity. The hedge fund settled by paying a $2.2 million fine.
Nondisclosure agreements traditionally have been used to prevent employees from going to competitors and taking trade secrets with them. But lawyers for whistleblowers say they are seeing a dramatic increase in the number of potentially illegal agreements employees are being asked to sign since the Dodd-Frank law went into effect.
“Corporate America is becoming far more sophisticated and aggressive in its efforts to discourage people from coming forward and reporting externally,” said Jordan A. Thomas, who helped to establish the SEC’s whistleblower office as an assistant director there and now works for a New York law firm, Labaton Sucharow. One of his clients is the hedge-fund whistleblower.
Thomas said he has other clients who work for Wall Street firms that are under investigation by the SEC and were asked to sign overly restrictive nondisclosure agreements that prohibit or discourage them from cooperating with federal investigators.
Whistleblower experts say corporations are trying to shield themselves after the Dodd-Frank law by creating rigid internal reporting rules, such as requiring people to report wrongdoing to their supervisors at work before going to outside investigators. Companies are also asking workers to sign agreements that bar them from speaking out or benefiting from the bounty program.
“We are seeing a marked increase in an effort by employers to prevent their employees from speaking to regulators,” said David J. Marshall, a partner at Katz, Marshall & Banks, a whistleblower law firm in Washington. “As these whistleblower programs have grown more prominent, we have seen a growth in the number of types of agreements. They have a truly chilling effect on employees coming forward.”
'Deeply troubling’SEC officials say they are taking the reports seriously.

“I’m very concerned about these kinds of agreements,” said Stephen L. Cohen, associate director of the Division of Enforcement at the SEC. “It is likely that a lot of people are not coming to us because of these agreements. Anything that inhibits a person’s desire to come forward to tell us about violations of the law is deeply troubling.”
The SEC prohibits corporations from preventing workers from communicating with the agency about possible securities-law violations, “including enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement,” according to agency regulations.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, (R-Iowa), a leading advocate for whistleblowers, said he has discovered that most federal agencies have been failing to comply with anti-gag provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Under the 2012 act, federal agencies are required to notify employees that they are obligated to report fraud allegations, even if they have signed nondisclosure agreements.
Grassley’s office surveyed 15 Cabinet-level departments covering much of the federal workforce and found that most have not made that message clear to their workers.
“More than ever I’m hearing from whistleblowers about nondisclosure agreements being forced upon them by federal agencies.” Grassley said. “It’s a disturbing trend because federal law protects their right to make protected disclosures to Congress and inspectors general, among others. These agreements only serve to silence whistleblowers for fear of retribution.”
After the passage of Dodd-Frank and an earlier reform bill, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which imposed strict financial disclosure requirements on companies and improved protections for whistleblowers, U.S. corporations found themselves in uncharted legal territory, employment law experts say.
Many corporate executives say the Dodd-Frank legislation will discourage employees from reporting problems within their own companies to cash in on the SEC bounty program. And it could inspire employees to concoct fraudulent allegations, the executives say.
Employment lawyers say those fears may be unfounded.
“What we’ve seen is a siege mentality at corporations, where there is a fear that there will be a rush of people running to the authorities,” said Donna Boehme, the former chief compliance officer for BP who is now a leading national expert in the corporate compliance field. “Companies that care, they want people to come forward and they want people to feel safe. Companies that don’t care, they intentionally create a chilling effect.”
Boehme cited the nondisclosure agreements at KBR as a significant case study for corporate compliance officers and whistleblower lawyers.
In 2005, KBR contract employee Harry Barko, who was based in central Iraq, came forward to say he had witnessed fraud in a multibillion-dollar program awarded to the company to provide support services on U.S. military bases in Iraq. After Barko complained internally, he said his computer was confiscated at the request of the company’s legal department in Houston. He said KBR then tried to transfer him from the Al Asad Air Base to Baghdad.
“I was in the cross hairs,” Barko said in a recent interview.
He said he left Iraq, contacted a Washington law firm that specializes in whistleblower cases and filed a lawsuit against KBR and its parent company at the time, Halliburton. The companies are no longer affiliated. KBR has denied wrongdoing and is seeking to have Barko’s lawsuit dismissed.
Earlier this year, during a deposition in the lawsuit, KBR’s vice president of legal affairs disclosed the existence of a three-paragraph nondisclosure agreement the company had been using for internal fraud investigations.
The agreements prohibited employees seeking to report fraud from discussing their allegations without authorization from KBR’s general counsel. Employees also were warned that violations of the agreements could result in “termination of employment.”
KBR officials said the agreements were designed to protect the integrity of the internal review process, not to cover up wrongdoing. They also noted that KBR employees are encouraged to report allegations of fraud.

Since the agreements surfaced in February, Barko’s lawyer, Stephen M. Kohn, has been trying to force KBR to disclose all reports of fraud the company received relating to the logistics contract. KBR attorneys argued that those reports were protected by attorney-client privilege and should not be released.
A federal judge ruled earlier this year that the agreements were not protected, but a three-judge appellate court panel on Friday sided with KBR. Kohn said he plans to appeal.
Subtle changesWhile the KBR agreements use direct language, others that have been surfacing in the workplace are more subtle, whistleblower lawyers say. Some instruct employees to report wrongdoing to the company before alerting an outside agency. Others tell employees that they cannot collect monetary awards for fraud they uncover.
“There has been a shift from the traditional, sweeping gag orders to more disingenuous variations of these agreements,” said Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project, which represents numerous whistleblowers, including former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. “The techniques are becoming much more sophisticated, but they have the same chilling effect.”
Cohen, the SEC enforcement official, said his agency is paying attention to the kinds of nondisclosure agreements employees are being asked to sign.
“We have our eyes wide open,” Cohen said.
Kaley Belval is a researcher and reporter at the Investigative Reporting Workshop and is attached to The Post’s Investigative Unit through a program led by Workshop Senior Editor and Post investigative reporter John Sullivan.

_____________________________
'BUT THE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK AS INTENDED.

I call all these laws passed to quell citizens' outrage PROGRESSIVE POSING.  These global pols are simply passing laws at national, state, and local level with no intention of enforcing these laws.  Maryland is ground zero for this and Baltimore pols are usually the ones trying to pose progressive with laws that look to be social justice but are not.

This is a great concern as these global pols are trying to install government structures that will not even recognize US citizens as having rights or a US Constitution at all.  So, these Clinton/Obama neo-liberals are simply ignoring and failing to enforce laws because they think all structures requiring this will disappear with the Trans Pacific Trade Pact and International Economic Zone policies.

WE MUST HAVE DEMOCRATS RUNNING IN PRIMARIES SHOUTING FOR THIS ENDING OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION-----SOCIAL DEMOCRATS ENFORCE RULE OF LAW FOR WHITE COLLAR CRIMES THAT ALMOST ALWAYS TAKE FROM EMPLOYEES, TAXPAYERS, OR THE POOR.

Non-profit whistleblower organizations say that the US Department of Justice has laws in place to protect FBI whistleblowers from retaliation, but the system does not work as intended

.
WASHINGTON  — The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has laws in place to protect US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) whistleblowers from retaliation, but the system does not work as intended, non-profit whistleblower organizations told Sputnik.
“The Justice Department’s program for protecting FBI whistleblowers is broken and does not work,” National Whistleblowers Center Executive Director Steven Kohn said on Thursday.
“It can take over 10 years for a simple case to be processed and most cases are dismissed on technicalities,” Kohn added.
Kohn explained that one of the biggest problems with the existing law is that FBI agents can be fired after they reports misconduct to their supervisor.
Whistleblower Support Fund President and author of the book “Don’t Kill the Messenger” Donald Soeken said the FBI and other federal agencies are run top down, which creates a situation where whistleblowing is equated with disloyalty.



“Any part of the agency that gives assistance to whistleblowers is seen as disloyal,” he said. Those who support whistleblowers even though that is their job will be harmed for doing their job.”


Soeken, himself a whistleblower in 1978, said that the retaliation is real and those who have blown the whistle know they will end their career.
“You are told… ’We want ethical people in the government. We don’t want cheating.’ But when you do [blow the whistle], you find out they didn’t really mean it, because it involves your superiors,” Soeken said.
Kohn, however, pointed out that those FBI agents who become whistleblowers are blocked from going to court because no judicial review exists at present.
“We are challenging that in court right now. We are hoping that Congress will amend the law and fix these terrible problems,” Kohn said.
Soeken argued that new regulations on whistleblowing should be non-political, taken out of the Executive Branch and placed in an independent group like the National Labor Relations Board to administer the whistleblower laws.
The US Government Accountability Office said in a report published on Wednesday that the FBI does not have an adequate process in place to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. The DOJ has dismissed 44 out of 62 complaints of whistleblower retaliation, according to the report.
____________________________________________

I sat at a Maryland Assembly committee meeting about the fate of the State Insurance officials tied with the failures of Maryland's Health Insurance Internet website.  Part of the illegal actions fell on how subcontractors were hired and given no oversight and accountability.  What was striking with this committee meeting to grill these state employees on these violations of law was the apparent discomfort of those auditors who found all the wrongdoing in this state agency.

We are seeing not only employees witnessing wrongdoing facing retaliation for reporting crime-----we are seeing audit teams sent in for oversight and accountability feeling pressure for exposing this wrongdoing.  This is happening at all levels of government----Federal, state, and local as global corporate neo-liberals and neo-conservatives work exclusively to protect global corporations and their profits---NO MATTER HOW THOSE PROFITS WERE OBTAINED.



Business Headlines: Whistleblowers Not Protected; Cuts & Consequences

By Lisa van der Pool, Boston Business Journal February 8, 2012 7:32 AM

BOSTON (CBS) – The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a law protecting whistleblowers at publicly traded companies does not cover mutual fund employees.
The case involves two workers who used to work for Fidelity Investments.
Two plaintiffs say Fidelity came after them after they told regulators about illegal practices at the company.
But a court ruled mutual funds themselves have no employees and are not covered by a 2002 law passed to prevent financial fraud.


______________________________________________
Below you see what should be familiar to Maryland citizens----SARBANES OXLEY ACT.  This was an act sponsored by the father of today's John Sarbanes who famously told me when I asked why John was not shouting that Wall Street executives be prosecuted under crimes against Sarbanes-Oxley-----I DON'T FEEL THAT WAY TOWARDS BUSINESS.

Sarbanes Oxley was the low-hanging fruit for prosecuting all Wall Street bank executives-----the evidence was there----AND NOT ONE CONGRESSIONAL POLITICIAN SAID A WORD ABOUT ENFORCING SARBANES OXLEY----not even the son of the Democrat writing this law.

What is important to this conversation on protections for whistle-blowers found in Sarbanes Oxley----is none of this is being enforced as well.  It is this breakdown in enforcing of Federal law from Clinton ----to Bush---and now Obama-----that comes with global pols pretending our US Constitution does not exist and that global corporate tribunals will decide corporate law.

All of this is illegal and our pols thinking they can ignore all the enforcement of law are aiding and abetting fraud and corruption AND NEED TO GO.

We can reverse this easy peasy by getting rid of Wall Street global pols by running REAL SOCIAL DEMOCRATS IN ALL DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ELECTIONS.



Corporate Whistleblower Protection and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Authored by Adam Vukovic, LegalMatch Legal Writer


Locate a Local Employment LawyerMost Common Employment Law Issues:
  • Disabilities
  • Sexual Harassment
  • Employment Contracts
  • Wages and Overtime Pay
  • Employment Discrimination
  • Workplace Disputes
  • Pensions and Benefits
  • Wrongful Termination

Find a category or issue not listed

What Is a Whistleblower?

A “whistleblower” is someone, usually an employee, who reports an employer who has broken the law to an outside agency. Whistleblowers are protected by federal and state laws. Employers may not retaliate against them for reporting misconduct. Whistleblowers may not be fired or otherwise mistreated, and in some instances the government may reimburse them for costs incurred as a result of reporting.  
Which Laws Protect Whistleblowers?

Whistleblowers are protected by a variety of state and federal laws. The main federal law that protects whistleblowers is the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act allows employees to report instances involving fraudulent or false reports made to the government. It also protects informers from retaliation by their employer. The False Claims Act deals mainly with the federal government and federal contractors. Several states also have their own versions of False Claims Acts. Check with your local or state government to see if your state has a False Claims Act.


What Is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and How Does It Protect Whistleblowers?

A newer law provides protection for whistleblowers who are employed in a publicly traded company such as a corporation. This law is called the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002," commonly referred to as “SOX”. 
Companies covered by the Act are those that are registered under the Securities Exchange Act and those that are required to file reports with the Securities Exchange Commission. The Act also covers actions made by contractors or agents of the corporation.  
SOX was implemented in response to widespread fraud being practiced by large corporations at the time. Most people associate SOX with issues such as improper corporate governance and accounting issues. However, SOX also contains a major provision which deals with whistleblowers in a corporate setting. Employers can file a claim under SOX against an employer who has violated the law. Like other federal statutes, SOX also protects such whistleblowers from employer retaliation.


Which Specific Sections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Address Whistleblowing?

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act expanded the protection provided previously by the False Claims Act into the area of corporate organizations. SOX provided three major additions to the area of corporate whistleblower law: 
  • Instituting Reporting Procedures- Section 302of the Act requires publicly held companies to institute a venue for handling reports made by anonymous whistle-blowers. This section requires audit committees to establish and institute procedures for employees who wish to report questionable practices while remaining anonymous
  • Investigations- Section 806 of SOX requires that any investigation conducted after a complaint is filed must not involve any threats of discharge, demotion, suspension or harassment against a person who has acted lawfully in reporting evidence of company fraud
  • Criminal Offense- Section 1107 of the Act makes it a criminal offense for employers to retaliate against informants. According to this section, retaliating against an informant can result in significant fines and/or a prison sentence of up to 10 years
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been instrumental in updating whistleblower laws. Violations of the act can lead to strict penalties for the organization. A new section has been introduced in the federal criminal penal code dealing with retaliation against whistleblowers. Title 18, section 1513(e) of the U.S. Code (USC) also makes retaliation a criminal offense punishable by fines and up to 10 years in prison.


What Kinds of Actions by the Employer Constitute Retaliation?

An employee’s actions are considered to be retaliation if their employee’s lawful reporting was a contributing factor in the decision to take “unfavorable” action. Unfavorable retaliatory action can include:
  • Discharging or laying off (firing) the employee
  • Placing the employee on a blacklist (“do not hire” list)
  • Demotion from a position
  • Pay reductions or reductions in hours
  • Withholding of wages, overtime pay, or promotions
  • Denying benefits
  • Not hiring or rehiring the person
  • Intimidating, harassing, or otherwise mistreating the employee
  • Reassignment to an unsuitable post or position

What Remedies Does a Whistleblower have under the Act?

A person who was retaliated against for whistleblowing may be entitled to the following remedies: 
  • Being hired or rehired
  • Restoration of benefits that were previously denied
  • Payment of back wages owed, plus interest
  • Restoration to position of seniority
  • Compensation for lost benefits such as retirement, vacation, or sick leave
  • Special damages for losses indirectly caused by the retaliation (such as emotional distress or damage to professional reputation)
  • Attorney’s fees and litigations expenses such as expert witness fees
  • “Affirmation”- letters of apology to the aggrieved employee
  • Other compensation that will help the employee be “made whole” again

How do I File a Claim If I Have been Retaliated against as a Whistleblower?

Aggrieved employees must first file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) before they are allowed to file suit in a civil court. Filing a complaint with OSHA requires:
  • A written complaint must be submitted to OSHA within 90 days of the violation (when the employee became aware of the retaliation).
  • After the complaint is received, OSHA will review the complaint to determine whether an investigation is necessary
  • After investigations, OSHA will determine whether the employer is guilty and if a settlement can be reached in order to compensate the employee
  • If an agreement cannot be reached after 180 days after filing the complaint, the employee may then sue in a state or federal court
  • OSHA decisions are final and the person filing the complaint has 30 days to appeal any decisions. Appeals are heard before an administrative law judge or before OSHA’s review board



0 Comments

November 30th, 2015

11/30/2015

0 Comments

 
PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT EACH OF THE STATUS QUO BALTIMORE CANDIDATES----NONE OF THEM GIVE A PLATFORM OF ISSUES-----BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR PEOPLE HAVING ALREADY SET THEIR AGENDA---BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND JOHNS HOPKINS.


Each election season in Baltimore the race for Baltimore falls mostly on how many voters each candidate can get to come to the polls----and with only 17-20% of registered Democratic voters willing to do that----this critical Executive position goes to people with only the best networking skills.

Sheila Dixon for Mayor
BUILDING A BETTER BALTIMORE

She began serving her West Baltimore neighbors on the City Council in 1987 before being elected City Council President in 1999, the first African-American women to hold the citywide position. She became the 48th Mayor of the city of Baltimore in January 2007, succeeding Mayor Martin O’Malley.
In public service, Sheila Dixon worked to create a cleaner, greener, healthier, and safer Baltimore. As Mayor she created the gun offender registry, the single stream recycling program, and the popular Downtown Circulator. Her policies led to improved birth outcomes and expanded early childhood education, as well as 30 year record lows in crime and record highs in miles of newly paved roads.
Mayor Dixon also created initiatives such as the 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, Cleaner Greener Baltimore, Fit Baltimore, PEACE Baltimore, and the Neighborhood Ambassador program. She was an active member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and Mayors Against Illegal Guns and a national leader on combating homelessness.
Sheila Dixon has been a strong advocate for many public health issues, including HIV/AIDS, breast cancer and lead poisoning in children. She is an avid athlete with a rigorous weekly fitness routine. Beyond her concern for her personal health and fitness, she is an advocate for programs that improve children's health through a more nutritional diet and exercise routine.

_________________________________________________

About Carl Stokes

For more than two decades Carl Stokes has sought to improve the quality of life for Baltimore residents and provide educational opportunities for children.
Councilman Stokes was a successful businessman, having managed and ultimately purchased a chain of retail clothing stores, before being elected to represent the then second district on the Baltimore City Council in 1987.
During his two terms on the council, Mr. Stokes was a recognized expert in budget issues and on education.
He left the council in 1995 but in the same year accepted an appointment by the Governor of Maryland and the Mayor of Baltimore to serve on the newly reconstituted Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners.
He is a former vice president of Mid-Atlantic Health Care, one of the region’s leading providers of medical equipment and supplies and formerly served as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of The Bluford Drew Jemison STEM Academy, a public charter middle school for boys founded in 2006 and opened in 2007 in East Baltimore.
In 2008, after only operating for one full year, Bluford Drew Jemison STEM Academy students scored above every traditional Baltimore City middle school in Maryland statewide testing.
Councilman Stokes serves as the chair of the Taxation, Finance and Economic Decelopment Committee, vice chair of the Education and Executive Appointments committees and is a member of two additional standing committees of the Baltimore City Council.
He is an active parishioner of Saint Francis Xavier Roman Catholic Church and is the father of two daughters, Carla and Erika.
Councilman Stokes is a lifelong resident of Baltimore City.

___________________________________________


Catherine Pugh
An Engaged Leader


Senator Catherine Pugh has been a public servant for over 15 years. She served as a member of the Baltimore City Council, representing the 4th district (1999-2003). During her tenure as Council Member, Senator Pugh served as: Chair of the Taxation Subcommittee on Economic Development, Vice-Chair of the Land Use & Planning Committee and member of the Urban Affairs Committee. In 2005 she was appointed to the Maryland General Assembly, House of Delegates, where she served for one year before running for her Senate seat in 2006. Senator Pugh’s abilities to negotiate and her bipartisan approach have catapulted her into various leadership positions in the Maryland Senate. She currently serves as the Majority Leader. Named Legislator of the Year (2010) by the City Paper, Senator Pugh has passed over 150 pieces of legislation.
Giving Back She has worked tirelessly to put forward thoughtful policy solutions that result in a better quality of life for Baltimore. Under her leadership, over the past four years, the 40th District Delegation has given over one million dollars in academic scholarships to Baltimore youth. She helped pass legislation to raise the Maryland minimum wage for working families. Senator Pugh is the visionary, co-founder and Chair of the Baltimore Design School, a public school for sixth through twelfth graders, and a founder of the Baltimore Marathon, which is in its fifteenth year and has over a $30 million impact on the city. She also created the Fish out of Water Project, which has raised one million dollars to wire city schools and provided music instruments for children. Senator Pugh has served on several boards, including the University of Maryland Medical Systems and the Council of State Governments.
A Lifetime Of BusinesAn entrepreneur by trade, she is President of CEPugh and Company, a marketing and public relations firm. She has worked as a banker, business developer, Dean and Director of Strayer Business College, Special Editor for the Baltimore Sun, and as a television and radio news reporter and talk show host. She is the author of Mind Garden: Where Thoughts Grow and Healthy Holly, a series of children’s books advocating exercise and healthy eating.
A Few, of Many AchievemeSenator Pugh holds an MBA from Morgan State University and has received qualification from the University of California as an Economic Development Specialist. She has been recognized for her leadership and commitment to diversity and inclusion by numerous organization both local and nationally to include: The United State Small Business Advocate of the Year, The National Association of Securities Professionals Joyce Johnson Award, The NAACP Legislator of the Year, The Mental Health Associations Legislator of the Year, and the African Methodist Episcopal Church’s Living Legacy Award, to name a few.

______________________________________________



NICK MOSBY


Building from his own experiences as a father, husband, and member of the community, he knows that a stable job and fair wages make a big difference in the health and happiness of the entire family. That’s why one of Nick’s highest priorities is to bring businesses to Baltimore that will offer gainful employment to its residents. Forward thinking, Nick will bring 21st century solutions to the age-old problems that plague many Baltimoreans. Using the same methods he learned working with Fortune 500 telecom companies, managing 7-figure budgets, navigating City Hall, and hearing directly from his fellow residents, Nick is well suited to make city government more effective.

Councilman Mosby is a man of the people and a man for the people. Raised with strong Christian values by his mother, the late Eunice Orange, Nick is a member of New Psalmist Baptist Church. He is also an active member of the Reservoir Hill Community, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Incorporated, and board member of Congressmen Elijah Cummings Youth Programs and Baltimore City Community Foundation. He resides in Reservoir Hill and is happily married to the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, Marilyn Mosby. Together, they are the proud parents of two young daughters.

_____________________________________________



WALSH FOR BALTIMORE CITY MAYOR PLATFORM ISSUES:

TRANS PACIFIC AND ATLANTIC TRADE DEALS---TPP are illegal and a corporate COUP on WE THE PEOPLE AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS---a re-write of the US Constitution that must stop.

STRONG LABOR LEGISLATION - wage, benefits, unions, workplace rights and safety

STRONG RULE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR WHITE COLLAR CRIME - business fraud, entitlement fraud, government contract enforcement, rebuilding criminal justice system for monitoring, investigating, and prosecuting white collar crime, reclaiming money lost through fraud, and civil/social justice upheld




STRONG EQUAL PROTECTION LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR CIVIL, LABOR, DISABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS-------policing, education, housing, health care, workplace and wage protections

STRONG PROGRESSIVE TAX REFORM FOR INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS -  No Buffett Rule for us......we don't want the rich paying as much as we do, maintaining income inequality..... we want to reverse income inequality with high rates at the top.  Global corporations pay more taxes than small business and you and I

STRONG HEALTHCARE FOR ALL - ending the incredible waste and fraud, large profit-margins for healthcare and Pharma institutions and doctors,  expanding Medicare as the single-payer plan

STRONG PUBLIC  EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FROM K - COLLEGE - we say 'no' to giving charters and for-profit schools more than just a small chunk of public money, yes to maintaining democratic and equal opportunity education, and tuition that is affordable.

CREATION OF A STATE PUBLIC BANKING SYSTEM to provide Maryland citizens a choice in taking money out of the Wall Street financial system and to place all public state funds.  The State of Vermont has started this process.

NO TO PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS- privatizing all that is public and handing all writing of public policy to private corporate entities.  This is corporate welfare and ends public participation in policy.



NO TO PRIVATIZING ALL OUR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION----we must have regulated utilities locally operated and preferably public including water, waste, energy.

NO TO MORTGAGING OUR STATE FUTURE WITH WALL STREET FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND CORPORATE TAX BREAKS

NET NEUTRALITY - the internet is a utility necessary to everyone's life and needs to be regulated for equal access.  This does not stifle innovation.

0 Comments

November 28th, 2015

11/28/2015

 
We spent all week speaking about public safety and public justice issues with a wide range of issues falling under this umbrella effecting all citizens in Baltimore and Maryland.  We talked about how important issues like employment, public schools, workplace protections, and  privacy are to the ability of citizens to feel free to shout out and use their voices for accessing public justice.  We know all of the above is what drives crime and violence in any community especially in Baltimore. 

PUBLIC SAFETY IS MORE THAN CRIME AND VIOLENCE.  IF A SOCIETY HAS GOTTEN TO THE POINT THAT POVERTY, CRIME, AND VIOLENCE DEFINES ALL FOCUS REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE----THE ENTIRE US CONSTITUTION AND EQUAL PROTECTION HAS BEEN ELIMINATED.

I will use this weekend for elections to out Maryland Assembly pols who pass all kinds of laws that kill employment,, public schools, workplace protections, and privacy in Baltimore and spend all their time seeing public safety and justice as defined by crime and violence.  I spent all 2015 Maryland Assembly sitting in on as many legislative committee meetings as I could to hear what the discussions were.  Every one involved taking more public justice away from citizens in Baltimore----every one involved more ways to contain, arrest, and detain citizens in Baltimore.  All this comes from Wall Street Baltimore Development and a very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins with a singular focus on moving working class and poor out of Baltimore and moving NEW people into Baltimore.  There is never any discussion about lifting citizens in Baltimore.

Below you see lots of Baltimore City pols on this public safety committee.  The simplest thing to do to fight crime and violence in Baltimore is to end outsourcing of public works-----rebuilding local communities with all the money being sent to Enterprise Zones downtown and East Baltimore Johns Hopkins----rebuilding Rule of Law and oversight and accountability so that all of the Federal, state, and local revenue sent to BAltimore is not lost to fraud and corruption but is dispersed equally amongst communities. 

THERE IS PLENTY OF MONEY IN BALTIMORE -----THERE ARE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR JOBS IN BALTIMORE-----THERE COULD EASILY BE PLENTY OF HOMEOWNERSHIP IN BALTIMORE----THERE COULD BE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN ALL COMMUNITIES IN BALTIMORE----

If Baltimore pols in the Maryland Assembly and Baltimore City Council stopped working for a Republican MASTER PLAN and Republican institutions with a goal of International Economic Zone impoverishment.




Maryland General Assembly
Public Safety and Policing Workgroup



AGENDA
Monday, June 8, 2015
1:00 p.m.
Judiciary Hearing Room
Room 101, House Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland
I. Introductions
II. Presentations
• Law Enforcement Overview
(Department of Legislative Services)
• Overview of Police Training and Certification
(J. Michael Zeigler, Police and Correctional Training Commissions)
III. Discussion of Work Plans for Future Meetings
IV. Adjournment
*********************************************************

Senate Co-Chair: Senator Catherine E. Pugh
House Co-Chair: Delegate Curt Anderson


Senator Pugh, Catherine E. (Senate Co-Chair)
Delegate Anderson, Curt (House Co-Chair)
Senator Conway, Joan Carter
Senator Guzzone, Guy
Senator Hough, Michael J.
Senator Jennings, J. B.
Senator McFadden, Nathaniel J.
Senator Norman, Wayne
Senator Ramirez, Victor R.
Senator Raskin, Jamie
Senator Zirkin, Bobby A.
Delegate Atterbeary, Vanessa E.
Delegate Clippinger, Luke
Delegate Folden, William
Delegate Hayes, Antonio L.
Delegate Jackson, Michael A.
Delegate Oaks, Nathaniel T.
Delegate Pena-Melnyk, Joseline A.
Delegate Wilson, Brett
Delegate Wilson, C. T.


*************************************************************
Baltimore City Council -----

PUBLIC SAFETYWarren Branch – Chair
Brandon M. Scott – Vice Chair
Eric Costello
Sharon Green Middleton
Nick Mosby
   Staff: Marshall Bell


____________________________________________

There has never been so many cuts to social services, programs, people fired or forced to retire----never so much subprime mortgage fraud, unconstitutional taxation policy, and policies aimed at taking Baltimore citizens' houses for gentrification than any time in history as has occurred last decade under Bush and now this decade under Obama.  It was literally a war against middle-class and working class wealth with pushing of the poor into deeper poverty.  It was deliberate.

The people we elect are in office to protect and serve the citizens in their districts.  If those districts are heavily working class and poor----then politicians would have been shouting-----would have been educating----would have been fighting in Baltimore City Hall to combat these Wall Street Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins plans all creating the motivation behind this war.

It is because Democratic voters allowed themselves to be fooled by Republican politicians who decided to run as Democrats to take control of the people's party and move it to right-wing policy.  When a heavily black, working class and poor city has politicians working for a very neo-conservative Republican set of institutions like Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins ----it took every right as citizens -----it took away public policy voice ------it took away power to control what communities were to look like after development.

The media advisory below is always the same-----bad guys with guns---communities in fear of violence.  Public justice and safety involve education-----health care-----environment----housing------employment------healthy local economies-----strong public services and programs.  To take all this away is a very, very, very Republican thing to do.  To connect all of City Hall public agencies to corporate boards and remove them from communities is a very Republican thing to do.

ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE TALKED ABOUT EVERY ELECTION IN WHAT I CALL PROGRESSIVE POSING AND CITIZENS KNOW IT IS POSING BECAUSE ALL OF THE ABOVE NEVER COME TO THEIR COMMUNITIES.

Please stop allowing very neo-conservative Republican policies control a city that should be very social Democratic. We need every Baltimore politician out of office in 2016 by running REAL social Democrats in all Democratic primaries!


MEDIA ADVISORY                                              

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 

Baltimore City Council Public Safety Committee to hold hearing on City Violence 
Committee Utilizing Legislative Oversight Authority to Have Police Report on Recent Uptick in Violence, and Summer Deployment Plans. 
BALTIMORE—Today,  the Baltimore City Council's Public Safety Committee will hold a hearing for LO13-0066  referred to the Baltimore Police Department. LO13-0066 requests that Baltimore Police Department report to the committee on the recent uptick in violence in Baltimore, as homicides are up 7% and non-fatal shootings are up 5% versus last year according to Baltimore Police Data. Moreover, the city is coming off of a very unfortunate weekend where 20 individuals were shot. The committee will also be updated on the Baltimore Police Department's summer deployment plan. 
Committee Vice Chair Brandon M. Scott said "Ensuring the public safety of it's citizens is one of the most important core responsibilities of any government. Legislative Oversight is the council's tool to hold the appropriate agencies accountable and to make sure that they are operating with the best interest of the citizens of Baltimore at heart. A weekend like we just had in our city is unacceptable. We must make sure that the police department remains focused on violent repeat offenders and other factors that have helped us reach historic lows of violence in our city. However, these incidents are also a call for all of us to do more to make our city the safest place it can be."


