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

May 20th, 2014

5/20/2014

0 Comments

 
DO YOU HEAR YOUR POLS SHOUTING ABOUT HOW THESE COMMUNICATION POLICIES WILL ALL END IF LEFT TO CONTINUE?  IF NOT, THEY ARE NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONSERVATIVES

The Federal Communications Commission has opened a new inbox at openinternet@fcc.gov for public comments on #NetNeutrality tell them what you think.

Stop Staples!

see video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtbh2rK5i9I — with Tom Dodge at STOP STAPLES PROTEST.
  Privatizing the US Post Office


I want to take this week to overview the extent we are losing our public sector and why it is important to stop it.  Republican voters need to stop listening to the mantra of small government because this is what has given us massive and systemic corporate fraud and government corruption and it is taking basic public agencies geared towards providing necessities of life.  These public agencies make the difference between first world and third world social societies and neo-liberals and neo-cons are going for the third world model.

I attended a Post Office protest this weekend as events like this occur all across the nation.  The issue is huge and yet there is no dialog.  People are being sold a bag of goods when corporations tell them the mail is outdated and not a viable service.  THE POST OFFICE USES NO PUBLIC TAX BASE AND IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN VIABLE AND IS NOW.  The problem is that neo-liberals and neo-cons are dismantling the Post Office taking all means of revenue development away and legislating hardships on the Post Office as regards pre-payment of employee benefits decades in advance-----something no other business in America is made to do.  So, Congress has declared war on this public agency tasked with the important duty of providing the American people with a quality means of communication at an affordable cost.

THE PROBLEMS WITH FINANCE FOR THE POST OFFICE IS CONGRESSIONAL LAWS DISMANTLING THIS AGENCY'S ABILITY TO GENERATE REVENUE.


I remind people to look at the goals of the corporation's in power.  As they take more and more control of government and dismantle our democracy they need to control an angry group of 300 million people and that includes making sure they cannot communicate easily.  Watch as these communication industries consolidate so as to become so large that competition is destroyed and they have free reign to soak consumers and gut services and quality.  Everyone knows this is what happens in each industry.  Imagine that cell phone costs soar as people are made to pay for every minute or share plans are priced at a few hundreds of dollars as the cost of living rises for things like health care and food.  People will not have the disposable income for the very basic need of making a phone call.  Think again about these net neutrality laws they intend to dismantle giving communications industries a green light to push rates for ordinary internet actions so high that most people will not be able to access the internet for basic things as email and accessing any site having streaming video------and that is every site.  So, most people will be priced out of internet service and access to email to a great degree.  There goes that method of communication!


PRICED OUT OF PHONE AND INTERNET SERVICE------HOW WILL MOST AMERICANS COMMUNICATE?

These same corporations are now trying to privatize and kill our Post Office as letters and mail are now the only communication they do not control.  If they are successful-----which is why your Post Office workers are protesting as hard as they can-----the mail service will end under the guise it is not profitable----at the very least the mail will be gutted in the level of service.  So, the US mail disappears as an option for communication.


HOW WILL YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN COMMUNICATE IF ALL THIS HAPPENS?  BY SMOKE SIGNALS!!!!  LITERALLY.  THIS IS WHAT A THIRD WORLD NATION LOOKS LIKE.  THE PEOPLE HAVE NO RELIABLE MODE OF COMMUNICATIONS AND ARE THEREFOR LEFT DISCONNECTED.


Below you see a deliberate model of moving people first from landline phones onto cellular and then moving people towards pre-paid.  Most people are making these moves because the rates and equipment is getting more and more expensive for most.  That is because the global market is targeting people with lots of money.  Most people are now paying for their phones as we are now leasing our cars because families are becoming too poor to afford basic services.  What happens when they have most people on pre-pay cellphones?  They can do whatever they want to your ability to access any communication.
People with pre-pay and plans that sell by minute know you are becoming saturated with robo-calls and advertizing/collection calls that eat most of your time.  Think again at the growing wait for customer service and even government agencies now have long wait times on phones that make people unable to access simple service calls.  THIS IS DELIBERATE.  Most people cannot even make a call to check the status of a city water bill because of the kind of phone service they have and the dismantling of customer service across all government services.  Keep in mind that once businesses move people to a favored service----that price goes up.  So, we are losing our landline connections that are cheap and allow universal communication.
  This is not innovation----it is how you capture a market to a model you want being the only choice.

Your options in cellular will disappear.

Prepaid Cell Phones: The New Growth Industry


By Lewis Medlock 
  editor of Prepaid Phone Pro.

The landscape of the mobile cellular phone market has shifted in recent years. While the overall mobile phone market continues to grow, traditional post paid plans are shrinking in total market share. Contract plans are quickly being replaced by cheaper prepaid cell phones.