WHO: Baltimore City Council Public Safety Committee
WHAT:  Committee will Hold a Legislative Oversight Hearing About the Recent Uptick in Violence, and Summer Deployment Plans in Baltimore.
WHERE: Du Burns Council Chambers, 4th Floor, City Hall, 100 North Holliday Street.
WHEN: Today, Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 6:00pm

November 27th, 2015

11/27/2015

0 Comments

 
There is plenty more about which to talk on the subject of public safety/justice but I will end for now with what will become the next toxic crisis in just a few decades if allowed to continue without oversight and accountability----FRACKING AND NATURAL GAS.

Maryland had a Governor O'Malley who served as head of Governor's Association and his job was to promote exporting natural gas  even as he posed progressive with 'exploratory fracking' to frack 'safely'.
It is likely those state funding of millions in exploring the effects on Marcellus Aquifer were used to find the best producing real estate for this drilling and make sure connected people own the land.  Fracking is to environmental devastation as Wall Street looting of US Treasuries and people's pockets of tens of trillions of dollars in fraud is to the crippling implosion of the US economy. 

THESE ACTIONS ARE THE SAME-- DONE BY THE SAME NATIONAL LEADERS WITH NO MORALS, ETHICS, NO SENSE OF RULE OF LAW, AND ABSOLUTELY NO CARE ABOUT CONSEQUENCES.


You know you have global corporate pols leading in government when the term 'green energy' can be applied to fracking.  There is nothing 'green' about fracking and it is the only way to extract natural gas in quantities to prove a viable energy source.  So, the point to consider is this-----

if fracking is so harmful why would we want to export and drive production sky high?  Why not simply extract what the US needs over a long period of time?


The answer is simple----we have national leaders working for global corporations that only want a few to become extremely rich as fast as they can----these are not US politicians----since US politicians would work for what is best for the nation....they are Clinton/Obama global corporate neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons.


Look below to see what is actually happening as politicians are posing progressive by calling natural gas sustainable against Climate Change.  They are telling Americans that this is reducing CO2 when in fact the fracking process is creating a CO2 toxic mix underground while releasing tons of methane ----WORSE THAN CO2----ALL OVER THE WORLD.


'The problem with this overlap, the researchers found, is that shale-gas extraction involves fracturing rock that could be needed as an impenetrable cover to hold CO2 underground permanently and prevent it from leaking back into the atmosphere'.


Sustainability


Fracking Would Emit Large Quantities of Greenhouse Gases

"Fugitive methane" released during shale gas drilling could accelerate climate change
  • By Mark Fischetti on January 20, 2012
Add methane emissions to the growing list of environmental risks posed by fracking.
Opposition to the hydraulic fracturing of deep shales to release natural gas rose sharply last year over worries that the large volumes of chemical-laden water used in the operations could contaminate drinking water. Then, in early January, earthquakes in Ohio were blamed on the disposal of that water in deep underground structures. Yesterday, two Cornell University professors said at a press conference that fracking releases large amounts of natural gas, which consists mostly of methane, directly into the atmosphere—much more than previously thought.
Robert Howarth, an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, and Anthony Ingraffea, a civil and environmental engineer, reported that fracked wells leak 40 to 60 percent more methane than conventional natural gas wells. When water with its chemical load is forced down a well to break the shale, it flows back up and is stored in large ponds or tanks. But volumes of methane also flow back up the well at the same time and are released into the atmosphere before they can be captured for use. This giant belch of "fugitive methane" can be seen in infrared videos taken at well sites.
Molecule for molecule, methane traps 20 to 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than does carbon dioxide. The effect dissipates faster, however: airborne methane remains in the atmosphere for about 12 years before being scrubbed out by ongoing chemical reactions, whereas CO2 lasts 30 to 95 years. Nevertheless, recent data from the two Cornell scientists and others indicate that within the next 20 years, methane will contribute 44 percent of the greenhouse gas load produced by the U.S. Of that portion, 17 percent will come from all natural gas operations.
Currently, pipeline leaks are the main culprit, but fracking is a quickly growing contributor. Ingraffea pointed out that although 25,000 high-volume shale-gas wells are already operating in the U.S., hundreds of thousands are scheduled to go into operation within 20 years, and millions will be operating worldwide, significantly expanding emissions and keeping atmospheric methane levels high despite the 12-year dissipation time.
Howarth said he is particularly concerned about fracking emissions because recent data indicates that the planet is entering a period of rapid climate change. He noted that the average global temperature compared with the early 1900s is now expected to increase by 1.5 degrees Celsius within the next 15 to 35 years, which he called "a tipping point" toward aggressive climate change. More and more fracking would speed the world to that transition or undermine efforts to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The notion, Ingraffea said, that shale gas is a desirable "bridge fuel" from oil to widespread renewable energy supplies several decades from now "makes no sense" in terms of climate change.
Howarth and Ingraffea spoke from Cornell, where they also released a paper (pdf) that is about to be published by the journal Climatic Change, which details their analysis. It follows up on a paper they published in April 2011 that comprehensively analyzed emissions from fracking. The gas industry disputes that paper. So does Cornell geologist Lawrence Cathles, in a commentary in Climatic Change. He estimates that fugitive emissions are only 10 percent of what Howarth and Ingraffea maintain, and that shale gas would indeed be a good replacement for home heating oil and for coal used in power plants.
Capturing the big belch of gas could prevent the problem. Ingraffea said capture is difficult because the gas is emitted along with the flow-back water, but a procedure known as a "green completion," in which special equipment traps the gas, has been shown to work. Regulators do not require that step, however, and the market price of methane is less than the cost of capturing it in that way, so drillers have no incentive to do so for economic reasons.

__________________________

Looking locally people are separated from what this means to them thinking this is just some far away problem.  Pumping CO2 into the ground in lieu of water is being done not for safe storage of CO2 from coal fire power plants as Maryland allows to operate----it is being done because there is not enough water in the world to do all this fracking.  They are creating huge underground compressed CO2 pits that all scientists already no will leak---will explode----releasing much of the CO2 they are pretending to be 'storing'.  The damage to Climate Change will be profound----and the health damages from low-lying high concentration CO2 will be a reality.

Keep in mind----these are the same sociopaths that allowed all of our water and sewer pipe systems to go without repair to the point of crumbling infrastructure now telling us this huge network of natural gas pipeline known for the capacity of explosion and pipeline failure

WILL BE EFFECTIVELY CONTAINED AND NO SAFETY HAZARD TO COMMUNITIES UNDER WHICH THESE PIPELINES ARE BEING BUILT.

Below you see what no one needing to be a rocket scientist can answer-----if you break the shale to frack you will not have a solid shale seal to contain the injected CO2  FOR GOODNESS SAKE.


How Fracking Could Disrupt CO2 Sequestration

April 6, 2012 | 5:18 PM
By Susan Phillips


STR/AFP/Getty Images
A technician stands in front of the Krechba carbon capture and sequestration treatment plant in Algeria.
The goal of carbon dioxide sequestration is to bury the harmful greenhouse gas thousands of feet underground. The goal of fracking is to release natural gas from deeply buried deposits. So, can the two coexist within close range? A recent study published in February by two Princeton University engineering professors tries to answer that question with their paper “Potential Restrictions for CO2 Sequestration Sites Due to Shale and Tight Gas Production.”
“Production of natural gas from shale and other tight formations involves fracturing the shale with the explicit objective to greatly increase the permeability of the shale. As such, shale gas production is in direct conflict with the use of shale formations as a caprock barrier to CO2 migration.”
Shale is considered a good lid to keep the CO2 from leaking back out into the atmosphere. But hydraulic fracturing, using high pressured water to fracture the rock, and sand to keep those fractures open, could end up poking holes in that lid. It all depends on how much CO2 sequestration happens near frack jobs. And that’s what the researchers, T.R. Eliot and M.A. Celia, looked at.
“These analyses indicate that colocation of deep saline aquifers with shale and tight gas production could significantly affect the sequestration capacity for CCS operations. This suggests that a more comprehensive management strategy for subsurface resource utilization should be developed.”
___________________________________________

Here you see a global sale of fracking making this CO2 sequestration sound so 'green'=====a win-win for the world!

What is does is create the illusion that coal-fired power plants are now not so bad because all the CO2 will be buried and aid in the 'green' fracking.

ALL THIS FROM A 'SHIP OF FOOLS'. 

This is what happens when we allow global pols to stay in office and to corporatize our public universities so we have no research shouting all this is crazy and unnecessary.


So, because fracking requires more water than can possibly be found on earth to drive the fracking process------Wall Street needs to sell this idea of CO2 sequestration as a good thing providing reports saying as such THAT ARE NOT TRUE.



Fracking Industry Finds a New Savior


Published Mon, Dec 1, 2014  |  Karim Rahemtulla
Share on facebook  Share

Carbon dioxide is harmful to the atmosphere and the leading cause of pollution. Even countries like China and India recognize that they need to reduce their carbon footprints.
Still, few countries are willing to give up coal as it’s the cheapest and most plentiful source of energy. So the industry is looking to “clean coal” as a solution.
As I told readers last week, though, clean coal isn’t really… well, clean. That’s just spin put on by the coal industry to lessen the negative impact of carbon emissions in the public eye. Carbon dioxide, the by-product of burning coal, doesn’t just disappear.
But there’s another lesser-known use for the gas – one that could end up being the saving grace for the coal and fracking industries in the United States.
Savior Rising From the MistsFracking for oil and gas requires the propulsion of water and chemicals at very high rates of pressure into shale rock formations. This high pressure essentially loosens the oil and gas that’s lodged in tight crevices and forces them to the surface.
While the U.S. fracking industry is successful enough to spook the Middle East, the industry is still facing a problem.
You see, the water used has to be relatively clean, and it cannot be re-used without very expensive treatments. On top of that, the chemicals used with the water have environmentalists up in arms. They say there’s a risk of groundwater contamination.
Fortunately, a solution could enter soon from stage left.
Companies like General Electric (GE) are experimenting with using carbon dioxide – the same pollution-exploding by-product of coal gasification and coal burning – in part of the fracking process.
During tests, the gas is highly compressed and shot into the shale formation. This creates pressure that pushes oil and gas out of the tight formations, just like when water is used.
This sounds like the perfect solution for both the coal and fracking industries… and it just might be.
The gas can be highly compressed and applied at a higher pressure, making it more efficient – and the fracking industry can reduce its reliance on water.
In turn, the coal industry can sequester noxious carbon dioxide gas. Theoretically, the carbon dioxide that’s shot into the ground should be captured in the formation and unable to return to the surface or atmosphere in a gaseous form. Plus, any gas that does come up can be reused, unlike with water.
Unfortunately, there are hurdles that are preventing this method from being a near-term solution.
Forgiving the Sins of CO2One of the biggest problems is that there are no pipelines for carbon dioxide that can transport the gas to the various shale regions. That means major infrastructure projects would need to be funded. Carbon dioxide can be transported in trucks, but that’s also very expensive.
As a solution, GE is working with Statoil (STO), the giant Norwegian oil and gas company, to formulate a super-critical fluid – a chilled version of carbon dioxide that’s neither a liquid nor a solid. The hope is that this formula will become the standard when it’s correctly formulated.
This method is just the beginning of finding a real solution to the carbon emissions problem.
The United States was already leading the way with carbon sequestration and filtering technology. Now, there’s even more incentive to move forward with a clean coal solution, as repurposing carbon dioxide gas will help in our quest for energy independence.
Bottom line: What’s now considered a pariah could very well become a savior in the not-too-distant future.
And “the chase” continues,
Karim Rahemtulla


_____________________________________
What WE THE PEOPLE already know is that government controlled by global corporate pols neglect infrastructure until is is crumbling ----they do not monitor or provide oversight and accountability since these Federal, state, and local agencies have been defunded and dismantled.  They will simply allow things to go until the damage being done from decaying pipelines becomes politically unsustainable.  Think if these global pols manage to keep hold of power---they won't care what citizens think.

Using pipeline for oil is far different----oil is less combustible.  That means it will not explode and leakage can be contained with some cleanup.  Natural gas is VERY combustible-----it will become airborne and that is why when there is a problem there are often major injuries and/or death.

So, the record so far may not be a problem because pipelines are relatively new----but the number of incidents are growing as these pipelines are brought through our communities.


'One of the biggest problems contributing to leaks and ruptures is pretty simple: pipelines are getting older. More than half of the nation's pipelines are at least 50 years old. Last year in Allentown Pa., a natural gas pipeline exploded underneath a city street, killing five people who lived in the houses above and igniting a fire that damaged 50 buildings. The pipeline – made of cast iron – had been installed in 1928'.


This article is long but please glance through:

Pipelines Explained: How Safe are America’s 2.5 Million Miles of Pipelines?

Map of major natural gas and oil pipelines in the United States. Hazardous liquid lines in red, gas transmission lines in blue. Source: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
by Lena Groeger
ProPublica, Nov. 15, 2012, 1:27 p.m.


At 6:11 p.m. on September 6, 2010, San Bruno, Calif. 911 received an urgent call. A gas station had just exploded and a fire with flames reaching 300 feet was raging through the neighborhood. The explosion was so large that residents suspected an airplane crash. But the real culprit was found underground: a ruptured pipeline spewing natural gas caused a blast that left behind a 72 foot long crater, killed eight people, and injured more than fifty.
Over 2,000 miles away in Michigan, workers were still cleaning up another pipeline accident, which spilled 840,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. Estimated to cost $800 million, the accident is the most expensive pipeline spill in U.S. history.

Interactive MapPipeline Safety Tracker
Over the last few years a series of incidents have brought pipeline safety to national – and presidential – attention. As Obama begins his second term he will likely make a key decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, a proposed pipeline extension to transport crude from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
The administration first delayed the permit for the pipeline on environmental grounds, but has left the door open to future proposals for Keystone’s northern route. Construction on the southern route is already underway, sparking fierce opposition from some landowners and environmentalists.
The problem, protesters say, is that any route will pose hazards to the public. While pipeline operator TransCanada has declared that Keystone will be the safest pipeline ever built in North America, critics are skeptical.
“It's inevitable that as pipelines age, as they are exposed to the elements, eventually they are going to spill,” said Tony Iallonardo of the National Wildlife Federation. “They’re ticking time bombs."
Critics of the Keystone proposal point to the hundreds of pipeline accidents that occur every year. They charge that system wide, antiquated pipes, minimal oversight and inadequate precautions put the public and the environment at increasing risk. Pipeline operators point to billions of dollars spent on new technologies and a gradual improvement over the last two decades as proof of their commitment to safety.
Pipelines are generally regarded as a safe way to transport fuel, a far better alternative to tanker trucks or freight trains. The risks inherent in transporting fuel through pipelines are analogous to the risks inherent in traveling by airplane. Airplanes are safer than cars, which kill about 70 times as many people a year (highway accidents killed about 33,000 people in 2010, while aviation accidents killed 472). But when an airplane crashes, it is much more deadly than any single car accident, demands much more attention, and initiates large investigations to determine precisely what went wrong.
The same holds true for pipelines. Based on fatality statistics from 2005 through 2009, oil pipelines are roughly 70 times as safe as trucks, which killed four times as many people during those years, despite transporting only a tiny fraction of fuel shipments. But when a pipeline does fail, the consequences can be catastrophic (though typically less so than airplane accidents), with the very deadliest accidents garnering media attention and sometimes leading to a federal investigation.
While both air travel and pipelines are safer than their road alternatives, the analogy only extends so far. Airplanes are replaced routinely and older equipment is monitored regularly for airworthiness and replaced when it reaches its safety limits. Pipelines, on the other hand, can stay underground, carrying highly pressurized gas and oil for decades – even up to a century and beyond. And while airplanes have strict and uniform regulations and safety protocols put forth by the Federal Aviation Administration, such a uniform set of standards does not exist for pipelines.
Critics maintain that while they’re relatively safe, pipelines should be safer. In many cases, critics argue, pipeline accidents could have been prevented with proper regulation from the government and increased safety measures by the industry. The 2.5 million miles of America’s pipelines suffer hundreds of leaks and ruptures every year, costing lives and money. As existing lines grow older, critics warn that the risk of accidents on those lines will only increase.
While states with the most pipeline mileage – like Texas, California, and Louisiana – also have the most incidents, breaks occur throughout the far-flung network of pipelines. Winding under city streets and countryside, these lines stay invisible most of the time. Until they fail.
Since 1986, pipeline accidents have killed more than 500 people, injured over 4,000, and cost nearly seven billion dollars in property damages. Using government data, ProPublica has mapped thousands of these incidents in a new interactive news application, which provides detailed information about the cause and costs of reported incidents going back nearly three decades.
Pipelines break for many reasons – from the slow deterioration of corrosion to equipment or weld failures to construction workers hitting pipes with their excavation equipment. Unforeseen natural disasters also lead to dozens of incidents a year. This year Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on the natural gas pipelines on New Jersey’s barrier islands. From Bay Head to Long Beach Island, falling trees, dislodged homes and flooding caused more than 1,600 pipeline leaks. All leaks have been brought under control and no one was harmed, according to a New Jersey Natural Gas spokeswoman. But the company was forced to shut down service to the region, leaving 28,000 people without gas, and it may be months before they get it back.
One of the biggest problems contributing to leaks and ruptures is pretty simple: pipelines are getting older. More than half of the nation's pipelines are at least 50 years old. Last year in Allentown Pa., a natural gas pipeline exploded underneath a city street, killing five people who lived in the houses above and igniting a fire that damaged 50 buildings. The pipeline – made of cast iron – had been installed in 1928.
A fire rages through Allentown, PA, after a gas line explosion in Feb. 2011Not all old pipelines are doomed to fail, but time is a big contributor to corrosion, a leading cause of pipeline failure. Corrosion has caused between 15 and 20 percent of all reported “significant incidents”, which is bureaucratic parlance for an incident that resulted in a death, injury or extensive property damage. That’s over 1,400 incidents since 1986.
Corrosion is also cited as a chief concern of opponents of the Keystone XL extension. The new pipeline would transport a type of crude called diluted bitumen, or “dilbit.” Keystone’s critics make the case that the chemical makeup of this heavier type of oil is much more corrosive than conventional oil, and over time could weaken the pipeline.
Operator TransCanada says that the Keystone XL pipeline will transport crude similar to what’s been piped into the U.S. for more than a decade, and that the new section of pipeline will be built and tested to meet all federal safety requirements. And in fact, none of the 14 spills that happened in the existing Keystone pipeline since 2010 were caused by corrosion, according to an investigation by the U.S. Department of State.
The specific effects of dilbit on pipelines – and whether the heavy crude would actually lead to more accidents – is not definitively understood by scientists. The National Academies of Science is currently in the middle of study on dilbit and pipeline corrosion, due out by next year. In the meantime, TransCanada has already begun construction of the southern portion of the line, but has no assurance it will get a permit from the Obama administration to build the northern section. (NPR has a detailed map of the existing and proposed routes.)


Little Government Regulation for Thousands of Miles
While a slew of federal and state agencies oversee some aspect of America’s pipelines, the bulk of government monitoring and enforcement falls to a small agency within the Department of Transportation called the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration – pronounced “FIM-sa” by insiders. The agency only requires that seven percent of natural gas lines and 44 percent of all hazardous liquid lines be subject to their rigorous inspection criteria and inspected regularly. The rest of the regulated pipelines are still inspected, according to a PHMSA official, but less often.
The inconsistent rules and inspection regime come in part from a historical accident. In the 60's and 70's, two laws established a federal role in pipeline safety and set national rules for new pipelines. For example, operators were required to conduct more stringent testing to see whether pipes could withstand high pressures, and had to meet new specifications for how deep underground pipelines must be installed.
But the then-new rules mostly didn’t apply to pipelines already built – such as the pipeline that exploded in San Bruno. That pipeline, which burst open along a defective seam weld, would never have passed modern high-pressure requirements according to a federal investigation. But because it was installed in 1956, it was never required to.
"No one wanted all the companies to dig up and retest their pipelines," explained Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, a public charity that promotes fuel transportation safety. So older pipes were essentially grandfathered into less testing, he said.
A burned out car and charred remains of a home in San Bruno, C.A. after a pipeline explosion in Sept. 2010 Later reforms in the 1990’s mandated more testing for oil pipelines, and today PHMSA requires operators to test pipelines in "high consequence" areas, which include population centers or areas near drinking water. But many old pipelines in rural areas aren’t covered by the same strict regulations.
Some types of pipelines – such as the “gathering” lines that connect wells to process facilities or larger transmission lines – lack any PHMSA regulation at all. A GAO report estimates that of the roughly 230,000 miles of gathering lines, only 24,000 are federally regulated. Because many of these lines operate at lower pressures and generally go through remote areas, says the GAO, the government collects no data on ruptures or spills, and has no enforced standards for pipeline strength, welds, or underground depth on the vast majority of these pipes.
The problem, critics argue, is that today’s gathering lines no longer match their old description. Driven in part by the rising demands of hydraulic fracturing, operators have built thousands of miles of new lines to transport gas from fracked wells. Despite the fact that these lines are often just as wide as transmission lines (some up to 2 feet in diameter) and can operate under the same high pressures, they receive little oversight.
Operators use a risk-based system to maintain their pipelines – instead of treating all pipelines equally, they focus safety efforts on the lines deemed most risky, and those that would cause the most harm if they failed. The problem is that each company use different criteria, so "it's a nightmare for regulators," Weimer said.
However, Andrew Black, the president of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, a trade group whose members include pipeline operators, said that a one-size-fits-all approach would actually make pipelines less safe, because operators (not to mention pipelines) differ so widely.
"Different operators use different pipe components, using different construction techniques, carrying different materials over different terrains," he said. Allowing operators to develop their own strategies for each pipeline is critical to properly maintaining its safety, he contended.


Limited Resources Leave Inspections to Industry
Critics say that PHMSA lacks the resources to adequately monitor the millions of miles of pipelines over which it does have authority. The agency has funding for only 137 inspectors, and often employs even less than that (in 2010 the agency had 110 inspectors on staff). A Congressional Research Service report found a “long-term pattern of understaffing” in the agency’s pipeline safety program. According to the report, between 2001 and 2009 the agency reported a staffing shortfall of an average of 24 employees a year.
A New York Times investigation last year found that the agency is chronically short of inspectors because it just doesn’t have enough money to hire more, possibly due to competition from the pipeline companies themselves, who often hire away PHMSA inspectors for their corporate safety programs, according to the CRS.
Given the limitations of government money and personnel, it is often the industry that inspects its own pipelines. Although federal and state inspectors review paperwork and conduct audits, most on-site pipeline inspections are done by inspectors on the company’s dime.
The industry’s relationship with PHMSA may go further than inspections, critics say. The agency has adopted, at least in part, dozens of safety standards written by the oil and natural gas industry.
"This isn't like the fox guarding the hen house," said Weimer. "It's like the fox designing the hen house."
Operators point out that defining their own standards allows the inspection system to tap into real-world expertise. Adopted standards go through a rulemaking process that gives stakeholders and the public a chance to comment and suggest changes, according to the agency.
Questions have also been raised about the ties between agency officials and the companies they regulate. Before joining the agency in 2009, PHMSA administrator Cynthia Quarterman worked as a legal counsel for Enbridge Energy, the operator involved in the Kalamazoo River accident. But under her leadership, the agency has also brought a record number of enforcement cases against operators, and imposed the highest civil penalty in the agency’s history on the company she once represented.


Proposed Solutions Spark Debate
How to adequately maintain the diversity of pipelines has proved to be a divisive issue – critics arguing for more automatic tests and safety measures and companies pointing to the high cost of such additions.
One such measure is the widespread installation of automatic or remote-controlled shutoff valves, which can quickly stop the flow of gas or oil in an emergency. These valves could help avoid a situation like that after the Kalamazoo River spill, which took operators 17 hours from the initial rupture to find and manually shut off. Operators use these valves already on most new pipelines, but argue that replacing all valves would not be cost-effective and false alarms would unnecessarily shut down fuel supplies. The CRS estimates that even if automatic valves were only required on pipelines in highly populated areas, replacing manual valves with automatic ones could cost the industry hundreds of millions of dollars.
A worker on the Kalamazoo river, helping to clean up an oil spill of almost a million gallons from a ruptured pipeline in July 2010Other measures focus on preventing leaks and ruptures in the first place. The industry already uses robotic devices called "smart pigs" to crawl through a pipeline, clearing debris and taking measurements to detect any problems. But not all pipelines can accommodate smart pigs, and operators don’t routinely run the devices through every line.
Just last month, a smart pig detected a “small anomaly” in the existing Keystone pipeline, prompting TransCanada to shut down the entire line. Environmentalists pointed out that this is not the first time TransCananda has called for a shut down, and won’t be the last.

“The reason TransCanada needs to keep shutting down Keystone,” the director of the National Wildlife Federation contended in a statement, “is because pipelines are inherently dangerous.”
Last January, Obama signed a bill that commissioned several new studies to evaluate some of these proposed safety measures, although his decision on extending the Keystone pipeline may come long before those studies are completed.

_______________________________________---
As always in Maryland citizens have to fight to be heard and have almost no ability to stop these corporate projects because Maryland Assembly and governor's are always the most global corporate.  As this article shows-----in Maryland little is being done to assure this pipeline is laid properly -----nothing is done to protect environment-----and we already know ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY WILL BE REQUIRED.

Remember, if it was not for exporting natural gas overseas for higher prices we would not even be thinking of pipelines because we can transport just fine on railroad and by truck what communities need.  THIS IS ONLY BEING DONE TO MOVE NATURAL GAS TO EXPORT TERMINALS as in Cove Point, Maryland.  You can bet they are already considering other export locations as in the Port of Baltimore.  As eminent domain is being used to take real estate for all these pipelines-----and as we know global corporations will be owning these networks-------American citizens and communities will have NO SAY IN WHAT LAND IS TAKEN OR HOW ALL THIS OPERATES.

This is a huge issue folks and we need social Democrats in office that are going to stop this rapid motion all fueled by global corporate profit.  We can address energy concerns with social Democrats taking social benefit as the driver of these policies.


DO YOU HEAR ANY POLITICIANS TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THESE PRIMARY ELECTIONS?  IF NOT, THEY ARE NOT A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT----THEY ARE A GLOBAL CORPORATE POL.


Judge Halts Work On Maryland Pipeline Due To Environmental Concerns


by Katie Valentine May 7, 2015 3:03pm  Climate Progress


Construction on a natural gas pipeline set to run through Maryland has been halted after a judge found that the state hadn’t done enough to protect the environment and hadn’t given residents enough of a chance to weigh in on the project.
Baltimore County Circuit Court Judge Judge Justin J. King ruled last week that the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) must go back and revise the permit it issued for the 21-mile pipeline, which is being constructed by Columbia Pipeline Group and is slated to run through Baltimore and Harford counties. According to the judge’s ruling, the permit’s water safety requirements were too general, “rendering it impossible for this court to determine whether the permit complies with state and federal water quality regulations.”
In addition, King wrote, the permit didn’t allow enough time for public input, and there wasn’t enough evidence that Maryland took a close enough look at how the project would affect historic sites. Construction on the pipeline, which is about halfway complete, has been temporarily halted. It will only resume after the state revisits the permit or, in the case of an appeal, if the ruling is overturned.
Environmentalists in Maryland, who have been warning of the danger the pipeline poses to the state’s waterways, applauded the judge’s move. The pipeline, as it’s permitted, would cross over 70 streams. Thirty-nine of those streams feed into the Loch Raven Reservoir, which provides water to most of Baltimore County, including the city of Baltimore.
Local environmental group Gunpowder Riverkeeper and three individuals filed for judicial review of the project, and these filings were consolidated into the case heard by Judge King.
King’s ruling “will eventually have MDE and Columbia go back through and make this permit more protective of the waterway resources we’re advocating for,” Theaux M. Le Gardeur, head of Gunpowder Riverkeeper, told the Baltimore Sun. “I can’t really tell folks where the pipeline should go, but if they do put it in, they should put it in in the right way.”
MDE is still reviewing the case and figuring out how it will proceed, a spokesman told the Baltimore Sun. The state agency could appeal the case if it doesn’t choose to revisit the pipeline’s permit.
In general, natural gas pipelines have fewer significant onshore accidents than pipelines carrying substances like crude oil and jet fuel, according to the Pipeline Safety Trust. However, that doesn’t mean they never leak: this week, a leak was reported at a TransCanada natural gas pipeline in Alberta, Canada.
And even if they don’t spill as frequently, natural gas pipelines are more likely to have serious incidents — ones resulting in death or hospitalization — than other pipelines. Many of these accidents come in the form of explosions: last February, a natural gas pipeline blast in Kentucky leveled homes and caused multiple fires, and last January, a TransCanada natural gas pipeline explosion shut off gas supplies for thousands of residents in Manitoba, Canada.
Still, there are multiple natural gas pipelines that have either been proposed or are already in the works around the country. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a natural gas line that would run through Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina, has drawn considerable opposition in the states it would impact — ten people were arrested in February protesting the pipeline. The Northeast Energy Direct pipeline, which would carry natural gas from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts, has also garnered opposition.

0 Comments

November 25th, 2015

11/25/2015

 
...The top issues for public justice in Baltimore along with controlling crime and violence------ending soaring unemployment of citizens-----ending corporatized public school reforms and school closings-----ending all of the SMART CITY technology surveillance and data mining-----and rebuilding the public sector so Rule of Law, Equal Protection, and a Bill of Rights can be enforced....and stopping International Economic Zone and Trans Pacific Trade Pact policies being installed in Baltimore. 

THESE SHOULD BE THE TOP ISSUES ON ALL BALTIMORE CITY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY PLATFORMS IN 2016------

and not one of these issues is spoken.  We cannot build jobs----we cannot stop police militarization and unconstitutional policing----we cannot stop housing injustice-----we cannot raise or protect workplace wages and conditions without addressing these issues.


THIS RACE TO THE BOTTOM ECONOMY THAT HAS EVERYONE AS NON-PROFIT, SHARING ECONOMY, OR A VISTA. This is what is behind mass unemployment and poverty----and by extension violence and crime ----yet no one is shouting this.


'Johns Hopkins is top on designating people who are employees as 'independent contractors'-----this is illegal and yet----they are building the legal framework that will make all of this legal. It builds a wall instead of addressing the illegality of this 'independent contractor' designation'.


Social Democrats know the 'sharing economy' is simply the next step to dismantling all US government structures and US Constitutional protections and Bill of Rights. If there is no public sector----there is no one to enforce Rule of Law, Equal Protection, and Constitutional protections. Baltimore is ground zero for this 'sharing economy' because Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development Corporation dismantled the city's public sector decades ago.
So, WE SAY NO -----to the sharing economy that replaces our public sector! Rebuild a strong public sector----THEN look at augmenting that with this sharing economy.  Who thinks a Maryland Public Service Commission is going to regulate this sector in favor of the citizens and workers?  REALLY???????

'New legislation in Maryland will give the state’s Public Service Commission authority to regulate so-called “Transportation Network Services,” with a governing body representing drivers, the riding public, and business, to develop regulatory standards and negotiate corporate obligations like taxes, insurance, and fair business practices. The commission would also run a dispute mediation system for drivers, and even authorize the creation of a taxi-worker co-operative'.


'The “sharing” or “gig” economy—think Airbnb, Uber, and Taskrabbit—has made massive fortunes reducing labor to disassembled microtasks; unfortunately, it’s shrunk workers’ rights too'.


This Is How Bad the Sharing Economy Is for Workers


And this is how reformers and activists might win protections for Silicon Valley’s so-called “independent contractors.”


By Michelle ChenTwitter

September 14, 2015
A man leaves the headquarters of Uber in San Francisco. (AP/Eric Risberg)
 

Silicon Valley entrepreneurs keep telling us their way of doing business will “change the world.” And in many ways it already has, but it’s changed your world differently than it’s changed theirs.
The “sharing” or “gig” economy—think Airbnb, Uber, and Taskrabbit—has made massive fortunes reducing labor to disassembled microtasks; unfortunately, it’s shrunk workers’ rights too. But as our jobs are redefined by labor-brokering platforms, some advocates are trying to redefine labor rights for a digital economy.
Currently, the gig economy trades labor fluidly across online platforms, digital hiring halls where workers typically farm out their short-term gofer services: a ride offered through your private car, fishing someone’s keys out of a gutter, hand-delivering a package across town. For these nominally independent contractors, labor protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act generally don’t apply. Yet these contract jobs are at least as hierarchical as an assembly line; “independence” means you get assigned where to drive but pay your own traffic tickets, you fund your own social insurance, and if you’re sexually harassed or hurt on the job, may be left completely on your own.
That’s why the National Employment Law Project (NELP) has come up with a new policy blueprint, focused on regulating the so-called “on-demand economy” of tech-driven gig employment, to put forward concrete policy models that can help restructure the “1099” contractor relationship to offer workers greater protection. One potential model is the statutory employee framework, under which contractors are for certain regulatory purposes considered workers, generally for tax laws. NELP notes that local and state policymakers can expand this structure to provide “portable” benefits by “directly requir[ing] that companies that use IRS-Form-1099 workers abide by labor standards such as the minimum wage and others, and pay into Social Security and state workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance funds.”
Many gig workers aren’t really thinking about retirement yet; they’re struggling to get paid today.
At the media conference announcing NELP’s report, Takele Gobena of Seattle said he used to make $9.40 at the SeaTac airport complex, but sought more entrepreneurial pastures driving for Uber and Lyft while studying and raising a young family. Then came the car expenses and other requisite investments needed for ride-sharing, plus the 15-hour shifts his “flexible” job platform demanded—which left him earning the equivalent of less than $3 an hour.
“We are not earning a living wage, we don’t have job security even though we bought a car to work for them,” Gobena said. The pressure intensified after he spoke out publicly about his labor conditions to the media, he claims. Although Uber has denied any misconduct, Gobena argued, “When drivers speak about their driving experience [and] working conditions for Uber and Lyft, they automatically investigate” drivers to try to penalize them. “I want that to be changed so that drivers like me and many others can have fair treatment.”

What if these “on demand” workers could make demands of their parent companies? In addition to policy changes, NELP says establishing an avenue for contractors to organize and collectively bargain on labor conditions might empower workers to respond directly to ever-changing market and labor conditions. This provides a platform for labor action that doesn’t rely on bureaucracy to catch up with Uber and Lyft, and it may hit the industry in its Achilles’ heel: publicity. These companies have managed to wrangle local governments into bending regulatory rules to fit the gig business model, but face a rougher challenge shielding their brand image from public criticism from disillusioned drivers like Gobena.
One potential model is Seattle’s plan to just provide rideshare workers the legal right to collectively bargain. This complements the ongoing Teamsters-led campaign to organize drivers under the App-based Drivers Association.
Organizing could in fact be an ideal countervailing force against gigification, if a collective-bargaining unit were able to—like their parent company—expand freely across states and sectors. For example, the home-office analogue to ridesharing, the so-called crowdwork industry, has created a vast global network of telecommuting clerical jobbers; the leading companies, Crowdflower, Crowdsource, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, collectively manage the services of more than 13 million workers worldwide. Although no full-fledged labor organization has crystallized from this workforce yet, some recent labor litigation has sought to bring claims on behalf of a broad class of workers.
Regulatory reforms could provide immediate relief for exploited workers while the legal system works through numerous labor cases charging on-demand service companies with abusing independent contractors. According to NELP Deputy Director Rebecca Smith, in those cases, “Courts may well deem them employers, but in the interim, we can adopt policies that bind them in these contexts.”
THE NATION IS READER FUNDED. YOUR SUPPORT IS VITAL TO OUR WORK.
DONATE NOW!
New legislation in Maryland will give the state’s Public Service Commission authority to regulate so-called “Transportation Network Services,” with a governing body representing drivers, the riding public, and business, to develop regulatory standards and negotiate corporate obligations like taxes, insurance, and fair business practices. The commission would also run a dispute mediation system for drivers, and even authorize the creation of a taxi-worker co-operative.
The two forces pushing back against gigification, labor action from below and regulation from above, might collide in the next great Uber turf war in New York. Across this city—both a union town and a financial capital—an Uber traffic flood has run into a mass opposition campaign led by militant taxi drivers and community groups. Uber has deftly resisted regulatory pressures from local officials and the Taxi and Limousine Commission over taxes and other car-service industry standards. But rising street-level activism against Uber’s corporate heavy-handedness and tax dodging might help curb its breakneck expansion.
Rocio Valerio of New York Communities for Change, a grassroots group campaigning for drivers and the riding public, says via email that NELP’s analysis helps activists break down “how the ‘sharing economy’ is wiping away baseline labor standards that took workers decades to win. From misclassification of workers to meager wages below the minimum wage, the ‘gig economy’ is getting away with murder, and it needs to stop.”
So far, traditional regulations haven’t effectively checked the rise of gigdom. But if the wave of tech-fueled disruption can’t be stopped, the public can erect enough speed bumps to ensure that the kings of the sharing economy must share the consequences of their disruption, too.

___________________________________________
BALTIMORE CITY HALL HAS BEEN OPERATED BY THESE CORPORATIONS FOR DECADES AND IT IS WHY BALTIMORE IS BANKRUPT, CORRUPT, AND SUCH IMPOVERISHMENT AND INJUSTICE EXISTS.




I want to move from SMART CITY technology, public schools,  and employment policy as social democratic concerns to other breakdowns in public justice and public safety.

I spoke about the outsourcing of all that is public works and how that transfers to public harm.  A functioning Baltimore public health department would have decades ago required the city to upgrade water and sewage as citizens paid their water bills----that is the mission of Baltimore Public Works and the duty of Baltimore Public Health to see this done.  Yet, here we are with a crumbling water and sewage system that has been a public health hazard these few decades and now we are told Federal, state, and local taxpayers must foot the bill to rebuild already-paid for---infrastructure.

SOCIAL DEMOCRATS DO NOT ALLOW TAXPAYER REVENUE TO BE FUNNELLED AWAY FROM PUBLIC PROJECTS TO SUBSIDIZE CORPORATE EXPANSION AND PROFITS.

So, the city has allowed homes and schools to go with lead pipes-----homes under constant threat of flooded basements and waste backups -------we watch as fresh water floods our streets into storm drains all while we are told more and more to buy bottled water as we pay higher and higher water bills.

PRIVATIZING OUR VITAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF ENERGY, WATER, WASTE, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS IS A THREAT TO OUR SECURITY.  THIS IS A MAJOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE ISSUE.

And yet, not one of the Baltimore Democratic candidates has this on a platform.


DO YOU KNOW THAT ALMOST ALL OF THE GLOBAL CORPORATIONS BEING TIED TO PRIVATIZED WATER, WASTE, TRANSPORTATION, POLICE, PORTS, ENERGY, TELECOMMUNICATIONS----ARE MOSTLY FALLING UNDER ONE HUGE GLOBAL HEDGE FUND???????????
Got a problem? Privatize it (and pay the price for selling off Hydro One later).

The provincially appointed panel led by former TD Bank CEO Ed Clark has released its final report and the Wynne government has said it will act on its recommendations.
It includes fully privatizing part of  Hydro One and selling off a majority stake in what remains.
The government is trying to position this sale as an “asset swap”, promising to use the proceeds of the sale to fund much needed investments in transit infrastructure. But in doing so, the government is ignoring its own previous expert advice: neither Metrolinx nor a provincially appointed panel headed by Ann Golden, suggested selling off vital public assets to fund transit.
This privatization will raise only $4 billion for infrastructure investment. While that might seem like a lot of money to you or me, it is less than 15 per cent of the cost of the government’s transit investment plans.
Here are five reasons why this sell off is a bad idea:
  1. Privatization would be a bonanza for Bay Street but bad news for Main Street. A recent article in the Globe and Mail described how Bay Street had scrambled for the estimated $110 million in fees from the last privatization effort in 2002. We can only imagine how much more fees will be some 13 years later.
That money won’t come out of thin air. It would either come out of the pockets of hydro customers through rate increases or revenue losses paid for by all Ontarians through their taxes or public service cuts. Lining the pockets of Bay Street firms isn’t a good use of a valuable public asset such as Hydro One.
  1. The province’s finances will suffer if it privatizes Hydro One. There is a good reason why Bay Street investors are lining up to buy a piece of it: Hydro One’s financial statements show earnings of between nine and 11 per cent since its inception. That’s a huge return on equity for any investor, so why wouldn’t the government keep this “Golden Goose” for the people of Ontario. Currently that revenue helps pay for hospitals, schools, and other public services. With a sale, Ontarians would lose out on those revenues – year after year after year. Two academics in law and business, Trebilcock and Melville, have identified that the province would give up far more money in future revenue that it would make from a quick sell-off.
When you consider that the province’s borrowing costs are below three per cent – historic lows – the loss of those earnings makes even less sense. Why sell off a valuable asset with guaranteed returns of nine to 11 per cent per year when you can borrow that money for less than three per cent per year?
The cost to Ontario’s coffers doesn’t stop there. Because it is a crown corporation, Hydro One doesn’t pay taxes to the federal government, instead, a payment in lieu of taxes is retained by our province. The Wynne government has often lamented that Ontario does not get its fair share of revenue from the federal government, whether it is in the form of transfers, equalization, or access to Employment Insurance. If Hydro One is privatized, even more money will flow to the federal government from Ontario.
  1. A review of similar privatization schemes in Canada and internationally suggests that privatizing Hydro One will very likely increase rates. Nova Scotia, which privatized its electricity system a generation ago, now has the highest electricity prices in Canada. We know that a private operator will likely borrow money to pay for the purchase and, later, pass that cost onto customers. Because a private corporation is profit-oriented, it won’t discriminate between high-income and low-income hydro consumers – everyone will pay more while receiving fewer public services because of lost revenues to Ontario.
  1. Innovation will suffer. Ontario Hydro has been used with modest success as a public policy tool to promote industrial development, to cushion the impact of rising rates on consumers, and to green our economy. For example, in recent years Hydro One has been directed by government to prioritize the infrastructure investments required to enable renewable electricity sources. A profit-driven private entity would not have made these green choices when other infrastructure investments would have offered higher return on investment. Taking government leadership out of greening Ontario would be a mistake and a step backward.
  1. Ontario’s track record with partial privatizations doesn’t inspire confidence. The eHealth scandal resulted in $16 million dollars of untendered contracts going to consultants, along with extravagant pay hikes and bonuses. The ORNGE ambulance scandal was accompanied by enormous salaries, corruption, and failures in delivering vital public services.
In her first budget with a majority mandate, Premier Wynne had the opportunity to set a very different path for the province’s finances. She could have increased taxes to pay for the infrastructure investment Ontario so badly needs. Instead, she chose a route that will result in future generations paying for her short-term political gains.

______________________________________________

THIS IS THE BREAKDOWN IN EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL DEMOCRATS-----NATIONAL LABOR UNIONS SAY ONE THING ----AND DO ANOTHER.

I like this AFSCME warning to why privatization is bad for citizens and workers----note they claim the RIGHT WING is behind all this privatization.  Well, who backs Clinton neo-liberals doing all this privatization of public sector along with Republicans?  AFSCME----it has already endorsed Hillary nationally as the Clinton's are the face of privatization.  Neo-liberalism is RIGHT WING and yet our national unions are not educating as to that.


'One approach to this has centered on the public-private partnership approach as outlined in the Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63), signed by President Clinton in 1998'.




AFSCME Endorses Hillary Clinton

October 23, 2015
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) announced today that Hillary Clinton has earned the 1.6 million member union’s endorsement in the 2016 presidential contest.


It’s Unwise to Privatize

Driven by wrong-minded public officials and corporate greed, contracts for public services are doled out without regard to cost effectiveness or quality. Time and time again, the public pays more and gets lower quality of services while public workers are laid off and corruption scandals make the news. AFSCME is fighting hard to preserve quality public services, ensure that public service employees are treated fairly and hold elected officials accountable to the public.


Power Tools to Fight Privatization »
These valuable publications will give you the tools you need to help fight back against efforts to privatize public services.
  • Fact Sheet: ContractingProponents of privatization claim that the private sector can do a better job at a cheaper price. But experience shows that privatization often leads to increased costs for the public and reduced accountability to taxpayers.
  • Fact Sheet: Higher EducationState funding for higher education has been on the decline for decades. But privatization-based cost saving measures lead to a loss of accountability, fail to save money and lower the quality of services, while harming workers and the local economy.
  • Fact Sheet: OutsourcingOutsourcing is promoted as a way to save money, improve services, and shake up so-called “unaccountable bureaucracies.” But in reality, it often fails on all counts, especially in attempts to outsource human and social services.
More Tools »
Predatory Privatization »
Right Wing Watch: Predatory Privatization
This report from People for the American Way looks at how privatization exploits financial hardship, enriches the 1%, and undermines democracy. Read More »


Resources »
  • A Path to Better Public Transit
  • Closing the Books: How Government Contractors Hide Public Records
  • Standing Guard: How Unaccountable Contracting Fails Governments and Taxpayers
  • Put Down That Ax: Alternatives To Layoffs
  • Digging For Dollars: A Guide To Local Government Revenues
  • AFSCME Privatization Update
  • AFSCME Resolutions on Privatization
  • AFSCME Publications on Privatization
  • Other Resources for Fighting Privatization
  • Oct 26 Five myths of the private prison industry The incarceration industry presents themselves as a cost-effective solution to prison overcrowding. But is that... (MuckRock)
  • Oct 01 UC system is shortchanging low-wage contract workers
  • Oct 01 Workers allege 80-hour weeks with no overtime at UC Berkeley sporting events Federal authorities are investigating allegations that a UC Berkeley custodial contractor underpaid workers who cleaned... (The Los Angeles Times)

  • Nov 20 ‘Lunch Ladies Rock’ and Win Big at the Polls School cafeteria workers sent a clear message that there are consequences to putting corporate profit ahead of children’s nutrition, voting out a majority on the Bristol (Connecticut) Board of Education that tried to outsource school lunch service. (Blog)
  • Nov 10 Newark Residents Demand Tax Increase over Outsourcing Trash Collection Residents of Newark, Delaware, said they’d rather pay a higher tax than see local trash collection go to a for-profit company. (Blog)
  • Oct 06 UC Contractor Faces Overtime Probe A longtime custodial contractor at the University of California is under federal investigation after former and current employees alleged the company is denying overtime pay to employees who provide services at the California Memorial Stadium. (Blog)
___________________________________________

In fact-----Bill and Hillary Clinton and their Clinton Initiative are behind handing the world's public infrastructure to these global hedge funds and corporations.  So, if citizens in Baltimore are shouting to stop water bill fraud and rate hikes-----if Baltimore citizens are feeling the pains of higher and higher BGE bills-----if public transportation is horrible and rates rising for some and not others-----

WHY ARE BALTIMORE CITY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY CANDIDATES NOT MAKING THE PRIVATIZATION OF ALL THAT IS PUBLIC A MAJOR PUBLIC JUSTICE AND SAFETY
PLATFORM?

Baltimore is ground zero for this privatization of infrastructure and not one academic research report written against it----in fact, candidates talking against it are quickly silenced.

The Better Voter Series: Public-private partnerships costly and unaccountable, critics sayRise of P3s has people speaking out


Ethan Cabel

October 7, 2010 0
  • The Charleswood Bridge is a public-private partnership made between the City of Winnipeg and DBF Construction in 1995. It continues to cost the city $1.5 million annually. – Michael Chiasson

Under the leadership of mayor Sam Katz, Winnipeg has embraced the use of public-private partnerships (P3s) for several large infrastructure projects, locking the city into long-term contracts and multi-million dollar annual payments to the private sector.
Now, the incumbent mayor is looking to the P3 Canada Fund for a light rail rapid transit network.
“An expansion of our public transit system should not be a candidate for a P3,” said mayoral candidate Judy Wasylycia-Leis, criticizing Katz for not completing phase II of the Southwest rapid transit corridor with earmarked federal-provincial stimulus cash.
Wasylycia-Leis wants to virtually discontinue the use of P3s because they sacrifice public assets to the “unaccountable” private sector.
Olivia MacAngus is the director of corporate strategy for PPP Canada, a federal crown corporation. She believes, contrary to Wasylycia-Leis, that the P3 method has become necessary for many municipalities.
“In Canada there has been an across-the-board increase in the demand for P3 development,” she said.
The reason, according to MacAngus, is that municipalities are looking for ways to effectively develop and maintain new infrastructure without running massive deficits.
Normally, the government enters into contracts with the private sector for just the construction of a project. The government then owns the new infrastructure and is responsible for its maintenance.
“ (Katz) is ideologically aligned with P3s without any real reason or justification.
John Loxley, economics professor, University of Manitoba
P3s work differently, however, by ensuring that the private sector is responsible for the construction as well as the maintenance of the infrastructure over its lifetime.
The government makes annual payments to the private partner in return for regular maintenance. This results in contracts that allow the government to spread upfront construction costs over 25 to 35 years.
For example, the Charleswood Bridge, a P3 made between the City of Winnipeg and DBF Construction in 1995, continues to cost the city $1.5 million annually. Those costs ensure regular maintenance on the bridge will continue until 2024.
Proponents believe that P3s are beneficial because they transfer a great deal of risk to the private sector. If maintenance costs exceed the governments annual fee, the private sector is on the hook for any additional costs.
With the P3 model in place, the private sector stays on top of maintenance rather than the government falling behind over time and incurring large repair costs, said MacAngus.
Critics, however, claim that P3s are too costly and diminish accountability to the public.
“I believe the costs (for P3s) are exorbitant,” said Wasylycia-Leis, citing projects like the recent Chief Peguis Trail expansion, which will cost the city $8.2 million annually until 2041.
“(The increased use of P3s) means that unelected corporations are responsible rather than public officials.” 
John Loxley is a University of Manitoba economics professor and the author of Public Service, Private Profits, a critical look at the rise of P3s in Canada. He agrees with Wasylycia-Leis.
“The idea that all P3s are more efficient is simply not true,” he said.
Loxley believes that P3s are used to hide the costs of a project by spreading it over long, incremental payments to the private sector.
“It works like a car loan,” he said. “(Katz) is ideologically aligned with P3s without any real reason or justification.”
__________________________________________

BALTIMORE CITY HALL CAN STOP THIS PRIVATIZATION AND EXPLOITATION OF CITIZEN RATE PAYERS.
....IF THEY WERE NOT WORKING FOR WALL STREET BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT AND JOHNS HOPKINS.



For anyone believing the hype that these are partnerships and not simply corporations taking complete control of our vital infrastructure---I have swamp land in Florida to sell you.  No one knows better in Maryland how the Maryland Public Service Commission is stacked with people ruling in corporate and shareholder favor against the public interest every time.

Below you see why-----ALL OF MARYLAND'S DEMOCRATS ARE CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS and the Clinton's are ground zero for these public privatizations of infrastructure not only in the US but around the world.

NEW WORLD ORDER HAS SMART CITIES WITH GLOBAL CORPORATIONS OWNING EVERYTHING.


Social Democracy under US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and WE THE PEOPLE AS LEGISLATORS does not allow for global corporations owning and operating ANYTHING IN THE US.

Secretary Clinton To Announce Launch of Up to $86.5 Million in Public-Private Partnerships
Notice to the Press
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC

January 30, 2013





Public-Private Partnerships for Critical Infrastructure Protection
By Tim Maurer
Aug 19, 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The last twenty years have been an experiment in how to adapt traditional governmental bureaucracies to a new environment that reflects the growing role of private actors as well as the transnational nature of the world today. One approach to this has centered on the public-private partnership approach as outlined in the Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63), signed by President Clinton in 1998.
Generally, project-oriented public-private partnerships have been more successful than process-oriented public-private partnerships. The former’s missions tend to be more clearly defined, include a definite timeline, and usually enjoy a greater sense of urgency and support among senior leadership.  On the other hand, institutionalizing process-oriented public-private partnerships has proved more challenging. The goals of such partnerships are often less clearly defined. Still, some process-oriented partnerships, namely in the financial and IT sectors, have developed sustainable models of success, which will be outlined in greater detail in this report.
Five common elements emerged from an analysis of the various forms of collaboration: senior leadership support, leadership in the partnership, institutional design, incentives and value, and proper timing. Senior leadership support was crucial for the Y2K project to effectively institutionalize collaboration in the financial sector. Senior leadership support facilitates the provision of resources to build up operational capacity, adds urgency, provides assistance in crucial moments, and helps break dependencies. Exercising effective leadership by those implementing the partnership is equally important to achieve early results and form the proper foundation for further growth. Such leadership is particularly important to ensure a smooth transition in the early stages of the partnership.
Still, institutions can only flourish if they have been designed intelligently. Such design includes a sustainable funding model, a clear division of labor, and the identification of appropriate counterparts. Their success is ultimately dependent on the underlying incentive structure, which can be partly influenced endogenously, creating value for the participants early on, and through specific and focused projects. Preferences and the cost-benefit perceptions of the participating actors will ultimately determine the success or failure of the partnership.. A sense of urgency helps to create a bond between the public and the private sectors, fostering a willingness to collaborate and achieve a common vision, ultimately allowing the partnership to mature and endure. The longevity of the partnership depends on the interplay between these factors and is a dynamic process with periods of both weak and strong performance.
The first part of this report outlines a short history of how public-private partnerships for critical infrastructure protection have evolved. The second part constitutes a mapping of the current system. It is followed by an analysis of three examples of collaborative governance, one project-oriented and two process-oriented partnerships. Part four summarizes the lessons learned outlining what makes public-private partnerships work. Methodologically, this research is based on a review of existing literature, complemented by 38 qualitative and semi-structured interviews with experts in government, the private sector, and academia.
_____________________________________________


There are few issues more important than the fight against privatization of all public infrastructure---especially for citizens in US cities------

WAKE UP------ALL THIS IS TIED TO WALL STREET BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT AND VERY, VERY NEO-CONSERVATIVE JOHNS HOPKINS

 If a Baltimore City Hall pols works for these institutions-----they are not protecting against this ------
and Baltimore is getting ready for this same drive into bankruptcy as Detroit with the same ending if we allow Baltimore City Hall remain tied to Wall Street Baltimore Development.

 Social Democrats fight against this privatization!


Detroiters Put Bodies on the Line to Stop Privatization of Their Water

Fri, 7/11/2014 - by Carl Gibson
 10.4K  8 reddit60  276
 

“Your human dignity shouldn’t be truncated because you’re priced out of the commodification of an essential resource.“ - Charity Hicks
At 6:45 on Thursday morning, the Reverend Bill Wylie-Kellerman of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in Detroit sat down with nine othersblocking the entrance of the facility where Homrich Wrecking’s water shutoff trucks were set to leave for the day. By 8 a.m., the “Detroit Water 10” had been charged with disorderly conduct with bail set at $100 apiece. The goal of the protest was to appeal to Homrich contractors to stop shutting off water for Detroit’s poorest residents.
“The officers had bruised up two elderly ladies who were tied together protesting; they were grabbing their arms and their wrists so hard there were bruises on their wrists,” said DeMeeko Williams, an organizer with the Detroit Water Brigade. “They also pulled one of our handicapped men out of his wheelchair, he was out of the chair and on the ground. That’s abuse, I don’t care what anybody says.”
Approximately 12,000 Detroit residents have already had their water turned off since Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr announced the plan in spring to shut off homes delinquent on water payments of $150 to $160. UN resolution 64/292 declares that water and sanitation are basic human rights. After Detroit activists appealed to the United Nations, the UN declared the water shutoffs in Detroit were a violation of human rights.


Williams says denying a basic human right like water to a major portion of the population also creates a public health crisis.
“When people go without water there’s a lot of diseases, salmonella, poor sanitation, when you can’t flush your toilet... it's just an outbreak waiting to happen,” Williams said.
As reported in an earlier piece for Occupy.com, Kevyn Orr is one of several emergency managers appointed directly by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder to make financial decisions on behalf of communities deemed to be in a state of fiscal emergency. The communities in which an unelected emergency manager has been appointed are overwhelmingly poor and black.
Michigan’s original emergency manager law was rejected by voters in a 2012 referendum. But the Republican-led legislature passed a new version into law shortly after, adding in language that says the law can’t be repealed by another voter referendum. The current emergency manager law is being challenged in federal court on constitutional grounds.


The Bigger Picture of the Water Crisis: Privatization
The water shutoffs in Detroit, which is currently in the middle of a bankruptcy fight, are merely a prelude to the outright privatization of water and other public assets. Defenders of Kevyn Orr’s water shutoffs claim that residents need to simply pay their bills to avoid losing their water. Others argue that water infrastructure needs to be paid for – and if it isn’t, the only logical conclusion is that those who don’t pay for the infrastructure will lose their water.
But those arguments don’t take into account how municipal water is priced. Since the Clean Water Act of 1972, public water has been allocated on a uniform unit pricing scheme. This means big corporate clients like the Palmer Park Golf Club, which owes over $250,000 in water payments, pay higher rates for water while residential customers in Detroit pay a lower rate. About 80 percent of the bad water debt is owed by Detroit Water and Sewage Department's corporate customers.
The uniform unit pricing scheme, however, doesn’t allow different rates for residential customers with vastly different incomes. So in poorer cities like Detroit – where globalization, union busting and the housing market collapse decimated the economy and left thousands jobless – poor communities pay regressively higher rates for water.
In the 42 years since the passage of the Clean Water Act, federal funding for municipal water has dropped by 80 percent. Local governments paid over $111 billion in 2010 alone for water delivery. Without increased federal funding, water will only become more expensive for poor residents of large cities like Detroit, paving the way for privatization.


According to Williams, United Water – a company based in New Jersey, and owned by multinational giant Suez Environnement – is already preparing to make a bid on Detroit’s water infrastructure, which Kevyn Orr would be prepared to accept in return for $47 million in annual payments over 40 years from the private water companies. Such a privatization plan would lead to the creation of the Great Lakes Regional Authority to manage all Detroit Water and Sewage Department infrastructure, making the entire city a customer of the water authority. Williams believes if that plan were to go through, the next step would be to privatize the Detroit River and the Great Lakes.
“We want to stop the privatization of the water department so it remain as a public commons,” Williams said. “It’s a very dangerous precedent to cut off people’s water and not give them any sort of reconciliation or negotiation.”
Williams and others are calling on the City of Detroit to halt all water shutoffs and reinstate the Water Affordability Plan that Gov. Snyder overturned in 2010. On July 18, Detroit activists and thousands of attendees at the annual Netroots Nation conference will join together downtown to protest the water shut offs.
“This all would have been avoided had the Detroit Water and Sewage Department held a community meeting or public event to settle with Detroiters,” Williams said. “We’re trying to really help folks out. We let people know that this is not their fault – but this will be their fight."
______________________________________________

This video shows what is happening at Baltimore City Hall and across the US and as these voices against these deals say------IT IS ALWAYS VERY, VERY, VERY BAD FOR CITIZENS.  These deals are meant to capture US cities for decades to what will be a GIANT SQUID SUCKING ALL CITIZENS DRY.


Please take time to watch this video and make this public private partnership policy  the top concern for Maryland and especially Baltimore!


NEED TO KNOW
Privatizing infrastructure  PBS Video+ADD
  • Aired: 09/16/2011
  • 10:33
  • Rating: NR
As communities across the country struggle to make ends meet, leasing public assets to private investors is an increasingly attractive way to generate much needed cash. Need to Know correspondent Rick Karr travels to two cities that are doing just that.

November 24th, 2015

11/24/2015

0 Comments

 
Social Democrats are all about public justice so if you have a city like Baltimore that is completely devoid of any justice----you do not have Democrats-----you have very, very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins and Wall Street Baltimore Development coming out of City Hall.  As we work to rebuild public justice in Baltimore----we need to grow activism and provide candidates for whom Baltimore voters want to vote.  With voting down to 17-20% in Baltimore you see no voter is being fooled by the Wall Street players running as politicians.

Neo-conservatives create situations of poverty, unemployment, and black market desperation as a way to allow a few people to control 99% of others.  Baltimore has been captured by neo-conservatives for decades and WE THE PEOPLE first need to reverse what structures keep people afraid of shouting and being activists.  At gatherings of Baltimore activist groups I always point to the fears people have of activism:

1) school choice and lottery combined with closing schools is all policy designed to make citizens fearful to shout out against reforms and policies because they do not want to lose space in a school.  THIS IS DELIBERATE FEAR---

2)  creating stagnation and high unemployment makes people fearful of shouting out because they will not find a job or will not keep a job.  THIS IS DELIBERATE FEAR---

3)  creating a system of corporate non-profits that handle all public sector and public justice makes people fearful of being denied access to what are vital public services and programs.  It makes people fearful of networking with other people because no one knows who supports what.  THIS IS DELIBERATE FEAR---

4) dismantling all access to public justice with courts that throw out routine justice cases or will not even take cases creates fear in people feeling they may not be protected in political actions.  People jailed for no reason.  THIS IS DELIBERATE FEAR----


THESE 4 ITEMS DEFINE BALTIMORE------IT IS WHY PEOPLE ARE SILENT AND MADE FEARFUL OF FIGHTING A CAPTURED GOVERNMENT PROCESS.


Safety concerns make parents fear school closings in Chicago

May 21, 2013 by Mike Kennedy in Schoolhouse Beat


As the Chicago school board prepares to decide whether it will close more than 50 elementary schools, The Chicago Sun-Times is looking at how the proposed changes may affect the safety of students who would have to transfer to different campuses.
PART I: Moving schools may force a child to leave one gang's turf and cross the ever-shifting border to another's.
PART II: The district has proposed closing Marconi Community Academy School and sending kids to Tilton Elementary, about half a mile away, where academic performance is stronger. The problem, parents say, will be getting their children safely to Tilton.
PART III: If Kohn Elementary School on the South Side is closed, some of the students will be assigned to Lavizzo Elementary. But parents say the six-plus blocks separating the two schools are falling apart and dangerous for students who would have to walk to Lavizzo.
___________________________________________

When violence and crime are a long-term public policy in a city like Baltimore----you develop an US and THEM attitude----and along with that comes the need for protection around every corner.  Certainly we do not want guns in our communities---we get rid of them by getting people employed and having a stable home for the most part.  This long term instability combined with a media reporting nothing but weather, sports, traffic, and crime----heightens fear and the desire for separate social structures.

IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO UNITE PEOPLE FOR ACTIVISM WHEN EVERYONE IS MADE FEARFUL OF THEIR NEIGHBOR----

The actual number of guns cases in schools is so few----and most end with someone taking a gun away from a child most likely just curious. Who wants equal opportunity and access public schools when people are made to fear parents and children who are poor.

IF YOU WANT TO GROW ACTIVISM-----WE NEED TO GET RID OF THIS EDUCATION REFORM THAT BREAKS DOWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS INTO BUSINESSES----THAT SHOULD BE THE #1 MANTRA OF SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC ACTIVISTS.



Setting the Stage for Tyranny: Public Schools Deliberately Create a Culture of Fear
April 5, 2014
Daisy Luther
Activist Post
What is the best way to ensure that gun control takes place within a generation?
Forget trying to change the minds of those who already have guns. The best way to do this is to encourage a culture of fear among young people.
And the public school system, with all of its zero tolerance lunacy, is doing just that. They are setting the stage for tyranny.
Case in point:
Yesterday in Baltimore, some students saw a person carrying a tripod through the school. Frightened, they reported this to administrators, which resulted in an immediate lockdown:
This morning, KIPP Ujima Village Academy and KIPP Harmony were placed in heightened security status, based on a report of a possible intruder. Police responded and secured the building, while police and school staff together ensured the safety of all children and staff. After a thorough investigation, police determined that there was no intruder in the building or on school grounds. 
As a precaution while the large school building was searched, students were taken by bus to the shared campus of Baltimore Polytechnic Institute and Western High School. Parents were contacted by phone and through local and social media channels, and were directed to pick up children from that location. (source)


As it turned out, the person carrying the tripod was a journalism student and the tripod was for his camera. However, a SWAT team descended on the school and children and parents alike were terrified after a 4 hour lockdown scenario.
Critical thought is not encouraged. Panic is praised.
Security ‘expert’ Rob Weinhold sums it up:
It’s just not a time to use any judgment. Take the guesswork out. Lock down the school system. Make sure everyone is safe. (source)
Another incident recently occurred in Maryland when two people hunting ducks with a pellet gun caused terror on the campus of Stevenson University.
The Owings Mills campus was locked down for more than two hours Monday after someone reported a man with a gun. 
Investigators say two students hunting ducks with a pellet gun caused that incident. 
“The bottom line is that lockdowns save lives,” said security expert Rob Weinhold. 
He says in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, school officials cannot be cautious enough when there’s a suspicion of a gunman on campus. (source)
The issue here is pretty clear. The younger generation is being taught that the very sight of a gun or anything that could be related to a gun is a reason for fear. That fear is cemented in the minds of children and parents when they are traumatized by the handling of the incidents.
Kids are getting in trouble for drawing pictures of guns. For having tools which are sharp. For wearing t-shirts with the word “gun” printed on them. For cutting their poor, defenseless food in the lunchroom. For biting a pastry into a shape that could either be a gun or the state of Florida. Maybe we should outlaw maps of Florida because the shape of that state is “intimidating.”
They are being taught to have an irrational fear of inanimate objects. And because everyone else shares that fear, that mass delusion, it becomes “normal”. It becomes so commonplace that it isn’t fear anymore, but an accepted fact: “Guns are scary.”
The fear is quite literally being implanted. When police refuse to tell people what is going on, when kids are rapidly evacuated, when cops in military-style SWAT gear swoop in – all of these dramatic scenes are not soon forgotten. When the dreaded “gun sighting” occurs in the future, the natural human response is to flash back to the last time that it happened. Instantly, the emotional response is overwhelming fear.


When you read the following statements from those involved in the lockdown, keep in mind this incident was not triggered by a masked man with a machine gun firing in the hallways. This series of emotional responses began when someone saw a kid with a camera tripod.
“They were really freaking out because the police were pushing you away so you didn’t know what was going on,” said Michelle Ward, parent. 
The school told parents to meet at Poly-Western. 
They quickly swarmed the parking lot and turned to each other for support. 
“My child is in there. I know he a nervous wreck,” one mother said. 
Tiffany Taylor has four children at KIPP Academy. 
“It’s really frightening to hear on the radio that something is going on at the school,” Taylor said. 
A large group of several hundred parents were on hand when police told the crowd all children were safe and would soon be bused to Poly to reunite with their families. 
“In my heart, I felt a little relieved but I still need to see my children and be reunited with them. It just won’t be over until I get them home,” Taylor said. 
Though it took some time and a lot of patience from parents, the buses started arriving and reunions got underway. 
Student Damaya Smith told us about her ordeal. 
“Everybody started crying. We had to hide because we felt uncomfortable,” she said. “It was a little scary when it started, but I listened to my teacher.” 
For her parents, it was the perfect end to a long day. 
“I’m just glad everything is OK. I’m just happy that nobody got hurt,” said Derrick Smith, parent. (source)
Make no mistake, this is deliberate. Those in charge are setting the stage for tyranny beyond our wildest dreams and they will never have to fire a shot. These kids will be begging the government to take away all of the guns and keep them “safe”. People that are this afraid of a tripod aren’t going to be leading the next revolution.
Daisy Luther is a staff writer for The Daily Sheeple, where this first appeared. She lives on a small organic farm in the Pacific Northwestern area of the United States. Daisy is the creator of The Organic Prepper where she writes about healthy prepping, homesteading adventures, and the pursuit of liberty and food freedom. You can follow her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter. She can be contacted at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca. Wake the flock up!


___________________________________________


Below you see the global neo-liberal economic and education structure looks in Australia just as it does in Baltimore and the US-----and look-----people are being made fearful of finding a school for their children with specializations towards vocation and selection NONE OF WHICH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND FEDERAL LAWS OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.
IF YOU WANT TO GROW ACTIVISM YOU MUST ADDRESS THE POLICIES THAT CREATE FEAR!
"It's a great by-product of the discussion because in trying to understand why there isn't capacity the most obvious thing that jumps up is the fact that we do actually have high schools here but they're highly selective and completely inaccessible to the garden-variety student," she said.


Inner-city high school needed urgently, says community

Date
September 9, 2014

Amy McNeilageDeputy Editor, Daily Life

Inner-Sydney parents, teachers and community members have put their heads together to solve the city's looming school shortage and have sent a resounding call to the government.
They want a new high school and they want it now, the feedback from extensive community consultation indicates.
Less unanimous, however, is where they want it and what they want it to look like.
The NSW Education Department has sought community input to help shape its inner-city education strategy. Photo: Louie Douvis
Popular ideas include repurposing sites such as the Cleveland Street Intensive English High School and incorporating a school within the city's big development sites at Barangaroo and Green Square.
AdvertisementFrom the views of more than 600 people came some creative yet unlikely suggestions, such as using the Domain Car Park, The National Art School and Victoria Barracks, as well as some truly zany ideas such as a floating school and classrooms in state Parliament.
The extensive process, conducted by external consultants for the NSW Education Department, also uncovered overwhelming support for a shake-up to selective schooling, either by restructuring enrolments in existing schools or abolishing the selective schools altogether.
Alex Greenwich, Independent MP for Sydney, says there is a need for action on city education infrastructure. Photo: Nicole Elphick
Independent MP for Sydney Alex Greenwich says it is now time for the state government to listen to the community voices and to act.
The ideas to be taken seriously, he said, are those that use existing education infrastructure and those that advocate new schools in upcoming developments.
"There is so much development happening in the inner-city area, from Barangaroo to Pyrmont and the Central to Eveleigh development zone, and there are opportunities there for the government to partner with people who are developing those sites to ensure there is education infrastructure," he said.
The department sought the community's input to shape its short- and long-term strategies for inner-city education, with the more than 2500 additional high school students expected over the next 12 years.
Projections indicate there will be no space left in the inner-city high schools by 2018. There are no comprehensive high schools in the CBD and the closest, at Glebe, Balmain and Alexandria Park, are either full or almost.
Enrolments at the city's primary schools have swelled in recent years, more than tripling since 2008 at Bourke Street Public School and doubling at Darlinghurst Public School. 
The most popular short-term solutions advocated by the community included reforming or removing the selective high school system, as well as enforcing boundaries against out-of-area students and refurbishing existing facilities to create more classroom space.
Many local principals, teachers, parents and community members supported the ideas of introducing a local stream at Sydney Boys and Sydney Girls selective schools, giving all schools selective streams or phasing out selective schools entirely.
Skye Molyneux, from Community for Local Options for Secondary Education, said the consultation had "opened up a can of worms" in terms of the city's selective schools.
"It's a great by-product of the discussion because in trying to understand why there isn't capacity the most obvious thing that jumps up is the fact that we do actually have high schools here but they're highly selective and completely inaccessible to the garden-variety student," she said.
Over the five- to 10-year period, all interest groups agreed a new school was needed, with most willing to accept a vertical school and many pushing to have the Cleveland Street Intensive English High School site used for local students.
Four current students of that school wrote letters arguing against that idea.
The Department of Education will consider the feedback and make recommendations to the government by the end of the year.

_________________________________________

People are being made fearful of association with heightened systems of spying and non-profits led by corporate appointed people.  I talk all the time about Baltimore's corporate non-profit capture of progressive issues------with Johns Hopkins behind the creation of organizations with a progressive name that actually pushes the market-based corporate policy as good for people.

When Baltimore allows this Baltimore Development Corporation model of captured public activism-----

IT CREATES FEAR OF SHOUTING FOR THE REAL ISSUES-----JOINING BECOMES AN OBLIGATION AND NOT A PASSION.

Activists don't create non-profits-----they embrace all social issues as one.

THE US CONSTITUTION PROTECTS PEOPLE'S PRIVACY AND FREEDOM FROM SPYING ON ACTIVITIES----THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW BY DOING THIS.

If we are going to increase activism you must fight this SMART CITY super-surveillance technology policy.


Corporations Spy on Nonprofits with Impunity


Here’s a dirty little secret you won’t see in the daily papers: corporations conduct espionage against US nonprofit organizations without fear of being brought to justice.

Yes, that means using a great array of spycraft and snoopery, including planned electronic surveillance, wiretapping, information warfare, infiltration, dumpster diving and so much more.
The evidence abounds.
For example, six years ago, based on extensive documentary evidence, James Ridgeway reported in Mother Jones on a major corporate espionage scheme by Dow Chemical focused on Greenpeace and other environmental and food activists.
Greenpeace was running a potent campaign against Dow’s use of chlorine to manufacture paper and plastics. Dow grew worried and eventually desperate.
Ridgeway’s article and subsequent revelations produced jaw-dropping information about how Dow’s private investigators, from the firm Beckett Brown International (BBI), hired:
• An off duty DC police officer who gained access to Greenpeace trash dumpsters at least 55 times;
• a company called NetSafe Inc., staffed by former National Security Agency (NSA) employees expert in computer intrusion and electronic surveillance; and,
• a company called TriWest Investigations, which obtained phone records of Greenpeace employees or contractors. BBI’s notes to its clients contain verbatim quotes that they attribute to specific Greenpeace employees.
Using this information, Greenpeace filed a lawsuit against Dow Chemical, Dow’s PR firms Ketchum and Dezenhall Resources, and others, alleging trespass on Greenpeace’s property, invasion of privacy by intrusion, and theft of confidential documents.
Yesterday, the D.C. Court of Appeals dismissed Greenpeace’s lawsuit. In her decision, Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby notes that “However Greenpeace’s factual allegations may be regarded,” its “legal arguments cannot prevail as a matter of law” because “the common law torts alleged by Greenpeace are simply ill-suited as potential remedies.” At this time Greenpeace has not decided whether to appeal.
The Court’s opinion focused on technicalities, like who owned the trash containers in the office building where Greenpeace has its headquarters and whether the claim of intrusion triggers a one year or three year statute of limitations. But, whether or not the Court’s legal analyses hold water, the outcome – no legal remedies for grave abuses – is lamentable.
Greenpeace’s lawsuit “will endure in the historical record to educate the public about the extent to which big business will go to stifle First Amendment protected activities,” wrote lawyer Heidi Boghosian, author of Spying on Democracy. “It is crucially important that organizations and individuals continue to challenge such practices in court while also bringing notice of them to the media and to the public at large.”
This is hardly the only case of corporate espionage against nonprofits. Last year, my colleagues produced a report titled Spooky Business, which documented 27 sets of stories involving corporate espionage against nonprofits, activists and whistleblowers. Most of the stories occurred in the US, but some occurred in the UK, France and Ecuador. None of the US-based cases has resulted in a verdict or settlement or even any meaningful public accountability. In contrast, in France there was a judgment against Electricite de France for spying on Greenpeace, and in the UK there is an ongoing effort regarding News Corp/News of the World and phone hacking.
Spooky Business found that “Many of the world’s largest corporations and their trade associations – including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Walmart, Monsanto, Bank of America, Dow Chemical, Kraft, Coca-Cola, Chevron, Burger King, McDonald’s, Shell, BP, BAE, Sasol, Brown & Williamson and E.ON – have been linked to espionage or planned espionage against nonprofit organizations, activists and whistleblowers.”
Three examples:
• In 2011, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, its law firm Hunton & Williams, and technology and intelligence firms such as Palantir and Berico were exposed in an apparent scheme to conduct espionage against the Chamber’s nonprofit and union critics.
• Burger King was caught conducting espionage against nonprofits and activists trying to help low-wage tomato pickers in Florida.
• The Wall Street Journal reported on Walmart’s surveillance tactics against anti-Walmart groups, including the use of eavesdropping via wireless microphones.
Here’s why you should care.
This is a serious matter of civil liberties.
The citizen’s right to privacy and free speech should not be violated by personal spying merely because a citizen disagrees with the actions or ideas of a giant multinational corporation.
Our democracy can’t function properly if corporations may spy and snoop on nonprofits with impunity. This espionage is a despicable means of degrading the effectiveness of nonprofit watchdogs and activists. Many of the espionage tactics employed appear illegal and are certainly immoral.
Powerful corporations spy on each other as well, sometimes with the help of former NSA and FBI employees.
How much? We’ll never begin to know the extent of corporate espionage without an investigation by Congress and/or the Department of Justice.
While there is a congressional effort to hold the NSA accountable for its privacy invasions, there is no such effort to hold powerful corporations accountable for theirs.
Nearly 50 years ago, when General Motors hired private investigators to spy on me, it was held to account by the U.S. Senate. GM President James Roche was publicly humiliated by having to apologize to me at a Senate hearing chaired by Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT). It was a memorable, but rare act of public shaming on Capitol Hill. GM also paid substantially to settle my suit for compensation in a court of law (Nader v. General Motors Corp., 307 N.Y.S.2d 647).
A public apology and monetary settlement would have been a fair outcome in the Greenpeace case too.
But in the intervening half-century our Congress has been overwhelmed by lethargy and corporate lobbyists. Today, Congress is more lapdog than watchdog.
Think of the Greenpeace case from the perspective of executives at Fortune 500 companies.
They know that Dow Chemical was not punished for its espionage against Greenpeace, nor were other US corporations held to account in similar cases.
In the future, three words may well spring to their minds when contemplating whether to go after nonprofits with espionage: Go for it. Unless the buying public votes with its pocketbook to diminish the sales of these offending companies.


___________________________________________________
The #1 barrier to activism in the US is this pervasive expansion of what personal information can be accessed by corporations. It is the enforcement of privacy laws that always kept perspective employers from anything other than basic information focused on whether a person can do a job. This was the backbone of Equal Protection in the workplace. When we allow Clinton/Obama neo-liberals to control government-----WE THE PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS TO PRIVACY-----and anything can be used against us in acquiring job=====ESPECIALLY POLITICAL ACTIVISM.

THIS WAS NEVER THE CASE IN MODERN HISTORY AND IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN GROWING ACTIVISM.


Baltimore is ground zero for the Biggest of Brother surveillance and data-mining. No Democrat would support or push these laws and yet----it is Baltimore pols that push them in the Maryland Assembly and Baltimore City Hall.


We are seeing more and more citizen activism online----as mine----and we must bring activism back to communities and direct communications.

Below you see all the avenues a corporation can take in background checks----but notice what they cannot do as regards workplace protections and then think----IF ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES TASKED WITH PROTECTING CITIZENS' RIGHTS ARE DISMANTLED----CORPORATIONS JUST DO AS THEY PLEASE.

Fact Sheet 16:
Employment Background Checks:
A Jobseeker's Guide

Revised October 2015



Introduction
1. Why Does an Employer Conduct a Background Check?
2. What Is Included in a Background Check?
3. What Cannot be in a Background Check Report?

4. Who Conducts Background Checks?
5. Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
6. What If There's an Error in My Background Check?
7. Background Checks and Your Credit Report

8. Employee Misconduct Investigations
9. Preparing for a Background Check
10. Resources

Introduction
This guide explains the why and how of background checks. It also tells you what can be covered in a background report, your rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and what you can do to prepare for a background check.
According to a study conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, approximately two-thirds of organizations conduct criminal background checks on all of their job candidates. Whether you are hired or promoted may depend on the information revealed in a background check. Job applicants and existing employees as well as volunteers may be asked to submit to background checks. For some jobs, screening is required by federal or state law.
1. Why Does an Employer Conduct a Background Check?
Employers check both job applicants and existing employees for several reasons. The things an employer wants to know about you can vary with the kinds of jobs you might seek. These are a few of the reasons employers conduct background screening:
  • Negligent hiring lawsuits are on the rise. If an employee's actions hurt someone, the employer may be liable. The threat of liability gives employers reason to be cautious in checking an applicant's past.
  • Terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 have resulted in heightened security and identity-verification strategies by employers.
  • Corporate executives, officers, and directors face a degree of scrutiny in both professional and private life as a result of corporate scandals.
  • False or inflated information supplied by some job applicants make employers wary of accepting anyone's word at face value.  
  • The availability of databases containing millions of records of personal data. As the cost of searching these sources drops, employers are finding it more feasible to conduct background checks.
  • Federal and state laws require that background checks be conducted for certain jobs. For example, most states require criminal background checks for anyone who works with children, the elderly, or disabled.  Many state and federal government jobs require a background check, and depending on the kind of job, may require an extensive investigation for a security clearance.
I don't have anything to hide. Why should I worry?
While some people are not concerned about background investigations, others are uncomfortable with the idea of an investigator poking around in their personal history. In-depth background checks could unearth information that is irrelevant, taken out of context, or just plain wrong. A further concern is that the report might include information that is illegal to use for hiring purposes or which comes from questionable sources.
An April 2012 report prepared by the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), identifies these and other problems that may be found when background screening companies report on criminal history. 
Does a criminal record mean I can never get a job?
Not necessarily. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has said that use of criminal history may sometimes violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This can happen, the EEOC says, when employers treat criminal history differently for different applicants or employees. 
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says that a person cannot be denied employment based on a criminal record alone. Instead, the decision to hire or not must be based on a “business necessity,” which requires the employer to consider:
  • The nature and gravity of the offense or offenses.
  • The time that has passed since the conviction and or completion of the sentence.
  • The nature of the job held or sought.
EEO laws apply in employment situations whether the employer hires a third-party screening company or not. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires compliance with EEO laws.
The EEOC has issued extensive guidelines for employers in considering the criminal history of a job applicant or employee.  To aid in compliance with Title VII, the EEOC guidelines provide employers with examples of best business practices.
2. What Is Included in a Background Check?
Background reports can range from a verification of an applicant's Social Security number to a detailed account of the potential employee's history and acquaintances. Information included in a background check will depend to some extent on the employer and the job involved. For many jobs, a state or federal law requires the employer to conduct a background check. Jobs that involve work with children, the elderly or people with disabilities are examples of jobs that will almost certainly require a criminal background check. Some employers search social networking sites such as Facebook for the profiles of applicants. 
Here are some of the pieces of information that might be included in a background check. Note that many of these sources are public records created by government agencies.
  • Driving records
  • Vehicle registration
  • Credit records
  • Criminal records
  • Social Security no.
  • Education records
  • Court records
  • Workers' compensation
  • Bankruptcy
  • Character references
  • Medical records
  • Property ownership
  • Military records
  • State licensing records
  • Drug test records
  • Past employers
  • Personal references
  • Incarceration records
  • Sex offender lists
In addition to information gathered from documents or databases, employers may also gather information on job applications or employee questionnaires. Concerns about the highly personal nature of some questions can lead to lawsuits. One such case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case, the Court said personal information required of contract workers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory was “reasonable” given the government’s interest in screening employees.  
Will my old conviction, probation, or arrest show up on a background check?
It depends. What can be reported on a background check depends on a number of factors, such as the kind of job, salary, and whether the employer does the check or hires a third party screening company. These are just a few of the things that can factor in. Federal law allows the reporting of criminal convictions indefinitely. Your state may offer more protection. If you have a court record, check the court record yourself to see how this matter appears. 
Can an employer ask my friends and neighbors about me?
Yes. Under the FCRA, a background check that includes interviews with "neighbors, friends, or associates" about your "character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living" is called an "investigative consumer report." (The term "investigative consumer report" has a different meaning under California Law.)
When information about you is gathered from interviews, the FCRA requires a separate disclosure. You are also entitled to know the "nature and scope" of an investigative consumer report, but you have to ask.
    3. What Cannot Be in a Background Check Report?
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) sets national standards for employment screening. However, the law only applies to background checks performed by an outside company, called a "consumer reporting agency" under the FCRA. The law does not apply in situations where the employer conducts background checks inhouse.
Under the FCRA, a background check report is called a "consumer report." This is the same name given to your credit report, and the same limits on disclosure apply. The FCRA says the following cannot be reported:
  • Bankruptcies after 10 years.
  • Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest, from date of entry, after seven years.
  • Paid tax liens after seven years.
  • Accounts placed for collection after seven years.
  • Any other negative information (except criminal convictions) after seven years.
However, the above reporting restrictions do not apply to jobs with an annual salary of $75,000 or more a year. (FCRA §605(b)(3).
Criminal convictions are reportable indefinitely, unless your state provides otherwise. California follows the seven-year rule (CA Civil Code 1786.18) as do some other states. To find the limit for reporting criminal convictions in your state, contact your state employment agency or office of consumer affairs.
Your state may have stronger laws, such as California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (Civil Code §1786) and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agency Act (Civil Code §1785). In addition, many state labor codes and state fair employment guidelines limit the content of an employment background check.
Other laws that should be considered:
  • Arrest information. Although arrest record information is public record, in California and other states employers cannot seek from any source the arrest record of a potential employee. However, if the arrest resulted in a conviction, or if the applicant is out of jail but pending trial, that information can be used. (California Labor Code §432.7).In California, an exception exists for the health care industry where any employer who has an interest in hiring a person with access to patients can ask about sex related arrests. When an employee may have access to medications, an employer can ask about drug related arrests.
  • Criminal history. In California, criminal histories or "rap sheets" compiled by law enforcement agencies are not public record. Only certain employers such as public utilities, law enforcement, security guard firms, and child care facilities have access to this information. (California Penal Code §§11105, 13300) However, there are private companies that compile virtual "rap sheets."
Employers need to use caution in checking criminal records. Information offered to the public by online information brokers is not always accurate or up to date.
  • Workers' compensation. In most states including California, when an employee's claim goes through the state system or the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), the case becomes public record. An employer may only use this information if an injury might interfere with one's ability to perform required duties. Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, employers cannot use medical information or the fact an applicant filed a workers' compensation claim to discriminate against applicants. (42 USC §12101).
In California, employers may access workers' compensation records after making an offer of employment. To gain access, employers must register with the WCAB and confirm that the records are being accessed for legitimate purposes. Although the agency may not reveal medical information and the employer may not rescind an offer due to a workers' compensation claim (California Labor Code 132a), employers sometimes discover that applicants have not revealed previous employers where they had filed claims. In such situations, employers often terminate the new hire because it appears they falsified the application.
  • Bankruptcies. Bankruptcies are public record. However, employers cannot discriminate against applicants because they have filed for bankruptcy. (11 USC §525)
Although these laws should prevent an employer from considering certain information, there is no realistic way for the applicant to determine whether such information will be revealed in a background check. This is particularly true for investigations conducted online where the information obtained might not be verified for accuracy or completeness.
For example, if you were arrested but never convicted, a data search could reveal the arrest, but the investigator who compiled the information might not delve further into the public records to determine that you were acquitted or the charges were dropped. Reputable employment screening companies always verify negative information obtained from database searches against the actual public records filed at the courthouse.
Can an employment application ask about things that should not be reported?
The FCRA does not prohibit an employer from asking questions in an employment application. See FTC letters to Nadell and Sum:
www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/nadell.htm
www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/sum.htm
For example, an employment application might ask if you have "ever" been arrested. The FCRA says a consumer reporting agency cannot report an arrest that from date of entry was more than seven years ago. It does not say the employer cannot ask the question.  How to handle such questions on an employment application is of real concern to many people, especially those concerned with a youthful mistake from the distant past.
To learn about employment laws in your state, search the Internet for “employment inquiries” followed by the name of your state. State and local equal employment opportunity agencies, along with federal EEO field offices, may also be located through the US Equal Opportunity Commission site.
State, county, or city employment laws may limit the questions that an employer includes on a job application.  So-called "Ban the Box" laws may prohibit employers from inquiring into criminal history in a job application. These laws can be complex and varied.  For examples and lists of state and municipal laws, see http://www.nelp.org/page/content/banthebox/.
The California Labor Code says an employer cannot ask about:
  • Any arrest or detention that did not result in a conviction.
  • Any arrest for which pretrial diversion has been completed.
  • Any criminal records that have been expunged, sealed or dismissed.
  • Public sector employers (California state and local agencies, cities and counties) are prohibited from asking about criminal records on employment applications.  Public sector employers must review an applicant's qualifications before inquiring about their conviction history.
Provisions of the Labor Code are reinforced in regulations of the California Department of Fair Housing and Employment. (See: 2 Cal. Codes Regs Sec. 7287.4(d)(1) (Register 95, No. 29: 7-21-95) A Department publication lists questions that are inappropriate for a California job applicant.
Aren't some of my personal records confidential?
An employer is required to get your permission before obtaining the following records. 
  • Education records. Under both federal and California law, transcripts, recommendations, discipline records, and financial information are confidential. A school should not release student records without the authorization of the adult-age student or parent. However, a school may release "directory information," which can include name, address, dates of attendance, degrees earned, and activities, unless the student has given written notice otherwise. (20 USC §1232g, www.ed.gov/offices/OM/fpco/ferpa/index.html)
  • Military service records. Under the federal Privacy Act, service records are confidential and can only be released under limited circumstances. Inquiries not authorized by the subject of the records must be made under the Freedom of Information Act. Even without the applicant's consent, the military may release name, rank, salary, duty assignments, awards, and duty status. (5 USC §§552, 552a)
  • Medical records. In California and many states, medical records are confidential. There are only a few instances when a medical record can be released without your knowledge or authorization. The FCRA also requires your specific permission for the release of medical records. If employers require physical examinations after they make a job offer, they will have access to the results. The Americans with Disabilities Act allows a potential employer to inquire only about your ability to perform specific job functions. (42 USC §12101)
There are other questions such as age, marital status, and certain psychological tests that employers cannot use when interviewing. These issues are beyond the scope of this guide. If you have further questions, contact the resources at the end of this fact sheet. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the fair employment agencies in the states handle these issues.
What can my former employer say about me?
Often a potential employer will contact an applicant's past employers. A former boss can say anything truthful about your performance. However, most employers have a policy to only confirm dates of employment, final salary, and other limited information. California law prohibits employers from intentionally interfering with former employees' attempts to find jobs by giving out false or misleading references. (California Labor Code §1050)
Under California law and the laws of many other states, employees have a right to review their own personnel files and make copies of documents they have signed. If you are a state or federal employee, your personnel file is protected under the California Information Practices Act or the federal Privacy Act of 1974 and can only be disclosed under limited circumstances. (California Civil Code §56.20; California Labor Code §§432, 1198.5; 5 USC §552a)
Jobs such as truck driver positions fall under regulations of the federal Department of Transportation. Employers are required to accurately respond to an inquiry from a prospective employer about whether you took a drug test, refused a drug test, or tested positive in a drug test with the former or current employer. (49 CFR §40.25, 49 CFR §382.413)
4. Who Conducts Background Checks?
There are many companies that specialize in employment screening. The most important thing to keep in mind is that companies conducting background checks fall into several broad categories. This can range from individuals commonly known as "private investigators," to companies that do nothing but employment screening, and to online data brokers. 
Corporations that employ large numbers of people may have an established relationship with a third-party background checking company or may even use an affiliated company for their employment screening. Other background checking companies may work on a less formal basis with employers. Some screening companies operate in specific areas of the country while others, including some private investigators, conduct background screening nationwide.
It is easy for employers to gather background information themselves. Much of it is computerized, allowing employers to access public records and commercial databases online. Finding one of these online companies is as easy as using an Internet search engine to find web sites that specialize in "background checks."
Employers should understand that online data brokers may be subject to the FCRA, triggering obligations on the part of the company as well as the employer.  In June 2012 the FTC announced a settlement in a case charging online data broker Spokeo with acting as a consumer reporting agency.
How much does a background check cost?
Background checks vary significantly in price depending on a number of factors, including: the comprehensiveness of the search, what types of background information is sought, and the number of background reports that the company or agency has the screening company conduct each year (usually prices are lower per search when a high volume of reports are conducted per organization).
5. Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 USC §1681 et seq.) does not require employers to conduct employment background checks. But the law sets a national standard that employers must follow in employment screening. State laws may give an employee more rights than the FCRA.
Do I have a right to know when a background check is requested?
Yes, if it is not performed by the employer. The background check must be prepared by an outside company -- a "consumer reporting agency" or business that "for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in ... assembling ... information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties." (FCRA §603f)
Under the FCRA, the employer must obtain the applicant's written authorization before the background check is conducted. The authorization must be on a document separate from all other documents such as an employment application. In California, at the time an employer obtains permission for a background check, the applicant or employee should also be told that he or she may request a copy of the report. The FCRA, in contrast, says the subject is entitled to a copy of the report if a pre-adverse notice is given.
Under federal law, if the employer uses information from the consumer report for an "adverse action" - that is, denying the job applicant, terminating the employee, rescinding a job offer, or denying a promotion - it must take the following steps:
  • Before the adverse action is taken, the employer must give the applicant a "pre-adverse action disclosure." This includes a copy of the report and an explanation of the consumer's rights under the FCRA.