Prepaid vs. Post Paid
The two general types of mobile phone plans are prepaid and post paid. With prepaid, you pay for your minutes upfront. With post paid, you pay for minutes at the end of each month. Post paid plans require a credit check and a contract because you pay for your minutes after you've used them.

Growth Statistics
The cell phone market has grown every year since its inception, and the overall market continues to grow. In the United States, over 80% of the population now uses cell phones. That trend continues to grow, although much slower now than in previous years.

Traditional contract phone plans have been the primary niche within the cell phone market and that niche grew year after year. However, in 2008 the growth trend started to slow. From 2008 to 2009 the net additions of post-paid customers across all major carriers fell 58 percent. In 2009 the post paid subscriber growth actually reversed and the market share is currently shrinking.

Meanwhile, prepaid customers are increasing. In 2008 about 50 percent of new cell phone users signed up for prepaid cell phone service. The next year, in 2009, about 80 percent of phone subscriber growth came from prepaid plans.

Historically, prepaid phone plans have been used by two types of people: young people and people with bad credit. Because traditional post paid plans require a credit check, many people have been unable to purchase a traditional post paid cell phone. Traditionally, those people with no credit or bad credit have made up the bulk of the prepaid market. The one disadvantage of prepaid plans, up until recently, was that prepaid cell phone plans have been more expensive than post paid plans.Prepaid Is Now Cheaper
However, a few years ago the price of prepaid plans started to come down. Now prepaid cellular phone plans are significantly less expensive than post paid plans. Many prepaid carriers are now even offering unlimited minutes plans that are less expensive than comparable contract plans that have 500 minutes. The current low cost of prepaid plans and the downturn in the economy are fueling the explosive growth of the prepaid cell phone market.

Of course, the major cellular phone companies are not happy about this, since they make much more money on contract plans than they do on prepaid. There are three reasons for this is. The first is that post paid plans are more expensive than prepaid plans. Traditional contract plans can run upwards of $80 a month while a prepaid plan with the same minutes could be as cheap as $40. Second, not only do mobile phone companies make more money on contract plans, but they have a secure recurring income stream by locking their customers in with long term contracts. The third reason post paid plans are so lucrative for the cell phone companies is that they charge exorbitant rates if you go over your minutes allowance, sometime 25 or 50 cents per minute. This adds up very quickly and many people have accidentally run up huge cell phone bills of several hundred dollars.

Of course, with prepaid plans, you don't have this issue. Prepaid plans are now cheaper per minute and they don't have contracts. Also, if you go over the minutes that you've purchased, you can simply buy more minutes.

The Future of Cell Phone Plans
Contract cell phone plans continue to be popular with consumers, though. The primary reason is that the handsets that they offer are cheaper, at least up front. Many consumers continue to pick contract plans because they can't afford a $600 phone. The carriers will subsidize the price of the phone when customers sign a two year contract. In contrast, prepaid handsets are more expensive since none of the price is subsidized. Consumers have to pay full price for prepaid handsets. What consumers don't realize is that the carriers are able to subsidize the cost of the handset because they know that over the course of that two year contract they'll make up the cost of the phone (and much more.)

Prepaid plans continue to gain market share, though. They just make more sense for consumers financially. The economy has been bad for years and there's no end in sight. The lower overall cost of prepaid cell phone plans will continue to boost their popularity and more consumers will choose prep
aid plans over the traditional post paid contract plans.


_________________________________________
Think of how much of your use of the internet includes streaming video----advertisement with streaming video is even infused in your email with Yahoo and Google.  Net neutrality makes the costs of all internet access equal for all just as the cost of electricity coming into your house is charged the same whether you are a business using lots of electricity or a homeowner using a much smaller amount.  Both have access to as much as they need with the same conditions of contract.  Ending net neutrality says that if you pay a much higher rate you get to continue to access what is available now for everyone.....if you cannot afford these higher rates, you will be relegated to a service of slow access with all kinds of crashing and freezing that makes internet use frustrating and impossible.  We are already seeing this in Maryland today.

Most of the news we receive is now online and infused with streaming video.  The movies and video games are all streaming video----social media is infused with streaming video.....all will be too expensive to afford for most people.  The rates will climb slowly, but in a handful of years-----you will be blocked from much of access.

THERE GOES EMAIL AND BEING PART OF WEBSITE COMMUNITY CHAT LINES!


Net Neutrality


Saving the InternetBroadbandCableCybersecurityDeclaration of Internet FreedomGlobal Internet FreedomMobileSurveillanceVerizon/Cable DealSpectrumSOPA

On Jan. 14, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order.

And on May 15, the FCC voted to propose a new “open Internet” rule that may let Internet service providers charge content companies for priority treatment, relegating other content to a slower tier of service.

Under these rules, telecom giants like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon would be able to pick winners and losers online and discriminate against online content and applications. 

We must stop the FCC from moving forward with these rules.

Here’s how we got here:

The open Internet rules, adopted in 2010, were designed to prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking or slowing users’ connections to online content and apps.

This ruling means that just a few powerful phone and cable companies could control the Internet. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs will be able to devise new schemes to charge users more for access and services, making it harder for us to communicate online — and easier for companies to censor our speech. The Internet could come to resemble cable TV, where gatekeepers exert control over where you go and what you see.

Without Net Neutrality, ISPs like AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon will be able to block content and speech they don’t like, reject apps that compete with their own offerings, and prioritize Web traffic (reserving the fastest loading speeds for the highest bidders and sticking everyone else with the slowest).

The tools ISPs use to block and control our communications aren’t different from the ones the NSA uses to watch us. Whether it’s a government or a corporation wielding these tools or the two working together, this behavior breaks the Internet as we know it and makes it less open and secure.

We must fight to ensure that the Internet we love won’t simply become a platform for corporate speech or another tool for government spying. We must protect the Internet that lets us connect and create, that rejects censorship and values our right to privacy.

The Internet shouldn’t be a walled garden. It should remain a forum for innovation and free expression. As so many startups and political activists know, open, affordable, fast and universal communications networks are essential to our individual, economic and political futures.

For our 101 on Net Neutrality, click here.

_____________________________________
This is a really long article on the history of the policy towards privatization.  Please take time to glance through.  It gained traction with neo-liberals Reagan/Clinton and Bush super-sized the efforts and neo-liberal Obama endorses these steps.  While you may hear your pol shout out DON'T CLOSE THAT POST OFFICE......Congress votes each time with neo-liberals joining for these policies dismantling the Post Office at every step.  Maryland has adopted all of these policies below, the kiosk as post office now being built across Maryland and will adopt the Staples policy if this pilot program is approved.   Remember, the Post Office is a viable business and can remain viable if all of its revenue sources are not taken away.

It is pension-pre-funding of hundreds of billions of dollars that guts the Post Office revenue generation.


The corporatization of the Postal Service: Post office closures, suspensions, relocations, and reductions in 2013


January 7, 2014



One of the most persistent refrains in the debate about the Postal Service is that it needs to act more like a business.  That means different things to different people, but for many, the model for where the Postal Service needs to go is to be found in Europe.  In the EU countries, where the process of liberalization has been going on for fifteen years, the government monopolies have come to an end and the marketplace has been opened to more competition.  According to free-market doctrine, the competiton was supposed to lead to lower prices and better services, but things haven't quite worked out that way.

According to a new report on the recent history of postal systems in Europe, “liberalization has not improved services and reduced prices as promised by the European Commission and others.” 
Instead, in countries where the postal systems have been deregulated and privatized, large corporations have come out the winners and average citizens and postal workers have come out the losers.

Consumers see their post offices close and get replaced by postal counters in private businesses.  The mail is delivered only two or three days a week and primarily in highly populated areas.  For postal workers, liberalization has led to lower wages and more part-time and self-employed contract jobs with little security and few benefits.

While consumers and workers get the short end, large mailers get their mail picked up more frequently, and in many cases their rates have gone down thanks to lower labor costs, cutbacks in postal services for the general public, and the special deals mailers can negotiate with the carriers.  The private shareholders in the former public monopolies and the executives of postal businesses are also coming out ahead.  Even with declining volumes in letter mail, there are big profits to be had in the mail industry.  


The corporatization of the Postal Service The citizens of the United States have never voted to privatize the Postal Service, but the process of corporatization has been going on for a long time.  With each passing year, the Postal Service acts less and less like a public service and more and more "like a business." The scenario that has played out in Europe is playing out in the U.S., just in its own way.

Since 2000, the total number of USPS employees has been reduced by a third, and part-time workers now comprise over 20 percent of the workforce.  The Postal Service outsources wherever it can — over $12 billion of its $65 billion in annual expenses go to private contractors and suppliers.  Over half of the Postal Service's processing plants have been consolidated, while the workshare system has led to the creation of a huge private-sector consolidation industry, with companies like Pitney Bowes and Quad/Graphics reaping huge profits.

Consumers aren't seeing post offices closing by the thousands, but the hours are being reduced, sometimes to two or four hours a day.  A huge network of "alternate retail access points" has been developed to replace brick-and-mortar post offices.  Collection boxes are being removed from city streets, the speed and reliability of mail delivery are going down, more customers are getting cluster boxes, postal properties paid for by taxpayers are being sold off, and the lines at post offices are as long as ever, maybe longer.