  • After the adverse action is taken, the individual must be given an "adverse action notice." This document must contain the name, address, and phone number of the employment screening company, a statement that this company did not make the adverse decision, rather that the employer did, and a notice that the individual has the right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any of the information in the report.
Modified disclosure and adverse action procedures under the FCRA (§604(b)(3)(B)) apply to positions subject to U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations such as truck drivers. The DOT has independent authority to set qualifications for workers in transportation industries.  (49 USC §31502)
Can a background check report include a case that was expunged?
According to the FTC, it should not. In August, 2012, the agency fined one background screening company $2.6 million for, among other things, reporting criminal records that had been expunged. In addition, the FTC charged the company with failing to follow other FCRA provisions, including failure to provide consumers with a copy of their background check report.
Often equated to the sealing or destroying of legal records. Each state offers its own definition of expungement, based on different rules and laws. Generally, expungement can be viewed as the process to "remove from general review" the records pertaining to a case. But the records may not completely "disappear" and may still be available to law enforcement.
I am applying for a job in a profession that is required by law to perform background checks, such as in law enforcement, childcare, or a hospital. Will this affect my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act?
Maybe. When a specific law requires a background check, that same law usually outlines the rights employees have. These rights may not necessarily follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the background screening law that governs "consumer reports."  However, if a third-party screening company is hired, the FCRA would apply.
Law enforcement agencies or state licensing authorities may have direct access to state and federal criminal records databases, which many private employers do not have. A government-run database is not a consumer reporting agency and is not subject to the FCRA. Whether you have a right to get your report or make corrections may be spelled out in the background check forms you signed or perhaps on the agency's Web site.
However, individuals are generally allowed to access their own criminal records files maintained by a state or federal agency. To access your state’s criminal records data files, contact your state Attorney General. The federal Privacy Act also gives you the right to request records maintained about you. To check federal criminal records, contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
I am an independent contractor. What are my rights if the employer wants to do a background check?
The Federal Trade Commission staff has issued a couple of advisory opinion letters about contractors and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Allison Letter.  This FTC advisory opinion says that a trucking operation that uses consumer reports to evaluate whether to hire independent owner operator truck drivers must comply with the provisions of the FCRA pertaining to consumer reports, including the disclosure and authorization provisions.
The opinion goes on to say that even a homeowner who is considering hiring an individual to perform services for the homeowner is indeed required to comply with the FCRA when obtaining a "consumer report" on that individual. Like any employer, the homeowner must abide by the applicable disclosure and authorization provisions like any other employer.
Solomon Letter. This FTC advisory opinion says that  the term "employment purposes," as used in the FCRA, should be interpreted broadly. 
Does a nonprofit organization have to follow the FCRA when screening volunteers?
Yes, if the investigation is conducted by a consumer reporting agency. Some nonprofit organizations are allowed direct access to state or federal criminal data bases. This is especially true for those organizations where employees and volunteers work closely with children, the elderly, or the disabled.
Does the FCRA require that I receive notice and give authorization at any time a background check is obtained?
The FCRA allows a "blanket" authorization. This means a one-time notice and authorization is sufficent to allow the employer to obtain reports at any time during employment.  The requirement to get authorization may, however, be different under state law. In California, for example, notice and authorization is required "at any time before a report is procured." (California Civil Code Sec. 1786.16)
May an employment report include medical information?
The FCRA imposes specific obligations on employment screening companies. Medical information supplied for employment purposes requires your specific written consent and must be “relevant” to the employment. An employer may also ask you to take a pre-employment physical. If so, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires such requests be made only after a job offer.
How does the FCRA fall short?
The federal law has two significant loopholes. First, if the employer does not use a third-party screening company but, rather conducts the background check itself, it is not subject to the notice and consent provisions of the FCRA.

Second, the employer might tell the rejected applicant that its adverse decision was not based on the contents of the background investigation, but, rather that the job pool was so exceptional that it made its hiring decision based on the fact that there were individuals more qualified than the applicant.
In both of these situations, the applicant would not have the ability to obtain a copy of the background check to find out what negative information it contained. 
Where do I go to complain about an employer or a background screening company that does not follow the FCRA?
Complaints should be filed with the Federal Trade Commission. Your state may also have a law that applies to employment background checks. In that case, file a complaint with your state Attorney General. Contact for state Attorneys General can be found through the National Association of Attoneys General. 
In California, complaints should be submitted to the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit, (916) 322-3360 or Toll Free in California (800) 952-5225.
The FCRA includes a private right of action, that is consumers themselves may sue for violations. Attorneys who specialize in employment law may be located through the National Employment Lawyers' Association. State and county bar associations are another resource for referrals.
6. What If There's an Error in  My Background Check?
There is an error in my background check report.  What should I do?
First, talk to the employer. Explain the report’s errors, and tell the employer you intend to file a dispute with the employment screening company. Although the FCRA does not require the employer to hold the job for you, a sympathetic employer may be willing to give you a chance to correct any errors.
Next, file a dispute with the employment screening company that made the error. You may first call the company and tell them about the error. Then follow-up with a written dispute letter pointing out the errors in the report. Send your letter certified mail, return receipt requested.
Along with your letter you may submit information that verifies your side of the story. For example, you may have a common name. The background check report may show a criminal record for someone with your first and last name but with a different middle initial. 
The process for disputing errors in an employment report is the same as the process for disputing errors in your credit report. For more about filing disputes, along with a sample dispute letter, see the FTC publication How to Dispute Credit Report Errors.
What happens after I file a dispute with the employment screening company?
After you file your dispute, the screening company has 30 days to investigate. If, during that 30 day period, you file additional information, the investigation may be extended by another 15 days. So, 45 days is the maximum time allowed for considering your dispute.
If information in your background screening report cannot be verified, it must be deleted. You must receive written notice of the results of the investigation not later than five business days after the investigation is completed. You can ask the screening company to send the revised report to anyone who has received an employment report about you within the last two years. You also have the right to receive another free copy of your report within 60 days.
I want to file a lawsuit against a background check company for reporting inaccurate information on my background check, because it cost me my job. What should I do?
You should contact an employment or consumer lawyer to discuss your situation. An employment lawyer can be found through the National Employment Lawyers Association. A consumer attorney can be found through the National Association of Consumer Advocates.
If a background checking company deletes inaccurate information, does the employer have to re-instate a job offer?
No. The FCRA does not obligate an employer to act upon a corrected report.
7. Background Checks and Your Credit Report
An employment background check often includes a copy of your credit report. The three major credit reporting agencies (Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax) provide a modified version of the credit report called an "employment report." An "employment report" includes information about your credit payment history and other credit habits from which current or potential employers might draw conclusions about you.
An employment report provides everything a standard credit report would provide. However it doesn't include your credit score or date of birth. Nor does it place an "inquiry" on your credit file that may be seen by a company looking to issue you credit. Having too many credit inquiries tends to lower your credit score.
Why do some employers do a credit check?
Often employers use your credit history to gauge your level of responsibility. Whether a valid assumption or not, some employers believe if you are not reliable in paying your bills, then you will not be a reliable employee. Unfortunately, a bad credit report can work against you in your search for employment.
In addition to your payment history, a credit report typically includes information about your former addresses and previous employers. Employers can use this as one way to verify the accuracy of information you provide on an application or resume.
Do any state laws limit the use of credit reports for employment screening purposes?
Several states have passed laws limiting credit reports for employment decisions with provisions that require a nexus to actual job duties. Those states are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington .
A California employer cannot review your credit report unless the job falls into one of numerous exceptions. Credit checks are allowed for, among other things, jobs with the state Department of Justice, management positons, law enforcement jobs, and jobs that entail access to money, financial accounts, or personal information. For more on employment background checks in California, see PRC's guide to Employment Background Checks in California.
Can my employer continue to check my credit after I’ve been hired?
Yes. The FCRA allows employment checks not only for hiring purposes but for other employment purposes such as promotion, retention, or transfer. Credit checks for the purposes of retaining you as an employee allows the employer to check you credit periodically. Once you have given your permission, you generally need not be asked again.
Employers may run periodic checks, for example, as a way to identify individuals who have a high debt to salary ratio. To an employer, an employee who is overextended financially may be more prone to stealing from the company.
I never use credit. Can an employer hold that against me?
Yes. The employer might be looking for someone who has an established record of paying bills on time. The FCRA says only that certain things like negative information more than seven years old cannot be considered. The absence of a credit history can also be considered. But if this bit of information means you don't get the job, the employer has to give you an adverse notice decision. 
My credit rating went down when I lost my job. Now I can’t get a job because of poor credit. Is this fair?
No. Often a poor credit rating results from circumstances that are beyond your control. The loss of a job or high medical bills often leads to late payments, even bankruptcy. Still a bank or other financial institution may reason that a solid financial history is a qualifying factor for an employee who has control over substantial sums of money.
However, the same argument cannot be made when a credit check serves only as a kind of character screening. Some states have now recognized the unfairness in this by adopting laws that require a direct relationship to the job before a credit check is made.
8. Employee Misconduct Investigations
What is an "employee misconduct investigation"?
This is an investigation conducted by a third-party your employer may hire if the employer suspects you of:
  • Misconduct relating to your employment.
  • A violation of federal, state or local laws or regulations.
  • A violation of any preexisting written policies of the employer.
  • Noncompliance with the rules of a self-regulatory organization, that, for example, oversees the securities and commodity futures industry.
If my employer suspects me of misconduct, what does this mean for me?
It means your employer does not have to give you notice and get your permission to conduct a misconduct investigation. Like other inquiries covered by the FCRA, this only applies if the employer hires an outside party to conduct the investigation.
It also means you will not receive a notice of your rights as others who are subject to a standard employment background check normally would. If, at the end of the investigation, the employer decides to take some action against you, you receive the "adverse action" notice only after the action has been taken.
You will receive only a "summary" of the investigation report, but not the more detailed report that may include sources.
Who will see the investigation report?
The report may be communicated to:
  • The employer or its agent.
  • Any federal or state officer, agency or department or any officer, agency or department of a unit of general local government.
  • Any self-regulatory organization with regulatory authority over the activities of the employer or the employee.
  • Others, as is otherwise required by law; or
  • A government agency, in accordance with an existing FCRA section that allows a consumer reporting agency to disclose personal identifying information to a government agency.
Can I dispute the findings?
Not under the FCRA dispute procedure. The usual protections that apply to a "consumer report" conducted for employment purposes do not apply to workplace misconduct investigations. If you find yourself in this position, you will probably want to seek the advice of an employment law attorney.
9. Preparing for a Background Check
When you know you are going to be on the job market, take the following steps to reduce the chances that you and/or the potential employer will be "surprised" by information found in the background check process:
  • Order a copy of your credit report. If there is something you do not recognize or that you disagree with, dispute the information with the creditor and/or credit bureau before you have to explain it to the interviewer. Another individual's name may appear on your credit report. This happens when someone mistakenly writes down the wrong Social Security number on a credit application causing that name to appear on your file. Or you might be a victim of identity theft.
  • Check court records. If you have an arrest record or have been involved in court cases, go to the county where this took place and inspect the files. Make sure the information is correct and up to date.

    Reporting agencies often report felony convictions when the consumer truly believes the crime was reduced to a misdemeanor, or that it was reported as a misdemeanor conviction when the consumer thought the charge was reduced to an infraction. Court records are not always updated correctly. For example, a signature that was needed to reduce the charges might not have been obtained or recorded by the court. Don't rely on what someone else may have told you. If you think the conviction was expunged or dismissed, get a certified copy of your report from the court.

    It is always a good idea to keep certified copies of any papers filed in court, especially the judge’s order or other document that disposes of the case. If you later learn the court record is inaccurate but do not have a certified copy, first contact the clerk of court where the matter was heard. If you cannot correct the problem at this level, it may be necessary to petition the court yourself or hire an attorney to act on your behalf.
  • Check DMV records. Request a copy of your driving record from the Department of Motor Vehicles, especially if you are applying for a job that involves driving.

    Many employers ask on their application if you were ever convicted of a crime. Or they might word the question to ask whether you have ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor. Typically, the application says you do not have to divulge a case that was expunged or dismissed, or that was a minor traffic violation.

    Don't be confused. A DUI (driving under the influence) or DWI (driving while intoxicated) conviction is not considered a minor traffic infraction. Applicants with a DUI or DWI who have not checked "yes" on a job application may be denied employment for falsifying the form -- even when the incident occurred only once or happened many years before. The employer perceives this as dishonesty, even though the applicant might only have been confused by the question.
  • Do your own background check. If you want to see what an employer's background check might uncover, hire a background screening company that specializes in such reports to conduct one for you. That way, you can discover if the data bases of information vendors contain erroneous or misleading information. You can use one of the many online search services to find out what an employer would learn if conducting a background check in this way.
  • Ask to see a copy of your personnel file from your old job. Even if you do not work there anymore, state law might enable you to see your file. Under California law, you can access your file until at least a year from the last date of employment. And you are allowed to make copies of documents in your file that have your signature on them. (California Labor Code §432.) You may also want to ask if your former employer has a policy about the release of personnel records. Many companies limit the amount of information they disclose.
  • Read the fine print carefully. When you sign a job application, you will be asked to sign a consent form if a background check is conducted. Read this statement carefully and ask questions if the authorization statement is not clear. Unfortunately, jobseekers are in an awkward position, since refusing to authorize a background check may jeopardize the chances of getting the job.
  • Tell neighbors and work colleagues, past and present, that they might be asked to provide information about you. This helps avoid suspicion and alerts you to possible problems. In addition, their prior knowledge gives them permission to disclose information to the investigator. Forewarning others speeds up the process and helps you get the job faster.

  • Clean up your "digital dirt." Conduct a search on your name -- in quotation marks -- in the major search engines such as Google. If you find unflattering references, contact the Web site to learn if and how you can remove them. You can monitor the web for new mentions of your name by setting up a Google Alert at http://www.google.com/alerts. Google Alert will send you email updates of the latest Google results mentioning your name.

    If you have created profiles in popular social networking sites such as Facebook, review, and if necessary, edit what you have posted to make sure that an employer would not be offended.   Some employers are turning to third-party screening companies to monitor and report on a potential employee’s social networking activity. Understand that if employers themselves monitor your Internet activity, you do not have rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Do you blog? Re-read your entries from the perspective of a potential employer. Remove or edit postings that could harm your jobseeking efforts. But don't necessarily remove Web content that shines a light on your positive achievements. A personal Web site or blog that highlights your good deeds could benefit you.
  • Request previous background check reports. If you have been the subject of a background check covered by the FCRA, you may be entitled to receive a copy of your "file" from the employment screening company. If you do not know the name of the screening company, ask the employer who requested the check.
10. Resources
Laws on Background Checks
  • Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USC §1681
  • California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code §1786
  • California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code §1785
    www.leginfo.ca.gov
Laws on Workplace Discrimination
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
    The EEOC was established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It enforces the following laws:
  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 USC §2000e
  • Equal Pay Act of 1963, which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination. 29 USC §206(d)
  • Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older. 29 USC §621
  • Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments. 42 USC §12101
0 Comments

November 23rd, 2015

11/23/2015

0 Comments

 
PLEASE STOP ALLOWING GLOBAL CORPORATIONS TO REDEFINE WHAT PUBLIC SAFETY IN AMERICA IS TODAY.  BREAKING DOWN REAL PUBLIC SAFETY GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES AND REPLACING THEM WITH GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AND SECURITY AND SURVEILLANCE.

The US has struggled in the past as regards public safety----whose public safety?  The civil rights movement answered that with Constitutional Amendments that stated EQUAL PROTECTION----everyone is protected by public safety.


I spoke at length about how to stabilize communities around city center Baltimore by building a platform for the poorest in the community to own a home, have a small business, and have access to growing and attaining their own food.  If that is built in all communities---then public safety especially in those communities grows and it is the answer citywide.  Personal security brings safety-----NOT MILITARIZED POLICING.

When societies move towards global corporate autocratic control they change that idea of what public safety looks like.  That is what we are seeing in Baltimore and US cities across America----now, we see the poor being portrayed as dangerous in our local media with no indications that it is the public policies at the top of the income ladder that is the source of this public threat to safety.  When a person sees pictures of Baltimore's surrounding communities----it looks like a meteor dropped----it is third world.  It comes from a looting of Baltimore's assets by Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins.  So, the threat to public safety comes from that looting----not the people being pushed into black market employment because Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins outsources all work to corporations outside of Baltimore----outside of Maryland---outside of the US.

THAT IS WHAT TODAY'S PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT IS ABOUT.

Meanwhile, we have a Baltimore City Hall---working for Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins running around saying the answer to crime is more police----more militarized police methods to frighten people into submission----more surrveillance and data tracking to follow what every group identified as dangerous is doing-----


WAKE UP PEOPLE---THAT IS CORPORATE FAR-RIGHT FASCISM  ---THE OPPOSITE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

Remember, Singapore is one of the original Asian neo-liberal economies and as such it has an autocratic leader handing his citizens to FOXCONN global corporate campuses and now likes the idea of making Singapore one big SMART CITY......it is ground zero for total surveillance society.  Below you see where public safety now comes with special global corporations and surveillance of every sector of society.

THIS IS NOW THE SAFETY AND SECURITY THREAT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE-----NOT THE POOR PEOPLE MADE DESPERATE FOR SURVIVAL.


NEC Announces Establishment of New Global Headquarters for Public Safety Business


*** For immediate use June 13, 2013



Tokyo and Singapore, June 13, 2013 - NEC Corporation (NEC; TSE: 6701) has established a Global Safety Division in Singapore as the Global Strategic Headquarters for NEC's Public Safety Business.

The Global Safety Division will focus on growing and developing the company's expertise in public safety, an area which has attracted a great deal of attention and investment by governments around the world. The new division will devise global business strategy, develop new technologies and solutions and provide training and technical support for subsidiaries and partners worldwide. Mr. Tan Boon Chin, Managing Director of the Regional Competency Centre for Public Safety in NEC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., has been appointed to lead the new division.


NEC is known globally for its biometrics identity technologies, which have been provided to a wide range of customers in 30 countries around the world. This includes solutions for immigration control, national identification, law enforcement, urban surveillance, cyber security, and emergency and disaster management. One of NEC's primary missions is to realize a rich and innovative Smart Society by utilizing ICT technologies in the areas of security and smart energy solutions.

Mr. Takayuki Morita, Senior Vice President of NEC says: "The new Division is introducing global markets to the message of 'Safer Cities'. We are fully convinced that safety and security are the bedrock for a city's development, growth and renewal. We firmly believe in utilizing technology to safeguard lives and property, and in the process, creating a society where people are able to live, work and play in safety and comfort, while co-existing in harmony with the environment."

The new division was established in Singapore in order to conveniently access important markets, to capitalize on the business experience and capabilities of the public safety team, and to further enhance its capabilities, as Singapore is an open ground for attracting global talent.

The solutions delivered in the region span across various domains, such as national ID, automated border control, finance, biometric security, critical facilities, transportation, food safety and cyber security. NEC aims to optimize its global development, sales, and marketing efforts with the establishment of the new division. Members of the new division will be based in Singapore, Tokyo and other major metropolitan areas of the world.

"Singapore is a trusted hub for Asia's mission critical data and ICT infrastructure, and this makes us an ideal location for companies to develop new security-related products and services," said Mr. Jayson Goh, Executive Director of Infocomms and Media, Singapore Economic Development Board. "I am happy that NEC has chosen to orchestrate the international growth of their Global Safety Division from Singapore. This is a strong validation of Singapore's status as a Global-Asia Hub for Asian companies seeking to penetrate international markets."

One of the projects that the Global Safety Division will be involved in is the recently announced Singapore Safe City Test Bed project, where NEC Asia Pacific was appointed as leader of one of the four consortia managing the test beds. The project is spearheaded by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) to promote the Safety and Security industry in Singapore.

Working through its regional team, the Division will fully support this project by building an end-to-end inter-agency collaboration infrastructure that can help a wide range of government agencies to integrate and analyze data collected from various networks. Through the innovative use of technologies, multiple agencies can understand and correlate information from various sources and optimize the resources used to handle this information.

In December 2012, NEC announced the signing of a partnership agreement with INTERPOL to provide the world police body with vital assistance in developing core elements of the Digital Crime Centre being established within the INTERPOL Global Complex for Innovation in Singapore. The Global Safety Division's Cyber Security team will also contribute to the development of technologies and solutions, training and investigation support as part of this partnership.

Governments around the world are expected to invest approximately 0.5 percent of GDP into safer city projects by 2017, and the contribution of technologies towards the development of safer city projects is expected to amount to 80-85 billion dollars by 2020 (source: Frost & Sullivan marketing reports).

With the establishment of the Global Safety Division, NEC will continue to promote the expansion of business and to contribute to the public safety of cities worldwide.


____________________________________________
IF THE GOAL OF GLOBAL CORPORATIONS IS HAVING 90% OF AMERICANS IN POVERTY---WE KNOW WHAT PUBLIC SECURITY AND SAFETY IS GEARED TO PROTECT---A VERY FEW RICH.


We have had plenty of national media in the US shouting just what this article from UK states----I wanted to show this is worldwide and citizens in all these nations see this BIG BROTHER as the security and safety threat.  Citizens in Baltimore's underserved communities feel so under attack by black market violence---they see protection in police security cameras----but what they don't see is the big picture----although they are starting to.  Creating the need for systemic surveillance by allowing such levels of poverty and unemployment is like privatizing public transportation away by defunding it and leaving citizens waiting for ever for a bus to come. 

YOU CREATE THE NEED BY BUILDING THE CONDITIONS FOR A DANGEROUS SOCIETY.


Anyone would look at pictures OF DECAY of Baltimore's surrounding communities and say----THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN THE UNITED STATES.

So, citizens are being conditioned to think having cameras and security people all around them is for their good----as we move to more and more citizens becoming unemployed and impoverished with this coming economic crash.


That is what very, very, very conservative Republican Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development have been doing these few decades and they doubled-down after the 2008 crash----taking away all Federal agencies and funding sources ----all public social service assets in communities and now even public schools

ALL WHILE BALTIMORE CITY POLS INSTALLED THESE POLICIES---BOTH MARYLAND ASSEMBLY AND BALTIMORE CITY HALL.

Baltimore's Mikulski and Cardin----Sarbanes, Cummings--are queen and kings of all this global corporate autocratic society----and they installed this while being called 'progressive' Democrats.



Britain's freedoms under threat from 'Big Brother security state', warns Director of Public Prosecutions


By Steve Doughty for the Daily Mail
Updated: 04:11 EST, 21 October 2008






The chief prosecutor has warned the surveillance society is threatening to 'break the back of freedom'.
Sir Ken Macdonald, Director of Public Prosecutions, said the state was poised to take powers to keep information on everyone and 'we might end up living with something we can't bear.'
His message - delivered ten days before he steps down as head of the Crown Prosecution Service - was a parting shot at ministers who aim to make every phone call, email, test message and internet visit available to police and security services.
Sir Ken said: 'We need to take very great care not to fall into a way of life in which freedom's back is broken by the relentless pressure of a security state.'
We're watching you: An East German Stasi officer listens in on a couple in a scene from the Oscar-winning film The Lives Of Others
The warning comes amid growing public concern over state snooping.
Some 4.4million people - many of them non-criminals - are on a DNA database, CCTV cameras routinely film pedestrians and motorists and the Government continues to plan an ID card system.
Last week Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was accused of planning surveillance on a Big Brother scale when she announced moves to give police and security services access to all private electronic communications.
Sir Ken attacked the spread of surveillance in a CPS lecture. He said: 'Let me in my final public speech as DPP repeat my call for levelheadedness and for legislative restraint in an age of dangerous movements.'
While technology had brought immeasurable benefits, Sir Ken added, it 'also gives the state enormous powers of access to knowledge and information about each one of us and the ability to collect and store it at will. Every second of every day in everything we do.'
The DPP said: 'Of course modern technology is of critical importance to the struggle against serious crime. Used wisely, it can protect us.
'But we need to understand that decisions taken in the next few months and years about how the state may use these powers, and to what extent, are likely to be irreversible.
Enlarge  


'We should take very great care to imagine the world we are creating before we build it. We might end up living with something we can't bear.'

Sir Ken said the best way to face down terrorist threats was to strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law.
His period as DPP had seen a relentless struggle against terrorism and a conviction rate 'unmatched in the fair trial world.' It had been done 'with full respect for our historical norms and our liberal constitution'.
He added: 'It is difficult to see who will maintain a cool head if governments do not. Or who will protect our constitution if governments unwittingly disarm it.'
Tories praised the speech. Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'Sir Ken has been at the forefront of our counterterrorism effort for several years, so he knows the security challenges we face.
'This Government's approach has all too often proved cavalier  -  unjustified powers, sprawling databases and excessive use of surveillance powers risk undermining both our security and our way of life.'
The Home Office said last night: 'The Government agrees with the DPP that technology and communications data is critically important in tackling all forms of serious crime as well as in the fight against terrorism.
'The Government also agrees that care is needed to agree what safeguards are needed, in addition to the many we have in place already, to provide a solid legal framework which protects civil liberties.
'The Home Secretary made it very clear last week that the Government will consult widely with the public and all interested parties to set out emerging problems with technology, the important capability gaps that we need to address in collecting data and to look at the possible solutions.'
Sir Ken will be succeeded next month by human rights lawyer Keir Starmer.

________________________________________
So, in the world of progressive posing we are hearing Baltimore pols pretending all this surveillance and tracking of people is progressive------it is public safety and security for businesses.  Then, businesses become suspect and now we are monitoring businesses to keep American's safe ----and finally, it is our neighbors----we never know what they are up to so we need these global corporations to provide national IDs that can track everything you buy-----everytime you are at home-----where you walk, ride, or hang out.

THIS CHANGES THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOLKS----

You can ask anyone in Baltimore----even Johns Hopkins students and employees and everyone will tell you----it is these global institutions of which they are growing  skeptical.

All of this national security/Homeland Security is a Republican policy----the idea of national IDs and tracking all kinds of groups of people has always come from the right wing.  Yet, of course----it is Clinton and Obama as Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals who are doubling-down on what a Bush neo-con did.  They do that because global pols are all Republican---it is right wing Republican policy----so to is extreme wealth inequity by systemic looting of our US Treasury by corporations.

We are now watching this goal of complete SMART CITY roll out piece by piece all under the guise of being efficient-----being cost saving----being public safety=====POSING PROGRESSIVE FOLKS.





The New Threat of Big Brother: The REAL ID Act
By William J. Watkins Jr.  |  Posted: Thu. March 10, 2005



The United States Senate is the most august deliberative body in the world. In Federalist No. 63, James Madison, the principle architect of the U.S. Constitution, reasoned that with fewer members and longer terms than the House of Representatives, the Senate would be insulated from the pressures of reckless popular politics. Hence, it would possess the requisite coolness needed for self-restrained deliberation.
With the REAL ID Act just approved by the House in a 261–161 voice vote, temperate deliberation on the Senate floor is sorely needed. Proponents of the REAL ID Act claim it is an anti-terrorism measure meant to protect American lives. According to House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), the legislation’s author, the Act will “prevent another 9/11-type attack by disrupting terrorist travel.” Although the Act will make it easier for the national government to monitor suspected terrorists, it also lays the groundwork for a national identification system that threatens to invade the privacy of ordinary Americans.
At first blush, the requirements of the REAL ID Act do not appear onerous. For example, the Act commands state governments to include nine categories of information on all state-issued driver’s licenses such as full legal name, a digital photograph, and address of principle residence. These items are already found on most, if not all, driver’s licenses.
However, the ninth category requires states to use a “common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.” In implementing this and the other requirements, the Secretary of Homeland Security would be empowered to impose regulations arbitrarily on all citizens. This broad and highly intrusive power is key, considering the recent advancements in technology.
Radio frequency identification (RFID) chips, which are smaller than the width of a human hair, currently can hold up to 64K of memory—an amount of storage capacity that not long ago was standard for most personal computers. These chips can easily store biometric data such as a person’s digital fingerprints, iris scans, or DNA information. With a quick scan of the chip, the data can be broadcast to a federal official with the proper scanning equipment. These chips are already being used by the State Department in its new “smart passports” and could easily be integrated into other types of identification cards.
With federal regulation, the Homeland Security Secretary could require states to adopt RFID technology in driver’s licenses. The Secretary might also require that these chips contain fingerprints, iris scans, and other biometric data. In addition, the Secretary could require the states to include personal information such as criminal history, employment history, or firearm ownership—all in the name of “homeland security.” As RFID technology improves, the chips in driver’s licenses could even be read remotely at greater distances, permitting the federal and state governments to know a citizen’s location at any time.
If states were to fail to implement the Secretary’s requirements, federal agencies would refuse to accept the driver’s license for official purposes. This means that a citizen would not be permitted to board planes and trains if his identification card (i.e., a driver’s license) does not meet the federal standards. This clearly clashes with the Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to travel as a fundamental right that can only be burdened by restrictions narrowly tailored to serve a “compelling” governmental interest. While the government certainly has a compelling interest in protecting Americans from terrorist attacks, jeopardizing the privacy of all American citizens is not warranted. Surely safeguarding Americans can be furthered by a far less restrictive and intrusive mechanism than that prescribed by the REAL ID Act.
Not surprisingly, the REAL ID Act is opposed by diverse groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Conservative Union, Free Congress Foundation, Amnesty International, and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Rather than fighting terrorism, Marvin J. Johnson, the ACLU Legislative Counsel, predicts that the REAL ID Act will “only serve to restrict our freedoms and invade our privacy.”
Considering the carte blanche that would be given to the Secretary to promulgate regulations regarding “common machine-readable technology,” the concerns raised by the ACLU and other groups are very real. So far, our massive leaps in technology have not brought Orwellian monitoring by Big Brother. The REAL ID Act, however, could change this completely. At the very least, it places too much discretion in the hands of the Homeland Security Secretary to monitor Americans and unnecessarily interferes with the fundamental right to travel.
It also lays the groundwork for a national ID system common in some European and South American counties. In many of these systems, citizens are required to keep their ID cards (“your papers”) with them at all times, and they face stiff penalties for failure to comply. Americans have been insulated from such a system in which government officials can arbitrarily demand their “papers.” The REAL ID Act is unfortunately a giant step in this direction.
James Madison envisioned the Senate blocking legislation sparked by “irregular passions” and “artful misrepresentations” that might influence the House of Representatives. There are perhaps no two better phrases to describe the impetus behind REAL ID Act than those used by Madison over 200 years ago. Let us hope that the Senate will live up to Mr. Madison’s expectations by rejecting this latest legislation that unnecessarily circumscribes liberty in the name of national security.
__________________________________________

In Republican states and cities like Baltimore, these cards are used to track students around the school building so at no time do these students feel they are not being watched. Conditioning the next generation.

Below you see just how all this is made to sound progressive----we are making it easier for youth who are burdened by having separate cards.  We as a society have wallets designed for one massive grouping of credit cards-----that never worried anyone.

Baltimore and Johns Hopkins is ground zero in the US for making a Singapore SMART CITY not only of Baltimore---but all International Economic Zones.  So, we know this City Council person is working for Johns Hopkins and not the youth in his voting district when he shouts for this. 

BRANDON SCOTT IS A TOOL FOR GLOBAL WALL STREET BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT JUST AS HIS COUSIN RAWLINGS-BLAKE IS.

Citizens of Baltimore are being sold they are being protected from a growing impoverished majority of citizens while SMART CITY technology takes over their water, waste, energy with data showing the middle-class every move.

NONE OF THIS IS PUBLIC SAFETY---IT IS NOT ABLE SUSTAINABILITY----IT IS NOT SECURITY----

It is global corporations trying to transform developed nations in to third world autocratic economic zones


THIS IS NOT A RACE, CLASS, OR CREED ISSUE----THIS IS A US AS A DEMOCRATIC SOCIAL REPUBLIC WITH CITIZENS HAVING RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.



City Council considering 'One Card' for Baltimore youths
Erica L. GreenContact Reporter  Baltimore Sun


The Baltimore Sun

Councilman: It's "financially irresponsible that we give kids three different cards to do three things that on
A Baltimore city councilman wants the city to issue a single identification card allowing young people to ride buses and use other school and government services, but a civil liberties advocate says the proposal raises privacy concerns.
The One Card would be modeled after programs in cities including Washington and Boston, where young residents use the ID to enter facilities such as libraries and recreation centers and use services including the bus system.
City Councilman Brandon Scott called for a hearing on the idea, saying a One Card system would help Baltimore better serve young people by offering easier access to services.
He said it would be more convenient for youths than having to carry multiple cards — school IDs, library cards and Maryland Transit Administration bus passes — and would help city government better serve the population by gathering performance and usage data for programs.
"In 2015, it is idiotic and financially irresponsible that we give kids three different cards to do three things that one card can do," Scott said.
An investigative hearing on the proposal will be held at 4 p.m. Thursday at City Hall.
The idea was met with trepidation by a top official of the ACLU of Maryland, who said such a card could potentially create access barriers for students and threaten their privacy.
David Rocah, senior staff attorney at the ACLU, worried that losing the card could block students from entering their schools. And misuse of the data it could unlock would be illegal, he said.
For instance, Scott suggested the cards could allow the head of a recreation center to access a student's academic records to tailor services to student needs. Rocah said doing that would violate the student's right to privacy.
"These cards should not be a way of creating dossiers about kids with data that crosses the boundaries of the different government entities that they have to or want to interact with," Rocah said.
Scott's proposal calls for the card to be issued in the form of a student ID, and produce data that is already accessible through means such as sign-in sheets at recreation centers and libraries.
"This isn't information that we don't already have," Scott said. "The information [would be in one] place to be used for good," he said.
Scott said that ultimately he would like to extend such a card to all city residents and expand its functions.
In Boston and Washington, the cards are used to give students access to their schools, libraries, recreation centers and transportation. But in other cities, including New York and Oakland, Calif., the cards are also used as prepaid debit cards and valid forms of identification to present to government agencies and police.

The city school system is supporting the One Card measure, and last spring piloted a similar program in three schools.
About 3,000 students were issued bus passes that were also used to track attendance at Commodore John Rodgers Elementary/Middle School, Digital Harbor High School and Mergenthaler Vocational-Technical High School. At Digital, the card could be used at the school's library to check out books.
John Land, the school system's executive director of operations, said the pilot was generally a success.
The pilot ended in June, and the school system is in negotiations with the MTA to start it again.
Outfitting all schools with the card would cost about $3 million, and would have a recurring cost of about $1 million year for data service, maintenance and supplies, Land said.
The district now pays $5.2 million for MTA bus passes for about 34,000 of the district's 84,000 students.
Land said no one raised privacy concerns during the pilot — which allowed school officials to see students' movements on buses, including transfers. Officials also could track when students entered and exited their schools.
The district used the data to monitor truancy and alert school officials when students were using the transit system in the middle of the day.
"That was really the most powerful piece," Land said. "So we could really evaluate services" schools needed to address such issues.
Education policy advocates, however, worry that using the cards to take attendance takes authority away from the people who are best equipped to help students with attendance problems.
"It removes teachers from engaging in conversations around attendance," said Sue Fothergill, senior policy associate at the advocacy group Attendance Works. "I'm all about having information to deliver interventions to kids, but I'm not sure this is the right one."
The student data generated from the pilot was accessible by principals and the central office, and some of it was turned over to the Baltimore Education Research Consortium for a study, Land said.
Rocah said elements of the school system's pilot were troubling.
"That convenience could be good for the kids, and could be good for the government agencies involved," he said. "But none of that requires or justifies why the school system needs to know where the kids are going outside of school."
Thirty-four city schools are equipped with the hardware to support more ID card functions, and some are already using bus passes to take attendance, Land said.
Baltimore City College High School is one of them.
Two years ago, students had to use the card to swipe in and out of every class, and it took at least 10 minutes from instruction time as lines would back up outside classroom doors. Now, students at City use the card only to get in and out of the building.
Senior Bryonna Reed said she's comfortable with the more limited approach.
"Having to carry it everywhere, and attaching so much value to it is not the most comfortable thing for me," Reed said.
She also worried that it could be dangerous if information about how students spend their day got into the hands of people who wanted to harm them.
Reed said she would support a card like one currently available to city students called The Harbor Card, a discount program created by the Inner Harbor Project. The program offers a Harbor Card to young people, ages 13 to 19, who complete 10 hours of community service.
"If the city wants to provide more rewards to students, then it would be more beneficial — if they took away the tracking part of it," Reed said.
Scott said he believes the city could find a way to phase in the card over several years, responsibly and with lessons learned from other cities.
"The great thing about being last is that you don't make the same mistakes," Scott said. "We see there are places that it's working, and we can build on that success."
_______________________________________

Baltimore City as is true around the nation, has a system of neo-liberal political party machines operating with the intent of dis-information----what I call progressive posing.  These neo-liberal political machines create non-profits from leaders who are then actually creating the public policies leading to this International Economic Zone status of SMART CITY global entity.  It's only good for the richest people in a city---a nation----the world.

When pols are allowed to run as Democrats and work for very, very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development pushing all these global policies-----and then these same pols are made leaders of groups with goals of helping impoverished communities from the violence and crime that exists from the VERY PUBLIC POLICIES THESE POLITICIANS INSTALL-----you get a community that has no leaders----that grows to hate the politicians that should be working for them. 

AND AUTOCRATIC SOCIETIES LOVE WHEN CITIZENS GROW TO EXPECT ONLY A PROGRESSIVE POLICY BONE THROWN EVERY NOW AND THEN---THAT IS HOW THIRD WORLD SOCIETIES CONTROL 99% OF POOR PEOPLE.


So, Brandon Scott----and I use him in this example because he is chair of Baltimore's Public Safety committee-----Scott pushes and votes for every policy that Baltimore Development puts in front of him----creating the mass unemployment and impoverishment----he votes for a Chief Batts brought by Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development for Batts decades record of police brutality and abuse with no transparency--- he knows the city fails to fund any oversight and accountability of police......and now he creates a group to be the voice for peace and non-violence.


Now, all the people associated with 300 men are not bad people---they may very well want good results for citizens-----but when you allow politicians and leaders known to be bad for citizens to lead a group----you compromise your voice.  Already citizens in Baltimore see that hypocrisy. 

PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW LABOR AND JUSTICE GROUPS POSING PROGRESSIVE TO HAVE LEADERS WE ALL KNOW WORK FOR GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.



Confronting the hypocrisy of the 300 men and Brandon Scott

naimajamu

Published on Aug 22, 2014On Friday August 21th, 2012 between 8 and 9pm the so called "300 men" along with Brandon Scott invaded my community of Belair/Edison and impeded pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the corners of Belair and Erdman aves without a permit to do so! to continue their "blame the victim" campaign, NO POLICE AND NO HELICOPTERS BROKE UP THAT ILLEGAL DEMONSTRATION!!, yet when young people gather to shoot a video in their community on August 22nd 2012 on Belair and Seidel aves just down the street, the police swarmed down on them in numbers and with overhead surveillance to stop them from exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE! the hypocrisy is BLATANT! who gave Brandon Scott, Munir Bahar and the "300 men" the ok to step into the 12th and 13th districts and usurp the authority of Warren Branch and Carl Stokes?? what is interesting to me is that they are the two councilmen that voted against the "curfew" law, our mayor SRB is extremely vindictive and using her "lapdog" Brandon Scott to violate the jurisdictional boundaries of his fellow councilmen, HE NEEDS TO STAY IN HIS OWN DISTRICT AND MIND THE BUSINESS OF HIS CONSTITUENTS!! AND STAY OUT OF BELAIR/EDISON!! POLICE KILL BLACK MEN TWICE A WEEK IN BALTIMORE and around the country! AND THEY HAVE TWO PROMINENT DEATHS THAT ARE UNRESOLVED "TYRONE WEST!" AND THE YOUNG MAN THAT "DIED IN POLICE CUSTODY!" STOP TRYING TO DEFLECT AWAY FROM THE REAL ISSUES AND ADDRESS THE CONSTANT POLICE OVERREACH AND BRUTALITY THAT
PEOPLE OF COLOR FACE IN BALTIMORE!!
__________________________________________



It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if you privatize all of what used to be public safety-------then those corporations working as 'public safety' are seeing their boss as the corporations and private business......not the citizens. In Maryland, we have so dismantled our public works departments that what used to be public safety is now gone. CSX rail crossings and tracks are all without maintenance-----THAT IS PUBLIC SAFETY-----we have predatory speed enforcement where profits motivate over safety. Our water and waste system has been allowed to become toxic to people and environment because we have no public health and safety demanding it be fixed decades ago-----NO PUBLIC SAFETY WHEN YOU DISMANTLE ALL THAT IS PUBLIC.

When we have Marathon races in Baltimore -----the races are allowed permits that close the city's roads all over-----it is called public benefit. When we want a public protest with people closing roads-----it is called public disruption costly to private business.
We have a Homeland Security that is completely global corporate ------citizens have no right to know what's going on----all working on what is called PUBLIC SAFETY.


Does Privatizing Traffic Cameras Hurt Public Safety?Study finds some red-light camera system contracts limit government’s ability to enforce traffic regulations.

by Brian Heaton / October 27, 2011 0


Are cities negotiating away their ability to protect citizens by outsourcing traffic enforcement to private camera system vendors?


A new study found that contracts between the companies responsible for red-light and speed cameras and municipalities can include payment incentives that put profit above traffic safety. Some of the contracts also limit the ability of governments to set and enforce traffic regulations, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) said.


The report, Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead; The Risks of Privatizing Traffic Law Enforcement and How to Protect the Public, said that red-light violation mitigation techniques such as lengthening the duration of yellow lights potentially could lead to financial penalties in some jurisdictions. The study cited the California cities of Bell Gardens, Citrus Heights, Corona and Hawthorne as examples of contracts where this could occur.


The findings also revealed that some contracts include language that could also penalize municipalities if they don’t approve enough traffic tickets that come from camera systems. For example, the report notes that in Walnut, Calif., the city has a contract with the vendor Redflex that has a possibility of a financial penalty if the city waives more than 10 percent of violations from the cameras.


“Too many cities wrongly sign away power to ensure the safety of citizens on the roads when they privatize traffic law enforcement,” said Phineas Baxandall, senior analyst for tax and budget policy at PIRG and a co-author of the study, in a statement. “Automated traffic ticketing tends to be governed by contracts that focus more on profits than safety. That shouldn’t happen.”


Not surprisingly the National Coalition for Safer Roads (NCSR), a trade association that advocates for the traffic safety technology industry, called the study findings “misleading,” in a press release.


The NCSR argued that PIRG’s report focused on outdated models of contracts and that the organization did a “disservice to the safeguards” that localities have in place to ensure safety for citizens.


According to NCSR, the “fee-for-service” style contracts that PIRG claims “give municipalities a clear picture of the cost of applying the system as part of an overall traffic safety management plan,” in its report, is the now actually the industry standard.


“It is clearly more than a majority and I would say it’s an overwhelming majority,” explained David Kelly, president and executive director of NCSR, in an interview with Government Technology.


“You still have some of the old contract terms about fee-per-ticket and that kind of stuff is still out there and I don’t want to pretend it doesn’t exist, because it does, but it’s not the norm,” he added.



Anne McCartt, senior research vice president for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), said it was good that the study was done so more could be learned about different community practices.


While she hadn’t looked at the PIRG findings, McCartt emphasized that decisions regarding safety should be in the hands of officials, not bound by contractual stipulations.


“I think the city — meaning the police agency and the safety officials in the community — should make the decisions about where the cameras are placed and how the thresholds for ticketing and all that should be clearly in the responsibility of the city,” she said. “I’m surprised if it’s not done that way.”


Speaking specifically about the yellow-light duration extension and whether that could seriously mitigate red-light running violations, McCartt explained it was “really important.” She mentioned a study conducted by IIHS in Philadelphia, which showed a decrease in red-light running violations when a yellow-light time was increased.


When traffic cameras were also added to the mix, however, she noted that violations went down “a whole lot more.”


Some of the PIRG report’s other findings included the threat of termination penalties in San Bernardino, Calif., and Houston when those cities elected to shut down their traffic camera system. The study also noted that Baytown, Texas, paid $1 million to American Traffic Solutions in exchange for early camera removal. The city had a contract with the company for red-light cameras through 2019.

_______________________________________________

All Federal Safety agencies are being dismantled and repurposed for global corporate profit-----so food safety----workplace safety------environmental safety------child safety----are all disappearing as the NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BECOMES SMART CITIES....security and surveillance against crimes and violence brought by further impoverishment and abuse.

We do not want this change in what represents are PUBLIC SAFETY-----so we will rebuild our public sector to focus on what really creates safety concerns-----and use the billions of dollars spent on SMART CITIES to build a platform for the poor so they can live with dignity and feel home, job, and food security.

WholeFoods and most US stores now have only Asian seafood because it is cheap.



HOW THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP 

WOULD IMPACT THE SAFETY OF OUR FOOD





The Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Undermine Food Safety



The TPP would require us to limit food labeling and to import meat and poultry that do not meet U.S. food safety standards.



The TPP would require us to allow food imports if the exporting country claims that their safety regime is "equivalent" to our own, even if it violates the key principles of our food safety laws. These rules would effectively outsource domestic food inspection to other countries.  



Under the TPP, any U.S. food safety rule on pesticides, labeling or additives that is higher than international standards would be subject to challenge as "illegal trade barriers." The U.S. could be required to eliminate these rules and allow in the unsafe food under threat of trade sanctions.



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration already inspects less than 1% of all seafood imports for health hazards. Entering into the TPP with Malaysia and Vietnam, both TPP negotiating parties and major seafood exporters, would increase seafood imports and further overwhelm inspectors' limited ability to ensure the safety of our food. Some TPP countries have serious shrimp and fish safety issues. For example, even with the minimal inspections, high levels of contaminants have been found in Vietnam's seafood.



Under the TPP, food labels could also be challenged as "trade barriers." The TPP would impose limits on labels providing information on where a food product comes from. The TPP also would endanger labels identifying genetically modified foods and labels identifying how food was produced. The TPP would expand the limits on consumer labels already included in existing "trade" agreements, like the World Trade Organization (WTO). But already under the WTO, the U.S. "dolphin-safe" tuna fish label and our country-of-origin meat and poultry labels have been successfully attacked by other countries. And, under the TPP, a foreign meat processing or food corporation operating within the United States could directly challenge our policies that they claim undermine their expectations - meaning a barrage of new demands for taxpayer compensation. 





0 Comments

November 22nd, 2015

11/22/2015

0 Comments

 
FOR THOSE WHO ARE NEW TO THIS BLOG-----I BLOG MOST DAYS DURING THE WEEK---SOMETIMES ON WEEKENDS.  IF I MISS A DAY BECAUSE OF MEETINGS---PLEASE COME BACK THE NEXT DAY!

I will be taking next week to look at public justice issues.


I want to shout out again-----we know that TPP is illegal and unconstitutional.  What Americans can do as we fight this policy and reverse the policies already installed---

DO NOT ALLOW THESE GLOBAL POLS TO INSTALL A GLOBAL CORPORATE ECONOMY IN OUR CITIES.

Remember, these trade agreements pertain to how global corporations interact here in the US and overseas.  If American cities keep their economies local and domestic----THERE WILL BE NO GLOBAL RULES THAT KICK IN----

This includes having foreign global corporations coming to the US to operate.  This is not how we need to create jobs.  We have our citizens in all of our communities all ready to become small business owners to rebuild their communities all building a strong, local, domestic economy that will be stable and healthy

AND IT WILL MAINTAIN OUR US CONSTITUTION, RULE OF LAW, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND DEVELOPED WORLD STANDARD OF LIFE.


Global trade policies do not effect an economy built on local, domestic businesses aimed at US citizens.

Below you see what we knew from 2010-----you can see Bush-era drug access in Medicare----Medicare Part D disappearing in TPP as no public subsidy can take from corporate profits.  So----add that with the end of MediGap insurance plans in 2020----and you NO LONGER HAVE MEDICARE.


This one policy seeks to dismantled all public policy and US Constitutional law----environmental laws in the US will be ignored to allow the US to look like China in its level of devastation. 


TAFTA & TPP...Corporate Power Tools of the 1%

Published on Jul 12, 2013Lori Wallach, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, joins Thom Hartmann.

TPP exposed — Terms harmful to most Americans, contrary to Obama’s myth-based sales pitch

“TPP would offshore more American jobs, lower our wages, flood us with unsafe imported food and expose our laws to attack in foreign tribunals,” says trade expert.


 Posted by fw, November 7, 2015
Lori Wallach
“‘Apparently, the TPP’s proponents resorted to such extreme secrecy during negotiations because the text shows TPP would offshore more American jobs, lower our wages, flood us with unsafe imported food and expose our laws to attack in foreign tribunals,’ said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. ‘When the administration says it used the TPP to renegotiate NAFTA, few expected that meant doubling down on the worst job-killing, wage-suppressing NAFTA terms, expanding limits on food safety and rolling back past reforms on environmental standards and access to affordable drugs.…Now that Congress and the public can scrutinize the actual text, the reality that it fails to meet Congress’ demands and its terms would be harmful to most Americans will replace the administration’s myth-based sales job for TPP, further dimming the TPP’s prospects in Congress.’” --Lori Wallach
**********
Secret TPP Text Unveiled: It’s Worse Than We Thought, With Limits on Food Safety and Controversial Investor-State System Expanded, Rollback of Bush-Era Medicine Access and Environmental Terms

by Public Citizen, November 5, 2015


Pact’s Fate in Congress Uncertain at Best; Long-Awaited Text Reveals Gaps Between Administration Claims and Actual TPP Terms On Key Congressional, Public Concerns


WASHINGTON – Today’s long-awaited release of the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s (TPP) reveals that the pact replicates many of the most controversial terms of past pacts that promote job offshoring and push down U.S wages while further expanding the scope of the controversial investor-state system and rolling back improvements on access to affordable medicines and environmental standards that congressional Democrats forced on the George W. Bush administration in 2007.
“Apparently, the TPP’s proponents resorted to such extreme secrecy during negotiations because the text shows TPP would offshore more American jobs, lower our wages, flood us with unsafe imported food and expose our laws to attack in foreign tribunals,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “When the administration says it used the TPP to renegotiate NAFTA, few expected that meant doubling down on the worst job-killing, wage-suppressing NAFTA terms, expanding limits on food safety and rolling back past reforms on environmental standards and access to affordable drugs.”
On some key issues, the text reveals provisions that will cost TPP support from members of Congress who supported the narrow passage of Fast Track trade authority this summer, and affirm for the many members of Congress who backed past trade deals but opposed Fast Track that the TPP must be stopped.
“Many in Congress said they would support the TPP only if, at a minimum, it included past reforms made to trade pact intellectual property rules affecting access to affordable medicines. But the TPP rolls back that past progress by requiring new marketing exclusivities and patent term extensions, and provides pharmaceutical firms with new monopoly rights for biotech drugs, including many new and forthcoming cancer treatments,” said Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines program. “The terms in this final TPP text will contribute to preventable suffering and death abroad, and may constrain the reforms that Congress can consider to reduce Americans’ medicine prices at home.”
The text also confirms that demands made by Congress and key constituencies were not fulfilled.
“From leaks, we knew quite a bit about the agreement, but in chapter after chapter the final text is worse than we expected with the demands of the 500 official U.S. trade advisers representing corporate interests satisfied to the detriment of the public interest,” said Wallach.
Today’s text release confirms concerns about TPP that were based on earlier leaks and reveals ways in which the TPP rolls back past public interest reforms to the U.S. trade model and expands anti-public-interest provisions demanded by the hundreds of official U.S. corporate trade advisers:
Worse anti-public-interest provisions relative to past U.S. trade pacts
  • The TPP Intellectual Property Chapter would roll back the “May 2007” reforms for access to medicines.
  • The TPP Environment Chapter would roll back the “May 2007” reforms by eliminating most of the seven Multilateral Environmental Agreements that past pacts have enforced.
  • The TPP Investment Chapter would expand the scope of policies that can be challenged and the basis for such challenges, including for the first time ever allowing ISDS enforcement of World Trade Organization intellectual property terms and new challenges to financial regulations.
  • With Japanese, Australian and other firms newly empowered to launch ISDS attacks against the United States, the TPP would double U.S. ISDS exposure with more than 9,200 additional subsidiaries operating here of corporation from TPP nations newly empowered to launch ISDS cases against the U.S. government. (About 9,500 U.S. subsidiaries have ISDS rights under ALL existing U.S. investor-state-enforced pacts.)
  • The TPP E-Commerce Chapter would undermine consumer privacy protections for sensitive personal health, financial and other data when it crosses borders by exposing such policies to  challenge as a violation of the TPP limits on regulation of data flows.
  • TPP “Sanitary and Phytosanitary” chapter terms would impose new limits on imported foods safety relative to past pacts. This includes new challenges to U.S. border inspection systems that can be launched based on extremely subjective requirements that inspections must “limited to what is reasonable and necessary” as determine by a TPP tribunal. New language that replicates the industry demand for a so-called Rapid Response Mechanism that requires border inspectors to notify exporters for every food safety check that finds a problem and give the exporter the right to bring a challenge to that port inspection determination meaning  new right to bring a trade challenge to individual border inspection decisions (including potentially laboratory or other testing) that second-guesses U.S. inspectors and creates a chilling effect that would deter rigorous oversight of imported foods.
Anti-public-interest provisions that are the same as past U.S. pacts
  • The TPP Investment Chapter would eliminate many of the risks and costs of relocating American jobs to low-wage countries, incentivizing more American job offshoring.
  • The TPP procurement chapter would offshore our tax dollars to create jobs overseas instead of at home by giving firms operating in any TPP nation equal access to many U.S. government procurement contracts, rather than us continuing to give preference to local firms to build and maintain our public libraries, parks, post offices and universities.
  • Contrary to Fast Track negotiating objectives, the TPP would grant foreign firm greater rights that domestic firms enjoy under U.S. law and in U.S. courts. One class of interests – foreign firms – could privately enforce this public treaty by skirting domestic laws and courts to challenge U.S. federal, state and local decisions and policies on grounds not available in U.S. law and do so before extrajudicial ISDS tribunals authorized to order payment of unlimited sums of taxpayer dollars.
  • There are no new safeguards that limit ISDS tribunals’ discretion to issue ever-expanding interpretations of governments’ obligations to investors and order compensation on that basis. The text reveals the same “safeguard” Annexes and terms that were included in U.S. pacts  since the 2005 Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) that have failed to rein in ISDS tribunals. CAFTA tribunals have simply ignored the “safeguard” provisions that are replicated in the TPP and as with past pacts, in the TPP such tribunal conduct is not subject to appeal.
  • The TPP would ban the use of capital controls and other macroprudential financial regulations used to prevent speculative bubbles and financial crises.
Please see a bullet point analysis of key TPP investment, food safety, labor and environmental, market access, rules of origin, procurement, and other provisions prepared by labor and public interest experts for more details. More detailed analyses of each chapter will be available next week.
The TPP can take effect only if the U.S. Congress approve it given the rules about conditions for the TPP to go into effect. The TPP’s fate in Congress is uncertain at best given that since the trade authority vote, the small bloc of members of the U.S. House of Representatives who made the narrow margin of passage possible have expressed concerns that the text release shows were not addressed.
Ten U.S. presidential candidates have pushed anti-TPP messages in their campaigning, stoking U.S. voters’ ire about the pact.
An unprecedented number and wide array of organizations oppose any attempt to railroad the TPP through Congress by using the Fast Track process. Groups united on this extend well beyond labor unions and include consumer, Internet freedom, senior, health, food safety, environmental, human rights, faith, LGBTQ, student and civil rights organizations.

“Now that Congress and the public can scrutinize the actual text, the reality that it fails to meet Congress’ demands and its terms would be harmful to most Americans will replace the administration’s myth-based sales job for TPP, further dimming the TPP’s prospects in Congress,” Wallach said.


___________________________________________

OH, THIS IS WHY MARYLAND IS PRIVATIZING ALL PUBLIC ASSETS TO GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.


Remember I said Maryland was pretending citizens wanted to privatize the Post Office----we already know Baltimore is having its water, waste, public transportation, public health AND ALL THAT IS PUBLIC-----privatized to global corporations under Rawlings-Blake and O'Malley.  Below you see what they knew from Clinton Administration-----

These treaties are being hard fought in Europe and so far it looks as if getting rid of neo-liberals is a winning sport.  In the US------Americans do not even know about these trade deals------because all the national labor and justice organizations----and public universities that should be shouting and educating against all this----are captured.

Again, a city like Baltimore can simply refuse to allow global corporations to take its public services----public utilities et al.  We are not bound by any of these treaties-----as long as global corporations do not take hold of a city's economy.

You can see why O'Malley, the Maryland Assembly pols, and Baltimore City Hall have worked hard to move the City of Baltimore into bankruptcy with the bond leveraging deals, by starving the city of revenue from corporate tax breaks and subsidies.  They are creating the conditions to make sure these treaties below move our US public services into the hands of global corporations.

STOP ALLOWING GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS TO SIMPLY WRITE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OUT OF ALL PUBLIC POLICY-----GET RID OF THESE GLOBAL POLS.



Say goodbye to vital public services, like water, health, energy, if TTIP, CETA approved

Under CETA, all public services are subject to liberalization unless an explicit exception is made.No 1487 Posted by fw, October 22, 2015
“A new report, Public Services Under Attack, released today by an international group of NGOs and trade unions, sheds some light on the secretive collusion between big business and trade negotiators in the making of the EU’s international trade deals. It shows the aggressive agenda of services corporations with regards to TTIP and CETA, pushing for far-reaching market opening in areas such as health, cultural and postal services, and water, which would allow them to enter and dominate the markets. And it shows how those in charge of EU trade negotiations are rolling out the red carpet for the services industry, with both the consolidated CETA agreement published in September 2014, as well as drafts of TTIP chapters and internal negotiation documents that reflect the wishlists of corporate lobbyists.” —Corporate Europe Observatory
15 key findings of the report, summarized below, reveal: influence of corporate lobby groups in negotiations; systemic collusion between European Commission and business circles; governments making commitments they might not even be aware of; increasing limitation of governmental authority; locking in of present and future liberalizations and privatizations of public services; US opening up education market via TTIP; and more…
The article concludes on this ominous note:
What is at stake in trade agreements such as TTIP and CETA is our right to vital services, and more, it is about our ability to steer services of all kinds to the benefit of society at large. If left to their own course, trade negotiations will eventually make it impossible to implement decisions for the common good.
Scream when you’ve had enough.
To read the original article summarizing the report, click on the following linked title. Alternatively, below is a repost with links to the full report and executive summary.
**********
Public services under attack through TTIP and CETA

by Corporate Europe Observatory, October 12, 2015


Access PDF of full report in English, and executive summary in English, French, and German.

Public services in the European Union (EU) are under threat from international trade negotiations that endanger governments’ ability to regulate and citizens’ rights to access basic services like water, health, and energy, for the sake of corporate profits. The EU’s CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) agreement with Canada, the ratification of which could begin in 2016, and the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) treaty under negotiation with the United States are the latest culmination in such efforts. In a worst case scenario, they could lock in public services into a commercialization from which they will not recover – no matter how damaging to welfare the results may be.
A new report released today by an international group of NGOs and trade unions (Public services under attack) sheds some light on the secretive collusion between big business and trade negotiators in the making of the EU’s international trade deals. It shows the aggressive agenda of services corporations with regards to TTIP and CETA, pushing for far-reaching market opening in areas such as health, cultural and postal services, and water, which would allow them to enter and dominate the markets. And it shows how those in charge of EU trade negotiations are rolling out the red carpet for the services industry, with both the consolidated CETA agreement published in September 2014, as well as drafts of TTIP chapters and internal negotiation documents that reflect the wishlists of corporate lobbyists.
Key findings of the report:
  1. TTIP and CETA show clear hallmarks of being influenced by the same corporate lobby groups working in the area of services that have been built over the past decades during previous trade talks, such as the EU’s most powerful corporate lobby group BusinessEurope and the European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together business associations as well as major companies such as British Telecommunications and Deutsche Bank.
  2. The relationship between industry and the European Commission is bi-directional, with the Commission actively stimulating business lobbying around its trade negotiations. This has been characterized as ‘reverse lobbying’, i.e. “the public authority lobbies business to lobby itself”. Pierre Defraigne, former Deputy Director-General of the European Commission’s trade department, speaks of a “systemic collusion between the Commission and business circles”.
  3. The business lobby has achieved a huge success as CETA is set to become the first EU agreement with the ‘negative list’ approach for services commitments. This means that all services are subject to liberalization unless an explicit exception is made. It marks a radical departure from the positive lists used so far in EU trade deals which contain only those services which governments have agreed to liberalize, leaving other sectors unaffected. The negative list approach dramatically expands the scope of a trade agreement as governments make commitments in areas they might not even be aware of, such as new services emerging in the future. The same could happen in TTIP where the Commission is pressuring EU member states to accept the same, risky approach, meeting the demands of the business lobby.
  4. Big business has successfully lobbied against the exemption of public services from CETA and TTIP as both agreements apply to virtually all services. A very limited general exemption only exists for services “supplied in the exercise of governmental authority”. But to qualify for this exemption, a service has to be carried out “neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more economic operators”. Yet nowadays, in virtually all traditional public sectors, private companies exist alongside public suppliers – often resulting in fierce competition between the two. This effectively limits the governmental authority exemption to a few core sovereign functions such as law enforcement, the judiciary, or the services of a central bank. Similar problems apply to the so-called ‘public utilities’ exemption, which only reserves EU member states’ right to subject certain services to public monopolies or to exclusive rights: it contains so many loopholes that it cannot award adequate protection for public services either.
  5. Probably the biggest threat to public services comes from the far-reaching investment protection provisions enshrined in CETA and also foreseen for TTIP. Under a system called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), thousands of US and Canadian corporations (as well as EU-headquartered multinationals structuring their investments through subsidiaries on the other side of the Atlantic) could sue the EU and its member states over regulatory changes in the services sector diminishing corporate profits, potentially leading to multi-billion euro payouts in compensation. Policies regulating public services – from capping the price for water to reversed privatizations – have already been targets of ISDS claims.
  6. The different reservations and exemptions in CETA and TTIP are inadequate to effectively protect the public sector and democratic decision-making over how to organize it. This is particularly true as the exceptions generally do not apply to the most dangerous investment protection standards and ISDS, making regulations in sensitive public service sectors such as education, water, health, social welfare, and pensions prone to all kinds of investor attacks.
  7. The European Commission follows industry demands to lock in present and future liberalizations and privatizations of public services, for instance, via the dangerous ‘standstill’ and ‘ratchet’ mechanisms – even when past decisions have turned out as failures. This could threaten the growing trend of re-miscommunication of water services (in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Hungary), energy grids (in Germany and Finland), and transport services (in the UK and France). A roll-back of some of the failed privatizations of the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) to strengthen non-profit healthcare providers might be seen as violations of CETA/TTIP – as might nationalizations and re-regulations in the financial sector such as those seen during the economic crisis.
  8. Giving in to corporate demands for unfettered access to government procurement could restrict governments’ ability to support local and not-for-profit providers and foster the outsourcing of public sector jobs to private firms, where staff are often forced to do the same work with worse pay and working conditions. In CETA, governments have already signed up several sectors to mandatory transatlantic competitive tendering when they want to purchase supplies and services – an effective means for privatization by gradually transferring public services to for-profit providers. US lobby groups such as the Alliance for Healthcare Competitiveness (AHC) and the US government want to drastically lower the thresholds for transatlantic tendering in TTIP.
  9. Both CETA and TTIP threaten to liberalize health and social care, making it difficult to adopt new regulations in the sector. The UK’s TTIP services offer explicitly includes hospital services. In the CETA text and recent TTIP drafts no less than 11 EU member States liberalize long-term care such as residential care for the elderly (Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the UK). This could stand in the way of measures protecting the long-term care sector against asset-stripping strategies of financial investors like those that lead to the Southern Cross collapse in the UK.
  10. The EU’s most recent draft TTIP services text severely restricts the use of universal service obligations (USOs) and curbs competition by public postal operators, mirroring the wishes of big courier companies such as UPS or FedEx. USOs such as daily delivery of mail to remote areas without extra charges aim at guaranteeing universal access to basic services at affordable prices.
  11. TTIP and CETA threaten to limit the freedom of public utilities to produce and distribute energy according to public interest goals, for example, by supporting renewables to combat climate change. Very few EU member states have explicitly reserved their right to adopt certain measures with regard to the production of electricity (only Belgium, Portugal, and Slovakia) and local energy distribution networks (amongst them Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia) in the trade deals.
  12. The US is eyeing the opening up of the education market via TTIP – from management training, and language courses, to high school admission tests. US education firms on the European market such as Laureate Education, the Apollo Group, and the Kaplan Group could benefit as much as German media conglomerate Bertelsmann, which has recently bought a stake in US-based online education provider Udacity. The European Commission has asked EU member states for their “potential flexibilities” on the US request relating to education services.
  13. The US film industry wants TTIP to remove European content quotas and other support schemes for the local film industry (for example, in Poland, France, Spain, and Italy). Lobby groups like the Motion Picture Association of America (MPPA) and the US government have therefore opposed the exclusion of audiovisual services from the EU’s TTIP mandate, fought for by the French Government. They are now trying to limit the exception as much as possible, for example, by excluding broadcasting from the concept of audiovisual services – seemingly with the support of EU industry groups like BusinessEurope and the European Commission.
  14. Financial investors such as BlackRock engaged in European public services could use TTIP and CETA provisions on financial services and investment protection to defend their interests against ‘burdensome’ regulations, for example, to improve working conditions in the long term care sector. Lobby groups like TheCityUK, representing the financial services industry based in the UK, are pushing heavily for a “comprehensive” TTIP, which “should cover all aspects of the transatlantic economy”.
  15. US services companies are also lobbying for TTIP to tackle ‘trade barriers’ such as labour regulations. For example, US company Home Instead, a leading provider of home care services for seniors operating franchises in several EU member states, wants TTIP to address “inflexible labour laws” which oblige the firm to offer its part-time employees “extensive benefits including paid vacations” which it claims “unnecessarily inflate the costs of home care”.
What is at stake in trade agreements such as TTIP and CETA is our right to vital services, and more, it is about our ability to steer services of all kinds to the benefit of society at large. If left to their own course, trade negotiations will eventually make it impossible to implement decisions for the common good.
One measure to effectively protect public services from the great trade attack would be a full and unequivocal exclusion of all public services from any EU trade agreements and negotiations. But such an exclusion would certainly not be sufficient to undo the manifold other threats posed by CETA and TTIP as many more provisions endanger democracy and the well-being of citizens. As long as TTIP and CETA do not protect the ability to regulate in the public interest, they have to be rejected.
0 Comments

November 20th, 2015

11/20/2015

0 Comments

 
Just a few more days of talking about what a political platform would look like for a Social Democrat running in Democratic primaries at all levels of government.

I've spoken at length about what being designated a US International Economic Zone under Trans Pacific Trade Pact will look like but I just want to review what is critical in the fight against this.  First, WE KNOW these international economic zones will allow all US Constitutional laws and citizens rights be ignored so when a Democratic pol campaigns for $15 an hour while never mentioning TPP or International Economic Zone  FEZs-----they are Clinton neo-liberals who could care less about higher wages---they intend to bring American workers to third world sweat shop labor wages.



STOP ALLOWING NEO-LIBERALS TO POSE PROGRESSIVE WHEN THEY ARE WORKING TO MOVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO THIRD WORLD POVERTY.


HELLO!!!!! BALTIMORE IS SLATED TO BE AN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONE!


#5 Social Democratic policy-----strong middle-class and Living Wages

You are not working for $15 an hour if your national union/justice organization leaders are supporting Clinton/Obama Wall Street neo-liberals!

As we advocate for Living Wage social Democrats would be educating how International Economic Zone and Trans Pacific Trade Pact policy seeks to allow global corporations to operate in the US as they do overseas-----so, there would be no minimum wage enforced. It is not progressive if you are shouting a slogan while not shouting louder against policies Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons are installing as we speak.
ALL OF MARYLAND'S POLS ARE WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS AND BUSH NEO-CONS INSTALLING THESE POLICIES AS HARD AS THEY CAN WHILE PRETENDING TO WORK FOR HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE

Today I want to ask that Democratic voters look at what the goal of NEW WORLD ORDER and Clinton and Bush Wall Street global corporate pols may be.  I've talked of Marxist Stalinist Liberartarianism----far-right militarized autocratic corporate society.  China is a model for global pols----it has nothing to do with socialism----it simply pushes EVERYONE INTO THE DEEPEST OF POVERTY as they work for global corporations.

The Asian workers used for decades in this neo-liberal FOXCONN environment are protesting and demanding better working conditions just as happened with US labor unions in early 1900s.  Know what the US government told South Korea and China? 

DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO ORGANIZE INTO A MIDDLE-CLASS.

So, are Clinton/Obama neo-liberals REALLY working to build a middle-class or are they simply posing progressive?  THEY ARE TRYING TO BRING ASIAN SWEAT SHOP WAGES TO THE US.
  You can bet the US Import/Export banks was subsidizing these sweat shops for Apple et al.



'Not understanding why and how the middle class is being sold out will only make that task more difficult'.

Steve Jobs has been made into an American case of 'Exceptionalism' when his biggest claim to fame was Chinese environmental devastation and FOXCONN factory labor enslavement.

Anyone can win if they are allowed to lie, cheat, and steal.
  Jobs was exceptional in his ability to lose all morality, ethics, and adherence to Rule of Law.

A society does not allow school yard bullys to continue to steal other children's lunch money folks.



New York Times Tells Us Only Chinese Near Slave Labor Could Handle Steve Jobs’ Demands


Posted on January 22, 2012 by Yves Smith

A New York Times story, “How U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work,” uses an Obama dinner with Silicon Valley titans to frame its tale of why the US middle class should roll over and die. I am of course exaggerating for effect. But not by as much as you might think. The story by Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher does a very good job of explaining why Asia, and China in particular, has come to dominate consumer electronics manufacture, using the iPhone as focus.
The problem with using the microcosm to illustrate the macrocosm is you need to choose the right microcosm. The danger in using the iPhone example is that (as I have discussed at length in prior posts) there are quite a few industries in which the case for offshoring and outsourcing is not compelling, particularly if you allow for the increased risk of extended supply chains, as Apple itself learned in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. But even in those cases, it still has the effect of transferring income from middle level and factory workers to the top brass. Thus the iPhone/consumer electronics example will have the effect of giving other businesses a free pass.
And not only that, even among computer and electronics firms, Apple was unusually demanding, and not always for good reasons. As much as Steve Jobs was revered for his fixation with design, it could interact with coming up with a final product in nasty ways. The Walter Isaacosn biography of Jobs is chock full of incidents of Jobs changing his mind to the point of wreaking havoc with getting a product out the door. For instance, one of Mac engineers, Chris Espinosa, designed a calculator to be included with the Mac OS. Jobs liked the idea but was not pleased with the appearance. Espinosa came up with new designs in response to Jobs’ input daily, only to get more criticism. He finally wrote a program, the “Steve Jobs Roll Your Own Calculator Construction Set” to put Jobs firmly in charge of finalizing the design. Similarly, on the first iteration of the NeXT computer, Jobs insisted that it be a perfect cube. I will spare you the details but that requirement caused all sorts of costly hassles.
Now consider this vignette from early on in the article:
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. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. 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.”
The authors fail to tell you what this means: changing a production design that late in the game is bad management, period. It’s the sort of stunt you see in a craft manufacturing business like the movie industry, not in one that deals with factory production. But the flexible near slave Chinese workers bailed out Apple’s ass.

Nor does it frame another section properly. Here Jobs has a more logical, if still daunting demand: he wants a phone with a glass screen that won’t scratch, since phones get shoved in pockets with keys and coins. But part of his ask was still unreasonable: “I want a glass screen, and I want it perfect in six weeks.”
Again, China delivered, but notice how:
For years, cellphone makers had avoided using glass because it required precision in cutting and grinding that was extremely difficult to achieve. Apple had already selected an American company, Corning Inc., to manufacture large panes of strengthened glass. But figuring out how to cut those panes into millions of iPhone screens required finding an empty cutting plant, hundreds of pieces of glass to use in experiments and an army of midlevel engineers. It would cost a fortune simply to prepare.
Then a bid for the work arrived from a Chinese factory.
When an Apple team visited, the Chinese plant’s owners were already constructing a new wing. “This is in case you give us the contract,” the manager said, according to a former Apple executive. The Chinese government had agreed to underwrite costs for numerous industries, and those subsidies had trickled down to the glass-cutting factory. It had a warehouse filled with glass samples available to Apple, free of charge. The owners made engineers available at almost no cost. They had built on-site dormitories so employees would be available 24 hours a day.
The Chinese plant got the job.

So basically, the Chinese funded a completely non-economical glass R&D facility IN ANTICIPATION of getting the Apple order. There is no way anyone would build a factory like that unless the money was close to free. It already had glass samples in stock! The “some subsidies trickled down” sounds way too innocent. It sounds more like someone recognized the importance of Apple as a marquee customer, and whether the push came from the officialdom or businessmen with the right connections in high places, it doesn’t really matter. This project smells of having serious government backing. How can private businesses anywhere compete with that?
There is admittedly a lot of insightful discussion in the article. It stresses that Silicon Valley executives say that the cost of US labor is not what is driving their decisions. It is the responsiveness of the supply chain, which among other things means ability to recruit factory labor and engineers quickly (and to get the factory workers to put in Foxconn like hours). Thus the savings is in inventory costs rather than labor per se. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that to see the authors seemingly stumble on critical pieces of the puzzle that they fail to integrate into their commentary.
The US is going to have enough trouble rebuilding its industrial base as it is. Not understanding why and how the middle class is being sold out will only make that task more difficult.



_________________________________________

If today's poor in the US think they are getting back at a middle-class they think left them behind by partnering with these Wall Street global corporate pols----I would ask first that you think----would a middle-class who knew all of what Clinton neo-liberals were up to allow themselves to be killed?  Of course not-----the American people were simply shocked at going from a Rule of Law Democratic Constitutional nation to a VISIGOTH BARBARIAN CRIMINAL CARTEL RULE.

The poor in the US must take a look at how the poor in third world nations live to see what Clinton/Obama neo-liberals have in store as tag team with Bush/Hopkins neo-conservatives.  So, it is best to fight to go back to social Democracy rather than allow all to fall into total corporate control
.

BALTIMORE CITY IS AN EXAMPLE OF THESE KINDS OF FEELINGS AS HOPKINS AND BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT KEPT BALTIMORE'S POOR IN THE WORST OF CONDITIONS----LEFT ONLY TO JOIN THE OPPRESSOR IF WANTING A MIDDLE-CLASS STANDARD OF LIFE.


Doctors, lawyers, teachers work not much more than sweat shop factory workers.  This is what exists today in these Asian neo-liberal economics---in developing nations---and that is to where TPP and FEZ policy seeks to take the US.

Below you see what is a ONE WORLD DAVOS Switzerland model for doing just that and they will market it as socialist and bringing equity-----when it is global corporations making all labor enslaving.


As WE THE PEOPLE in the US and Europe are fighting to stop the breakdown of our national Constitutional societies-----global pols have spent all their time building these structures---THAT IS ALL YOUR CONGRESSIONAL POLS ARE DOING----BUSH NEO-CON OR CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERAL.
They can string the American people along with progressive posing------OR WE CAN GET RID OF GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS.


The American K-12 schools always have as required reading the novels on Utopia---that have everyone valued the same. Garbage men paid as doctors. When you are a first world society your vision is bringing that garbage man up to doctor's meeting in the middle for example. The vision is not bringing everyone down to $2 a day/$2 an hour as being equitable.

THIS HAS BEEN A REPUBLICAN DREAM SINCE FDR PROGRESSIVISM----GET RID OF MINUMUM WAGE as TPP and International Economic Zone policy does.




This educational and advocacy website of the Worldwide Globals Organization (WGO)

contains many pages and words, but its premise is very simple and logical. Some individuals may initially resist its simplicity, honesty and clarity. However, intelligent, curious, astute and open-minded persons will be intrigued and enlightened by what they read and learn on this website.
Everyone needs and wants more income and money to survive and thrive. The WGO will give every adult who becomes a member a new form of income and money, every month in perpetuity. This money and income will be distributed in the form of a new, supplemental, complementary, debt-free, digital currency called “Globals.” In this unified process of creating and distributing a new currency, a universal basic income (UBI) is simultaneously provided to all members. This website will describe how this can be accomplished legally, technically and rapidly.
In order to understand this new venture, you must discard your prejudices, apathy, laziness, cynicism, arrogance, anger and closed-mindedness. Many things you have been told for decades (and that you might still believe) concerning money, currencies, economics, income, taxes, politics, finance and banking; are inaccurate, incomplete, or simply wrong. Fortunately it is never too late to learn and change your overall understanding of life.
What are the essential foundations for all civilizations and societies? HUMAN BEINGS – and our interconnected yet unique imaginations, talents, abilities, dreams and knowledge. Every person has intrinsic value, worth, dignity, and an inalienable right to a decent life.
All past and present human institutions – including our political and economic systems – could not exist without people. No person ever succeeded financially or socially without significant assistance and support from many other individuals and organizations.
(1) A currency is a widely-held, traded, used, and accepted means of exchange and unit of account. Today the words currency and money are used interchangeably.
(2) The more people and enterprises that possess and trade any currency, the more valuable and useful it is to exchange products and services locally, regionally, nationally and internationally.
(3) All money, currency and income are intellectual abstractions and useful legal and accounting “fictions” that serve as intermediaries to exchange products and services.
(4) All money and currency in the world today is created digitally on computers “from nothing and out of thin air.”
(5) Unfortunately most money today is created simultaneously with needless and superfluous debts and loans, or it is highly rationed and allocated to a small group of insiders.
(6) Money is not a limited, fabricated, digital commodity that is only available to a small number of people, even though most leaders in politics, economics, business and academia have falsely told humanity and acted as if this lie were true.
(7) Any organization or group of people can legally create their own currency and monetary system as this power is not just limited to banks and governments.
(8) If most leaders in government, business and banking no longer serve the best interests of the vast majority of human beings, then people have the intrinsic right, duty and power to act peacefully, collectively and independently from outside the existing, broken and failed institutions in most nations.
This proposal is perfectly legal, rational, practical, moral, ethical, and readily achievable when enough people join the WGO and use their Globals in addition to the existing national fiat currencies around the world. Using the past 15 years of technological advancements, and a clear understanding of money, currency and income, the WGO can demonstrate how the vast majority of people around the world can collectively create an unconditional universal basic income (UBI) for themselves.
One Global Unit is fixed in value to Ten ($10.00) US Dollars. All other currencies are valued to Globals vis-à-vis their relative values to the US Dollar. Therefore 100 Global units are equal to $1000 US Dollars.
Every person on earth over the age of 18 can become a member of the WGO for just $25 or 25€ for a 4-year membership. In return, members receive 20, 40 or 100 Globals every month in perpetuity, depending upon each individual's citizenship and nationality. (A list of all nations and countries with their assigned levels-tiers is found below in the web page “NATIONS” and further described in the web page “OVERVIEW.”)
Most businesses and enterprises can join the WGO for just 50,00€ or $50.00 for US-based enterprises. They do not receive any monthly allocations beyond an initial contribution of 1000 Globals after they complete their full registration. In addition they will receive a bonus award equal to five percent (5%) of the Globals payments they accept from all individual members for products and services they sell.
The membership fees will be used for the following:
(1) Provide the WGO with talented employees and expanding computer hardware and software to meet the needs of its members;
(2) Pay for the expenses related to licensing, registering and eventually operating a Globals Payment System (GPS) between members in over 150 nations and 50 US states; and
(3) Establish independent legal and financial systems to protect the important economic interests of all members. The membership of the WGO will eventually elect the leadership of the WGO through direct and secure on-line elections.
The Globals accounts of all members are maintained on a separate, parallel, secure and encrypted website and their personal information is stored on computers not connected to the Internet. No person or entity may issue Globals as they belong solely to the WGO to create and allocate on behalf of its members. Globals are based upon the intrinsic value of human beings and their uncompensated work. The total number of Globals in existence will be principally limited to total WGO membership.
If you want to stop living in perpetual ignorance, fear, servitude. despair and debt to a small, wealthy, and powerful worldwide criminal cartel of international banks, corporations, corrupt puppet governments, and their top executives, officials and owners, then you need to read this entire website carefully. Your future; the well-being of your family, friends, colleagues, communities, cities, states, nations; the survival of humanity; and the habitability of this planet itself; depend upon a full understanding of the true nature of money, income and currencies.


________________________________________________

Johns Hopkins in Baltimore has an advertisement on MTA buses----and everywhere since they are a full-blown global corporation-----that declares Hopkins OPEN BOUNDARIES PUBLIC HEALTH.

What does that mean?  It means, that Hopkins operates public health in Baltimore as the WHO operates public health in developing nations.  It means----Hopkins does not recognize US Federal laws and Constitutional rights to public health or a system like Medicare.  It only sees population health as a whole----preventative care and communicable disease control.  Indeed, that is what Baltimore health care has been for citizens living 20-30 years shorter life span----and it is what Affordable Care Act and Maryland State Health Systems intend to bring America's health system---We do not believe in individual care unless you have lots of money to pay for soaring private health insurance plans and lots of out-of-pocket money they say.

WHEN YOU SEE INSTITUTIONS WORKING UNDER GLOBAL POLICY CONDITIONS ----YOU KNOW THEY ARE MOVING YOUR CITY/STATE TO THIRD WORLD SOCIETAL CONDITIONS.


Hopkins has been the driver of the lowest wage system in Baltimore and you can bet-----as we super-size global health and education technology as the only economy----wages will look like India and China if Hopkins and Baltimore Development Corporation has anything to do with it.   They see Baltimore and the US now as International Economic Zones operating just as they do in developing nations.

A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT DOES NOT PARTNER WITH VERY, VERY, VERY NEO-CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN INSTITUTIONS -----they fight to keep small business local economies strong under Rule of Law and US Constitutional rights and fight for our Federal public programs that protect seniors and the poor.


World Health Organization WHO-----Public Health

Trade, foreign policy, diplomacy and health

Public Health

Public health refers to all organized measures (whether public or private) to prevent disease, promote health, and prolong life among the population as a whole. Its activities aim to provide conditions in which people can be healthy and focus on entire populations, not on individual patients or diseases. Thus, public health is concerned with the total system and not only the eradication of a particular disease. The three main public health functions are:
  • The assessment and monitoring of the health of communities and populations at risk to identify health problems and priorities.
  • The formulation of public policies designed to solve identified local and national health problems and priorities.
  • To assure that all populations have access to appropriate and cost-effective care, including health promotion and disease prevention services.
Public health professionals monitor and diagnose the health concerns of entire communities and promote healthy practices and behaviours to ensure that populations stay healthy. One way to illustrate the breadth of public health is to look at some notable public health campaigns:
  • Vaccination and control of infectious diseases
  • Motor-vehicle safety
  • Safer workplaces
  • Safer and healthier foods
  • Safe drinking water
  • Healthier mothers and babies and access to family planning
  • Decline in deaths from coronary heart disease and stroke
  • Recognition of tobacco use as a health hazard.
The term global public health recognizes that, as a result of globalization, forces that affect public health can and do come from outside state boundaries and that responding to public health issues now requires attention to cross-border health risks, including access to dangerous products and environmental change.

____________________________________________
US GLOBAL POLS ONLY THINK ABOUT BRINGING US WORKERS DOWN TO ASIAN ALL UNDER THE GUISE OF BEING COMPETITIVE GLOBALLY.

If you keep an eye on the UN's ILO-----International Labor Organization----you will hear and see what the trends in global wages are ------now, this economist in the video works for corporations as does today's UN----it is not accident that the US leader for decades has come from South Korea----the nation with corporate hyper-neo-liberalism.  This economist is telling us it is better for people to be attached to structures giving wages----ergo, small businesses and small farmers that live simply without the trap of corporate wage structures ---are not the goal.  He states as well that China for example is moving up in wage equity-----within shot of American workers.  Well, that is true---US workers have never been poorer as all kinds of loopholes are forcing American workers below US Federal minimum wage.  When they show China at US $613 a month---we must remember that is not what these workers take home.  Now, in a second world nation like the US----that $613 a month would not even pay for rent.

The American people must WAKE UP to the goals of global pols ----it is to bring Americans down to this third world status along with all of the structures of a first and second world nation.  So, people living at factories-----communal child care as adults work 15-18 hour days will all be made to seem 'progressive'----communal being made into communist/socialist.  These Asian neo-liberal nations are pushing US global corporations out----and you can bet these wages will not increase----the labor structures will become more and more autocratic.

ILO is not a worker's labor organization----it is a global corporation management of labor organization.


 As Congressional neo-liberals pose progressive with campaigns for raising the minimum wage----they are working as hard as they can to install TPP and FEZ policies to eliminate the US minimum wage.

A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT SHOUTS AND EDUCATES AGAINST ALL STRUCTURES THAT BREAK DOWN OUR US CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AND FEDERAL RIGHTS.

'Major inequalities persist between countries

Despite the recent growth, workers in many countries
across Asia and the Pacific still earn extremely low wages.
Unfortunately, due to differences in definitions and coverage,
comparing average wages across countries is not always
straightforward. Figure 2 presents information on wage
levels for countries with broadly comparable data, generally
compiled from comprehensive Labour Force Surveys.8
At the lower end, wage workers in Nepal earned US$73 per
month in 2008, followed by US$119 in Pakistan (2013) and
US$121 in Cambodia (2012). Due to the low wage levels, the
latter two countries are also among those with the highest
incidence of working poverty world-wide.9 Wages are higher
for regular employees in India and workers in countries such
as Indonesia, Viet Nam and Thailand (see Figure 2). Upper-
middle-income countries such as China (US$613) and
Malaysia (US$651) had substantially higher wages in 2013,
although they still fell short of those in high-income
economies where monthly average wages ranged from
US$1,780 in Hong Kong (China) to US$4,642 in Australia'.

___________________________________________

In US cities K-12 public schools are now doubling-down on programming and coding----Baltimore is the worst for this.  Meanwhile, Clinton/Obama neo-liberals pushing these career paths with Republicans KNOW THESE ARE THE MOST OUTSOURCED AND WILL BECOME THE LOWEST PAID JOBS.  Who are being pushed into these career paths?  People of color, women, and ex-offenders.

Building a US economy BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON TECHNOLOGY AND FINANCE is what Wall Street Clinton/Obama neo-liberals working for global corporations would do-------building a local economy based on everyday products needed by people in a community is what a SOCIAL DEMOCRAT WOULD DO.

If a candidate is simply pushing what these Congressional neo-liberals send down to states and city governments----GET RID OF THEM----THEY ARE NOT DEMOCRATS----



'Washington attributed the unexpected U-turn on programmer jobs to numerous factors, but the most telling one had not even been on its radar screen in 1990, even though it was etched into the DNA of corporate America — offshoring'.



Programming jobs fall, despite Labor Department's outlook

By Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele
Thursday, March 10th, 2011 

As Apple grew, American workers left behind


Tell us your story.
Lost a job to outsourcing? We want to hear about it.

Over and over, Americans are told that education is the key to their job future. The more education you have, the better your shot at getting a job that pays middle-income wages to take care of your family. If we as a nation are better educated, the theory goes, we’ll be able to compete more effectively in the global economy, which in turn will generate more good jobs for everyone.
But some major flaws in this theory are playing out today in a field that was once thought to have the brightest future — information technology. 
In the late 1980s, when we began work on what would become America: What Went Wrong?, massive job losses were roiling the economy. As plants closed and companies restructured, millions of Americans lost their jobs. But economists, business leaders and politicians told them not to worry. Jobs in new industries, they said, were on the way, and information technology (IT) was near the top of everybody’s list.
Computer programming jobs were seen as a big growth area. The advent of large mainframe computers in the 1960s had kicked off the first increase in jobs. Employment rose in the 1980s with the introduction of personal computers and the ongoing extension of data processing into more and more businesses. Everyone thought that the big growth years were still ahead. 
In its 1990 Occupational Outlook Handbook, the U.S. Department of Labor was especially bullish: “The need for programmers will increase as businesses, government, schools and scientific organizations seek new applications for computers and improvements to the software already in use [and] further automation . . . will drive the growth of programmer employment.” The report predicted that the greatest demand would be for programmers with four years of college who would earn above-average salaries. 
Computer programming jobs decline
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Credits: Julie Snider, Investigative Reporting Workshop
In 2000, the Labor Department predicted America would have 839,000 computer programming jobs by 2008. The department warned of competition from "programming businesses overseas where much routine work can be outsourced at a lower cost," but was nonetheless confident that "jobs for both systems and applications programmers should be plentiful."
Things didn't quite work out that way. The number of programming jobs has fallen steadily, in part because of outsourcing.

When Labor made these projections in 1990, there were 565,000 computer programmers. With computer usage expanding, the department predicted that “employment of programmers is expected to grow much faster than the average for all occupations through the year 2005 . . .” 
It didn’t. Employment fluctuated in the years following the report, then settled into a slow downward pattern after 2000. By 2002, the number of programmers had slipped to 499,000. That was down 12 percent–not up–from 1990. Nonetheless, the Labor Department was still optimistic that the field would create jobs–not at the robust rate the agency had predicted, but at least at the same rate as the economy as a whole.
Wrong again. By 2006, with the actual number of programming jobs continuing to decline, even that illusion couldn’t be maintained. With the number of jobs falling to 435,000, or 130,000 fewer than in 1990, Labor finally acknowledged that jobs in computer programming were “expected to decline slowly.” 
From 1990, when Labor made its rosy prediction that programming jobs over the next 15 years would increase at a faster rate than other jobs, the U.S. workforce grew by 24 percent. If the number of programmers had increased at that pace — let alone at the optimistic rate Labor had once projected — there would have been at least 700,000 programmers by 2006. Instead, there were only 435,000. Programmer jobs have continued to decline and were at 427,000 in 2008, the last year for which figures are available. Even that masked the magnitude of the domestic job losses. For among those 427,000 programmers were thousands of H-1B guest workers–foreign nationals brought in by American companies under immigration law to do programming, usually at much lower pay and benefits.
Washington attributed the unexpected U-turn on programmer jobs to numerous factors, but the most telling one had not even been on its radar screen in 1990, even though it was etched into the DNA of corporate America — offshoring. “Because they can transmit their programs digitally,” the Labor Department belatedly discovered in 2006 that “computer programmers can perform their job function from anywhere in the world, allowing companies to employ workers in countries that have lower prevailing wages.” Instead of good-paying programming jobs, the growth fields in the two decades after 1990 were for home health aides, retail clerks, customer service agents, truck drivers, security guards and child care workers–low-paying jobs with few opportunities for advancement or better pay.
Domestic programmers, like millions of workers in other fields, are casualties of a Congress long indifferent to the plight of American workers. Instead of seeking to create a level economic playing field, lawmakers and presidents, Democrats and Republicans, have permitted foreign governments to set American job policies by eroding the country’s basic industries. While free traders in the United States decry any form of government intervention in the market, many foreign governments ignore such theories and subsidize industries that they believe will help their people. In the 1980s, for example, the government of India began supporting its nascent software industry and established sophisticated Software Technology Parks throughout the country to encourage companies to produce software for export. India’s software exports totaled a modest $10 million in 1985; by 2010, they had reached an estimated $55 billion.
The Chinese are rapidly catching up, in a way that spells even more trouble for America’s remaining programmers. And the Chinese are taking the competition to a new level. As in India, the Chinese government is providing incentives to foster a software development industry and has selected numerous cities to pursue the export market. But in a sign of how aggressively the Chinese are marketing this industry, they have dispensed with the term “software park.” They call these new entities outsourcing hubs. According to a study by Duke University’s Offshoring Research Network, China has “mounted a vigorous challenge to India’s software development outsourcing industry. More and more U.S. and European companies are outsourcing software and IT services directly to Chinese service providers.”
The U.S. government is still very interested in creating programmer jobs–just not in this country. In 2010, the State Department’s Agency for International Development (USAID) put up $10 million to help Sri Lanka develop an outsourcing industry. The U.S. taxpayer dollars are aimed at training Sri Lankans in advanced IT skills such as Enterprise Java, as well as in business process outsourcing and call center support. The goal is to create 3,000 jobs. According to Information Week, a similar program is being funded by USAID in Armenia to train Armenians. Perhaps even more countries are slated to get U.S. taxpayer money to develop their software industries. By then there may be no need to help U.S. programmers. There won’t be any.

_____________________________________________
Here you see all over the developing world are the same 'boot camps' US citizens are being tracked into-----it does not take a rocket scientist to see where global corporations are going to go for workers----and how cheap someone in Africa or Asia will work. Computer programming and coding can be done anywhere in the world----so these are not careers or economic structures we want in rebuilding our first world middle-class social Democratic society.

WE WANT A DIVERSIFIED ECONOMY UNDER RULE OF LAW, US CONSTITUTIONAL AND FEDERAL LAW PROTECTION-----

International Economic Zones can bring African coders to Baltimore for a job as is already happening.  No doubt in Maryland and Baltimore a few people are getting wealthy creating these global structures and moving immigrants into our Maryland and Baltimore economy----

BUT A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT DOES NOT WANT THIS STRUCTURE----IT WANTS TO REBUILD A COMMUNITY'S ECONOMY FOR CITIZENS IN THESE COMMUNITIES UNDER PROTECTIONS ALREADY IN PLACE WITH A FIRST WORLD QUALITY OF LIFE.



CIO East Africa (Nairobi)

East Africa: Usiu, Tech Republic Launch Innovation Boot Camp to Equip Teens With Coding Skills
By Lilian Mutegi


Tech Republic has partnered with The United States International University-Africa to offer upper primary and secondary pupils aged 12 - 19 with a platform through which they can learn and expand their coding prowess.
Tech Republic is a technology education firm dedicated to increasing engagement in technology and computer science by making it more accessible to upper primary and high school students. Tech republic has also partnered with Google and Intel who are out to help tech republic develop a web based curriculum for the students during the boot camp.
The five-day long innovation camp is set to commence on today through August 28 2015. No previous coding experience is necessary for the participants; however, students who have intermediate tech skills will be challenged with additional exercises.
USIU-Africa and Tech Republic have made efforts to subsidize the participation fee to ensure that cost is not a barrier and the camp is accessible to as many students as possible. Over 70 youths are participating in the boot camp.



0 Comments

November 19th, 2015

11/19/2015

0 Comments

 
  NO ONE IS BUSTING PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS HARDER THAN CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS WHO ARE ALSO THE RACE TO THE TOP PUBLIC SCHOOL PRIVATIZERS---AND YET----IT'S THE KOCH BROTHERS.


Social Democrats have simply abandoned all messaging in the Democratic Party and that is driven by the loss of media balance----loss of national organizations for labor and justice-----and it comes from the deliberate deceptive progressive posing in neo-liberals and how they present bills in Congress, the Maryland Assembly, and Baltimore City Hall. Most of the outlets today on social media are Clinton neo-liberal outlet posing progressive----most of the petitioning outlets are Clinton neo-liberal.
Below are the most important deceptive messaging in media today-----the constant tie of Koch Brothers to far-right economic policy written by global corporations while installed by Clinton neo-liberals in Congress---state assembly---city hall. Baltimore citizens can see the same agenda here in Baltimore-----the same very, very, very neo-conservative environment described in this article----only our pols run as Democrats and are painted 'progressive'.

These Wall Street global neo-liberals
ARE PUSHING ALL OF THE AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL POLICIES WHILE SHOUTING IT IS THE KOCH BROTHERS AND FAR-RIGHT REPUBLICANS DOING IT. There is nothing 'public interest' about ALEC.
Obama and Clinton neo-liberals have made every major policy these several years be ALEC global corporate policies. These are not small business Chamber of Commerce people---these are global corporations and ALEC is just a sample of what global corporate tribunal rule under Trans Pacific Trade Pact will look like.
Neo-liberals are constantly spinning messages blaming Republicans for policies they are installing and then national media repeats what they say----none of it being true.

***************************************************************************
About the American Legislative Exchange Council
The American Legislative Exchange Council is America’s largest nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state legislators. Comprised of nearly one-quarter of the country’s state legislators, business and thought leaders, think tank scholars and individuals, ALEC provides a unique forum for diverse groups to exchange ideas and develop real, state-based solutions that encourage growth, preserve economic security and protect hardworking taxpayers.
ALEC is a forum for exchange of ideas (a place for continuing education of state legislators)
ALEC provides nonpartisan study, analysis and research focused on protecting hardworking taxpayers, identifying the appropriate balance of power between the states and the federal government and determining innovative approaches to state policy challenges
ALEC works in the public interest. It brings together stakeholders for academic discussion of policy
Nearly all professions require some form of continuing education. State legislators should be no different
No legislator can be an expert on all policy issues, but their constituents expect them to be. Legislators join ALEC to stay current on state legislative trends and learn from one-another about what has and hasn’t worked in states around the country
ALEC members represent their communities’ perspectives (a majority of the American people)
All legislators are elected to represent their communities. If they do not, they will be held accountable at the ballot box
A majority of Americans believe that the government closest to the people (state legislatures) is best for addressing community policy
Americans desire real solutions that preserve economic freedom and security. They want to keep more of their hard-earned money and reduce the cost of everyday life. ALEC members discuss innovative models that put genuine accountability to work among state legislators and give hardworking taxpayers the government they deserve
ALEC legislators represent more than 60 million Americans and ALEC member companies give jobs to more than 30 million people in the United States. It is important for legislators to understand the policy perspectives of job creators to ensure economic security and opportunity in their communities
ALEC is a transparent organization
All ALEC model policy, drafts for consideration, agendas and financial information are available at ALEC.org
At meetings, journalists and the public are welcome to attend ALEC keynotes, plenary sessions and policy workshops
ALEC is one of many similar organizations in the state policy landscape
Many organizations including the National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, State Innovation Exchange and National Black Caucus of State Legislators (among many others) bring state legislators and other stakeholders together at meetings to discuss state policy trends and issues and craft model policy, “legislative policy recommendations” (NCSL) or “suggested state legislation” (CSG)
Travel and expense reimbursement is commonplace and allowed by the IRS and state ethics guidelines
Legislators and all Americans have the right to associate and exchange ideas in any forum they choose. This right is protected by the Constitution, and no one should be intimidated by those who want to silence speech
Unlike other state policy organizations, ALEC is not taxpayer funded



_________________________________________________
The #2 issue for social Democrats is the dismantling and privatization of all avenues of communications------TV, radio, and internet neutrality. As important is the privatization of the Post Office. I read on a Baltimore news outlet that Maryland citizens polled as wanting the Post Office privatized. It is hard to believe that any majority of citizens in the US want to lose the Post Office. We saw poll after poll saying that. Yet, Maryland always comes up with a poll that says what global corporations want to do is what citizens want to do.
So, we know Maryland pols intend to dismantle our Post Office and they are already doing so. Yet, in Congress you'll hear them shout they are fighting for our Post Office. CLINTON WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS AND REPUBLICANS WILL END OUR POST OFFICE.
What a REAL social Democrat would be saying this primary election is I WILL BUY TV AND RADIO AIRWAVES FOR THE CITY OF BALTIMORE and then make those stations the platform for all community voice especially social Democrats.


Airwaves for the People
The FCC must ensure Big Telecom cannot manipulate what we can access on the web for their own profits.
By Katrina vanden HeuvelTwitterMay 6, 2010

Chairman Genachowski took a step in the right direction today by announcing the FCC’s intention to regulate broadband in order to ensure net neutrality. Media reform advocates are confident that this is good news for preserving the open Internet and promoting universal access.

The victory isn’t complete, however. While Genachowski proposed reclassifying broadband as a “telecommunications service” so that the FCC has clear authority to protect consumers and promote competition, the Chairman intends to use a procedure called "forbearance" to broadly waive all of the competition provisions of the Telecommunications Act. Considering that the National Broadband Plan noted that 96 percent of Americans have at most two choices of internet service providers–that we have a real problem with monopolies and duopolies–we need the FCC to make use of its statutory powers to address this issue.

*****
According to The Washington Post, sources say that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski will soon retreat from the Obama Administration’s pledge to deliver a new and more democratic technology agenda. Reportedly, the Chairman will continue the Bush-era classification of the internet as an unregulated "information service," rather than reclassifying it as a "telecommunications service" subject to FCC authority.

And why does this wonky bit of legalese matter?
Because if it’s not a telecommunications service, the courts have already demonstrated that the FCC will have little ability to ensure universal access to broadband, prevent blocked or censored content, or protect consumers from price-gouging or invasions of privacy. What is called "Net Neutrality" will virtually go up in flames, freeing Big Telecom to manipulate what we can access on the web for their own profits.
In fact, the FCC’s own general counsel wrote that the current classification might undermine the Commission’s ability to promote broadband access in rural America; connect low-income Americans, Native American communities, and Americans with disabilities; support the use of broadband by small businesses to drive productivity and innovation; and strengthen cybersecurity, consumer protection and privacy.
And here’s another important and rarely discussed reason we need to ensure that the FCC has the authority to protect a free and open internet—it will impact whether we are able to achieve a greater range of voices over our radio airwaves, or we continue to live with a virtual right-wing monopoly of misinformation. To understand that aspect of the reclassification issue—read on.
How bad is the political imbalance on our radio dial? Check out these stats from a Center for American Progress study: on the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive;

I WOULD MAKE CLEAR THAT PROGRESSIVE MEANS NEO-LIBERAL ----NOT SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC.

and each weekday, there is 2,570 hours of conservative talk compared to just 254 hours of progressive talk—more than ten hours of conservative talk to every one hour of progressive radio.

Even with limited opportunities, progressives like Bill Press, Amy Goodman, Stephanie Miller, Michel Martin, Jim Hightower, Laura Flanders, Tavis Smiley and Thom Hartmann are still thriving in radio. But if you believe in the marketplace—in this case, the marketplace of ideas—you should be troubled by how skewed this is. As populist talk radio and MSNBC broadcaster Ed Schultz said on his TV show recently, "The American people own the airwaves—licenses are given for station owners to operate the airwaves in the public interest."
So, is there a solution?
Well, it won’t be easy. Decades of deregulation and conglomeratization have taken their toll. Progressives have long focused on restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Overturned by the FCC in 1987, it required broadcasters to offer alternative points of view on controversial issues. But it’s become a red herring, manipulated to charge Democrats with trying to censor their critics. And according to Josh Silver, executive director of the media reform advocacy organization Free Press, it’s "constitutionally on very weak footing."

But there are other steps that citizens can fight for to make real the concept enshrined in the 1934 Communications Act that our airwaves belong to the people and should be operated in the public interest.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps—a man dedicated to the public interest and who has thought long and hard about how to address this imbalance—told me, "We won’t restore balance until we restore enforceable public interest guidelines to the people’s airwaves. These guidelines must put a premium on a station producing news in return for its license—real news that reflects what’s actually happening in the community, provides watchdog journalism, does justice to minorities and to different viewpoints, and nourishes the civic dialogue needed to sustain democracy. In exchange for free use of the public airwaves, broadcasters need to do this; the country needs it, too."
Look for the Commissioner to push specific proposals along these lines in the near future. In the mean time, there are both long- and shorter-term solutions that will help end the right-wing propaganda monopoly of our airwaves.
Free Press’s Silver said Low Power FM licenses are on the horizon and will add a range of diversity. The House already passed the Local Community Radio Act, and the Senate version introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell and John McCain awaits a vote on the Senate floor.
"We believe that after many years of lobbying there will be more low-power fm radio licenses granted to not-for-profit entities in the next few years," said Silver. "That will provide literally hundreds if not thousands of new low-power FM licenses that will be up for grabs—particularly in rural areas, and that’s positive."
But Silver believes the true long-term solution is "ubiquitous, wireless broadband instead of traditional radio signals." The current obstacles to diversity on the radio dial are "a scarcity of licenses to scarce spots on radio dials, and a high cost of overhead for stations that operate on them," he says. "As a result, progressive voices can’t get on because they either can’t get a license or they can’t afford to run the station."
Silver says wireless radio—either satellite radio or digital wireless—could bring "limitless spots on the dial" and "an environment where you can really let a thousand flowers bloom. People who are concerned about progressive issues need to get behind efforts to bring fast ubiquitous internet to the country—to everyone, rural and urban, rich and poor."
Which brings us back to the issue of FCC reclassifying the internet as a "telecommunications service."
A recent court decision said the agency has no authority to regulate the internet under the current political structure. (In that case, the court said the FCC could not force Comcast to stop blocking the file sharing application BitTorrent.) It seems when the Bush FCC decided to reclassify broadband as an "information service" it tied the FCC’s hands in terms of protecting consumers, promoting competition, or deploying the national broadband plan.
The good news there is the FCC can reclassify the internet as a “communications service” with a simple up or down vote. According to CongressDaily, Commissioners Copps and Mignon Clyburn have said they would support such action, so the votes are there if Chairman Genachowski refuses to cave to Big Telecom and stands firm for a pro-technology agenda. But that’s a big if.
"The Chairman of the FCC has to have a backbone and be willing to face up to the cable and phone companies which represent the second largest lobby in Washington after pharmaceuticals," says Silver.

As Commissioner Copps told Bill Moyers on his show last month, "If your big issue is energy dependence, or climate change, or health insurance, or expanding equal opportunity—this issue of the future of the media, now the media on broadband, has to be your number two issue. Because—on that one—depends on how your number one issue gets filtered and funneled to the American people."
By empowering the FCC to take action over the long haul we will ensure that a full range of views and voices in this country will be heard over the people’s airwaves, and a free and open internet is a tool which every citizen is able to access.



_______________________________________

#3 issue for social Democrats-----outing the Affordable CAre Act as a Republican corporate and wealth dream policy that needs to be replaced state and locally by EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL. In Baltimore, there is absolutely no conversation over health care access and we know people are exposed to the worst of access. This bond market crash and economic crash will take out all pensions and health benefits for unions---and other corporate plans.
If this health care reform had anything to do with cost containment in health care these global health insurers would be in state run health systems to be the cheapest because of their size. Since that is not what state health systems are for----almost all of the largest health insurers are not interested. They are only interested in the global health systems and the world's rich.
So, the American people now have state health systems designed specifically to make it too expensive to access the most needed of care----but as KAISER tells us in commercials----THEY KNOW HOW TO DO PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE. The entire state system is geared to end Medicare and Medicaid and create this system of corporate non-profits and individual health chains tied to preventative care.


United Health is the largest US health insurer and is global.  If it refuses to price health plans at a reasonable rate----no one will.  It's like WalMart being so large it can sell products cheaper.  These state health systems are simply replacing our Federal public health Medicare and Medicaid and will be one big pool of preventative care for all citizens.

MR OBAMA, INSTEAD OF PENALIZING PEOPLE FOR NOT HAVING INSURANCE-----WHY DON'T YOU PENALIZE INSURANCE CORPORATIONS FOR MAKING THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS TOO HIGH TO AFFORD?

SINCERELY,

AMERICAN TAXPAYER



UnitedHealth Raises Doubts About Its Participation in Affordable Care Act

Insurer cuts earnings outlook, citing losses from health-exchange products ENLARGE
Pedestrians pass in front of a UnitedHealth Group Inc., storefront in Flushing, N.Y. UnitedHealth is evaluating to what extent it can continue to serve the public-exchange markets in 2017. Photo: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg News
By
Anna Wilde Mathews

Updated Nov. 19, 2015 8:04 a.m. ET

UnitedHealth Group Inc. said it expects major losses on its business through the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges and will consider withdrawing from them, in the most prominent signal so far of health insurers’ struggles with the health law’s marketplaces.
The disclosure by the biggest U.S. health insurer, which had just last month sounded optimistic notes about the segment’s prospects, will sharply boost worries about the sustainability of the law’s signature marketplaces, amid signs that many insurers’ losses on the business continue to mount.
UnitedHealth Group’s chief executive, Stephen J. Hemsley, said it made the move, which included a downgrade of its earnings projections for 2015, amid reduced growth expectations, the expected shutdowns of the majority of the health law’s nonprofit cooperative insurers, and signs that its own enrollees continue to increase their use of medical services, raising costs.
As a result, UnitedHealth said it is pulling back on marketing its exchange products, as open enrollment is currently under way for plans that will take effect in 2016. And the insurer said it is “evaluating the viability of the insurance exchange product segment and will determine during the first half of 2016 to what extent it can continue to serve the public exchange markets in 2017.” UnitedHealth had previously expanded its exchange offerings to 11 new states for 2016, and said in October it had around 550,000 people enrolled.
UnitedHealth said it was revising its 2015 earnings projection to $6 a share, from a previous range of $6.25 to $6.35. The move reflected “pressure” of $425 million, or 26 cents a share, tied to individual plans sold under the health law, it said. The $425 million includes $275 million related to the “advance recognition” of losses it expects to incur in 2016. UnitedHealth also said it expects its 2016 earnings to be between $7.10 and $7.30 per share in 2016; previously, the company said it thought next year’s earnings would be within the range of analysts’ projections, then around $7.09 to $7.55.

Chris Rigg, an analyst with Susquehanna Financial Group, wrote that it was likely “this is more of an industry issue,” and if the exchanges don’t stabilize, he would expect UnitedHealth to “exit this business line.”
UnitedHealth’s announcement comes as other insurers have been sounding alarms about their exchange business, but the big insurer went considerably farther than its peers in flagging the recent rapid deterioration of its performance and raising concerns about future viability. UnitedHealth also changed its own tone markedly from its Oct. 15 earnings call, when it said it expected “strikingly better” results on the exchanges in 2016, due partly to price increases that it said averaged in the double digits.
The impact of the insurance industry’s struggles is already clear in the products currently on offer in the marketplaces, many of which are aimed at stanching a flood of red ink. For these plans, which will take effect in 2016, many insurers have raised premiums in order to cover the medical costs of enrollees, which have run higher than many companies originally projected, fueling this year’s losses. Insurers have also shifted to offering more limited choices of health-care providers.
The majority of the startup cooperative insurers created under the health law are slated to shut down.
Analysts say the danger is that higher rates might discourage enrollment, particularly by the younger, healthier consumers that the marketplaces need to draw in, since they are the ones that are most likely to feel they can go without insurance. That would have the effect of driving premiums even higher in the future, because insurers would need more rate increases to cover the costs of a smaller, sicker pool of enrollees. At its worst, this cycle can feed on itself, creating what the industry calls a “death spiral.”
However, in the ACA’s marketplaces, the impact of rate increases on consumers is blunted by federal subsidies that cover much of the cost of coverage.
The Obama administration has said it aims to have about 10 million people with paid-up coverage on the state and federal health-law exchanges by the end of 2016. But that falls well short of some earlier projections: the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office earlier this year estimated that at least 20 million people would buy policies under the law for 2016 coverage.
In mid-October, UnitedHealth said that the exchange business was hurting UnitedHealth’s performance on a key measure called the medical-loss ratio—which tracks the share of premium revenue spent on patient care—but UnitedHealth still expected its overall MLR for 2015 to be within its projected range.
David S. Wichmann, UnitedHealth’s president and chief financial officer, said then that the company expected the health-law marketplaces “to develop and mature over time into a strong, viable growth market for us.” The exchanges represent a small share of UnitedHealth’s overall insurance enrollment.

Several other big publicly traded insurers also flagged problems with their exchange business in their third-quarter earnings. Anthem Inc. said enrollment is less than expected, though it is making a profit. Aetna Inc. said it expects to lose money on its exchange business this year, but hopes to improve the result in 2016. Humana Inc. and Cigna Corp. also flagged challenges.
A recent analysis by McKinsey & Co. found that in 2014, the first year of the exchanges, health insurers lost a total of $2.5 billion, or on average $163 per consumer enrolled, in the individual market.
There are signs that broad pattern has continued—and in some cases worsened—this year. A Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysis of state filings for 30 not-for-profit Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurers found that their overall companywide results were “barely break-even” for the first half of 2015. Goldman analysts projected the group would post an aggregate loss for the full year—the first since the late 1980s.
The analysis said the health-law exchanges appeared to be a “key driver” for the faltering corporate results, and the medical-loss ratio for the Blue insurers’ individual business was 99% in the first half of 2015—up from 91% at that point in 2014, and 82% for the first six months of 2013.

Such losses are helping to drive shifts in offerings on the exchanges, where open enrollment is currently under way. Premiums for a type of plan that is closely watched as a signal of consumer costs—the second-lowest-priced insurance product in the law’s “silver” metal tier—are increasing 7.5% on average across the roughly three dozen states that rely on the federal HealthCare.gov marketplace, according to the Obama administration. Some individual increases are far sharper.
An analysis by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that a number of insurers are cutting preferred-provider-organization plans, which tend to have more open access to health-care providers. Among silver-tier plans on the exchanges, only a third of 2015 PPO offerings remained the same for next year, with the rest either dropped or reduced.

_________________________________________
#4 issue for social Democrats is low-income housing----it is #1 for many.  If a politician has not been shouting these several years that Obama is using Execute Order to pretend he can ignore all of Equal Protection Constitutional law especially around housing and education----THEY ARE NOT A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT. 

Obama did the opposite----he created a Federal funding scheme that sent all funding to outsourced global development firms who then used these funds for corporate development in US city downtown areas.  So, hundreds of billions of dollars from HUD that should have shored up underserved communities went to build Wall Street banks and global life insurance campuses----and don't forget Johns Hopkins and East Baltimore.



We all recognize how high-rise public housing didn't work---but we are watching as this inclusion model comes with absolutely no safeguards for inflation----as under-developed becomes gentrified. Look at who gets these subsidies now ---
the developer....................


I saw a property that was built with LIHTC. What is LIHTC?


Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) is a Federal housing assistance program that provides tax incentives to owners of affordable housing. The program does not provide direct assistance to renters and is strictly used to finance the construction (not the operation) of rental properties. Usually, LIHTC properties have units available for families earning 60% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI). The rental properties are usually of very high quality and are often mistaken for luxury apartment communities. LIHTC is America's most successful affordable housing program having created millions of affordable rental units since its inception in the late 1980's.



This is not the mission of HUD----and Obama effectively dismantled its original mission with the goal of eliminating all of the public housing/low income housing goals.  Look below what media spin is being played by Clinton neo-liberals and Obama this 2016 election year.



When we watch affluent development in city centers we see the term 'affordable housing' attributed to a 'mixed income' plan.  What does affordable mean when the rents rise in that area to $2,100---2,500?  That's where global corporate pols are posing progressive.  WE NEED RENT-CONTROLLED housing in these city center areas.


YOU DON'T HAVE TO PASS A SPECIAL FEDERAL REGULATION TO ENFORCE EQUAL PROTECTION IN HOUSING.


MissionHUD's mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes; utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination, and transform the way HUD does business.

We all recognize how high-rise public housing didn't work---but we are watching as this inclusion model comes with absolutely no safeguards for inflation----as under-developed becomes gentrified.  This subsidy for 'affordable housing' in wealthy neighborhoods looks simply to be a way to send money to developers anywhere they build.


HUD wants to require 'affordable housing' in wealthy neighborhoods



Jun 11, 2015, 11:50am EDT Updated Jun 11, 2015, 2:40pm EDT
Industries & Tags


Kent Hoover Washington Bureau Chief
Related Content
Republicans hope to block a proposed federal regulation that would force localities to take additional steps to integrate segregated neighborhoods and bring affordable housing to wealthy areas.
If localities fail to take such actions, they would no longer be eligible for community development block grants and other housing-related grants.
At issue is the " Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" (AFFH) regulation, which was proposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2013. The AFFH rule would require states and localities to integrate data on race, poverty, and access to education and employment into their planning decisions. HUD would review whether localities are doing enough to ensure that their housing policies promote equal opportunity.
This week, the House voted 229-193 to block the regulation, which was in an amendment that was attached to legislation funding HUD.
The amendment’s sponsor, Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., said the regulation “is one of the most far-reaching attempts yet to punish communities that don’t submit to the president’s liberal ideology. American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an over-reaching federal government.”
“Furthermore, HUD officials shouldn’t be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble,” Gosar said. “Local zoning decisions have traditionally been, and should always be, made by local communities, not bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.”
The Senate would have to go along with this amendment in order to block the AFFH regulation, but at least one conservative commenter speculated the rule could become an issue in the 2016 presidential campaign.
“Because the Obama administration has delayed this political hot potato to the end of the president’s term, it is the next president who will actually determine whether AFFH is entrenched or cast aside,” wrote Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, in National Review. “So if the Gosar amendment fails and Obama finalizes the rule, AFFH is almost certain to become a significant issue in the presidential campaign.”
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Author

    Cindy Walsh is a lifelong political activist and academic living in Baltimore, Maryland.

    Archives

    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012

    Categories

    All
    2014 Economic Crash
    21st Century Economy
    Affordable Care Act
    Affordable Care Act
    Alec
    Americorp/VISTA
    Anthony Brown
    Anthony Brown
    Anti Incumbant
    Anti-incumbant
    Anti Incumbent
    Anti Incumbent
    Attacking The Post Office Union
    Baltimore And Cronyism
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Recall/Retroactive Term Limits
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Of America
    Bank Settlement
    Bank-settlement
    B Corporations
    Bgeexelon Mergerf59060c411
    Brookings Institution
    Business Tax Credits
    California Charter Expansion
    Cardin
    Career Colleges
    Career Colleges Replacing Union Apprenticeships
    Charters
    Charter School
    Collection Agencies
    Common Core
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    Consumer-financial-protection-bureau
    Corporate Media
    Corporate-media
    Corporate Oversight
    Corporate-oversight
    Corporate Politicians
    Corporate-politicians
    Corporate Rule
    Corporate-rule
    Corporate Taxes
    Corporate-taxes
    Corporate Tax Reform
    Corporatizing Us Universities
    Cost-benefit-analysis
    Credit Crisis
    Credit-crisis
    Cummings
    Department Of Education
    Department Of Justice
    Department-of-justice
    Derivatives Reform
    Development
    Dismantling Public Justice
    Dodd Frank
    Doddfrankbba4ff090a
    Doug Gansler
    Doug-gansler
    Ebdi
    Education Funding
    Education Reform
    Edwards
    Election Reform
    Election-reform
    Elections
    Emigration
    Energy-sector-consolidation-in-maryland
    Enterprise Zones
    Equal Access
    Estate Taxes
    European Crisis
    Expanded And Improved Medicare For All
    Expanded-and-improved-medicare-for-all
    Failure To Prosecute
    Failure-to-prosecute
    Fair
    Fair And Balanced Elections
    Fair-and-balanced-elections
    Farm Bill
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmaryland
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmarylandd20a348918
    Federal-emergency-management-agency-fema
    Federal Reserve
    Financial Reform Bill
    Food Safety Not In Tpp
    For Profit Education
    Forprofit-education
    Fracking
    Fraud
    Freedom Of Press And Speech
    Frosh
    Gambling In Marylandbaltimore8dbce1f7d2
    Granting Agencies
    Greening Fraud
    Gun Control Policy
    Healthcare For All
    Healthcare-for-all
    Health Enterprise Zones
    High Speed Rail
    Hoyer
    Imf
    Immigration
    Incarceration Bubble
    Incumbent
    Incumbents
    Innovation Centers
    Insurance Industry Leverage And Fraud
    International Criminal Court
    International Trade Deals
    International-trade-deals
    Jack Young
    Jack-young
    Johns Hopkins
    Johns-hopkins
    Johns Hopkins Medical Systems
    Johns-hopkins-medical-systems
    Kaliope Parthemos
    Labor And Justice Law Under Attack
    Labor And Wages
    Lehmann Brothers
    Living Wageunionspolitical Action0e39f5c885
    Maggie McIntosh
    Maggie-mcintosh
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin-omalley
    Martin-omalley8ecd6b6eb0
    Maryland Health Co Ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops1f77692967
    Maryland Health Coopsccd73554da
    Maryland Judiciary
    Marylandnonprofits
    Maryland Non Profits
    Maryland Nonprofits2509c2ca2c
    Maryland Public Service Commission
    Maryland State Bar Association
    Md Credit Bondleverage Debt441d7f3605
    Media
    Media Bias
    Media-bias
    Medicaremedicaid
    Medicaremedicaid8416fd8754
    Mental Health Issues
    Mental-health-issues
    Mers Fraud
    Mikulski
    Military Privatization
    Minority Unemploymentunion And Labor Wagebaltimore Board Of Estimates4acb15e7fa
    Municipal Debt Fraud
    Ndaa-indefinite-detention
    Ndaaindefinite Detentiond65cc4283d
    Net Neutrality
    New Economy
    New-economy
    Ngo
    Non Profit To Profit
    Nonprofit To Profitb2d6cb4b41
    Nsa
    O'Malley
    Odette Ramos
    Omalley
    O'Malley
    Open Meetings
    Osha
    Patronage
    Pension-benefit-guaranty-corp
    Pension Funds
    Pension-funds
    Police Abuse
    Private-and-public-pension-fraud
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People6541f468ae
    Private Non Profits
    Private-non-profits
    Private Nonprofits50b33fd8c2
    Privatizing Education
    Privatizing Government Assets
    Privatizing-the-veterans-admin-va
    Privitizing Public Education
    Progressive Policy
    Progressive Taxes Replace Regressive Policy
    Protections Of The People
    Protections-of-the-people
    Public Education
    Public Funding Of Private Universities
    Public Housing Privatization
    Public-libraries-privatized-or-closed
    Public Private Partnerships
    Public-private-partnerships
    Public Transportation Privatization
    Public Utilities
    Rapid Bus Network
    Rawlings Blake
    Rawlings-blake
    Rawlingsblake1640055471
    Real Progressives
    Reit-real-estate-investment-trusts
    Reitreal Estate Investment Trustsa1a18ad402
    Repatriation Taxes
    Rule Of Law
    Rule-of-law
    Ruppersberger
    SAIC AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
    Sarbanes
    S Corp Taxes
    Selling Public Datapersonal Privacy
    Smart Meters
    Snowden
    Social Security
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement0d62c56e69
    Statistics As Spin
    Statistics-as-spin
    Student-corps
    Subprime Mortgage Fraud
    Subprime-mortgage-fraud
    Surveillance And Security
    Sustainability
    Teachers
    Teachers Unions2bc448afc8
    Teach For America
    Teach For America
    Technology Parks
    Third Way Democrats/new Economy/public Union Employees/public Private Patnerships/government Fraud And Corruption
    Third Way Democratsnew Economypublic Union Employeespublic Private Patnershipsgovernment Fraud And Corruption
    Third-way-democratsnew-economypublic-union-employeespublic-private-patnershipsgovernment-fraud-and-corruptionc10a007aee
    Third Way/neo Liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals5e1e6d4716
    Third Wayneoliberals7286dda6aa
    Tifcorporate Tax Breaks2d87bba974
    Tpp
    Transportation Inequity In Maryland
    Union Busting
    Unionbusting0858fddb8b
    Unions
    Unionsthird Waypost Officealec3c887e7815
    Universities
    Unreliable Polling
    Unreliable-polling
    Van Hollen
    Van-hollen
    VEOLA Environment -privatization Of Public Water
    Veterans
    War Against Women And Children
    War-against-women-and-children
    Youth Works

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.