The Postal Service and Congressional leaders typically blame the service cutbacks and downsizing on the big drop in mail volumes, but the transition toward a corporatized postal system predates declining volumes by a long time.  As Christopher Shaw tells it in Preserving the People’s Post Office, there’s nothing new about efforts to close post offices, reduce window hours, get rid of collection boxes, shift to cluster boxes, and everything else we’ve been seeing. 

The first big step toward corporatization was the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act, which turned the Department of the Post Office into the Postal Service.  The process got a big boost in 2003, when President Bush appointed a Commission on the Postal Service.  Its report, which seems to have served as a blueprint for Darrell Issa’s postal reform agenda, said that while the country wasn't ready for postal privatization the Postal Service should be run more like a private business.
 The Commission recommended expanding retail services to private stores, making it easier to close post offices, outsourcing more to the private sector, offering more workshare discounts, setting up a BRAC-like commission to consolidate processing plants, “rightsizing” the workforce, and disposing of postal real estate to “provide benefits to the public in the form of moderated rate increases.”

Many of these recommendations were implemented in the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.  For example, PAEA directed the Postal Service to expand “alternate retail options” like vending machines, kiosks, the Internet, and “retail facilities in which overhead costs are shared with private businesses" (sec. 302).  These alternatives were not intended simply to improve consumers’ access to postal services.  They were about developing an infrastructure that would make it easier to close post offices.

Bush’s Commission came out with its report in 2003, when mail volumes were increasing. PAEA was enacted in 2006 — the year Shaw’s book was published — when mail volumes were at their peak.  Declining mail volumes thus had little if anything to do with the rationale for cutting services and closing facilities. 

The rationale then, as it is now, was about something else. 
As Shaw makes clear in his book, the goal has always been to commercialize, corporatize, and eventually privatize the Postal Service in order to enhance the profits and wealth of the corporate stakeholders of the mail industry. 

Measuring “customer satisfaction” Given the influence of these stakeholders in Congress, it’s no surprise that there is little in current postal laws — and much less in proposed legislation — to protect the interests of average consumers and postal workers.  PAEA does make a nod, however, toward showing some concern about what is vaguely described as “customer satisfaction.”  Section 3652 of the act requires the Postal Service, as part of its Annual Compliance Report (ACR) to the Postal Regulatory Commission, to report on the degree of customer satisfaction.

The main way the Postal Service fulfills this requirement is by conducting a Customer Experience Measurement (CEM) survey.  About 300,000 residential customers and 310,000 businesses rate the Postal Service’s performance with respect to each type of mail.  In most cases, around 85 percent of the respondents say they are very or mostly satisfied. 

The survey may be helpful, but a survey can only tell part of the story.  The PRC has therefore developed regulations that require the Postal Service to provide more information in order to help the Commission gauge customer satisfaction when it reviews the ACR for its Annual Compliance Determination Review (ACDR). 

According to these regulations (39 CFR 3055.91), the Postal Service must provide the following information: The number of post offices, emergency suspensions, delivery points, and collection boxes that existed at the beginning of the fiscal year and at the end of the year, along with the total number of closings, suspensions, new delivery points, and collection boxes removed and added.  The ACR must also provide data on average customer wait time. 

The main purpose of the compliance review is to determine whether or not the Postal Service is in compliance with service standards and the requirement that each type of mail cover attributable costs.  Matters involving consumer satisfaction represent a relatively small part of the review.

The Postal Service has been resistant to providing even a minimal amount of data about the subject, however.  When the PRC was first developing the section 3652 regulations in 2009, the Postal Service objected to the new reporting requirements.  Valpak, which thinks that providing services for average customers drive up its rates, supported the Postal Service in its objections.  In the end, however, the PRC argued that given the vagueness of the “customer satisfaction” requirement in section 3652, it was necessary to review more than the CEM survey results.  (See PRC Order 465.)

The compliance review does not do very much to ensure the quality of postal services for the general public, but it does provide some degree of transparency about topics like consumer access to postal services.  It may also provide some incentive for the Postal Service to keep up its ratings on customer satisfaction. 

The information that comes out as a result of the compliance review actually does something more, however.  In looking at the data on post office closings and suspensions and the growth of alternative retail access and so on, one can chart the progress of postal liberalization and see in quantitative terms how the Postal Service is slowly being transformed from a public service into a postal corporation. 

The ACR numbers The Postal Service submitted the ACR on December 27, and over the next few weeks, the Commission will review the report and then issue the ACDR sometime in March.  The Commission has asked the Postal Service to fulfill its obligation under PAEA by providing the following data (in essentially this form, as described in PRC Order No. 465).  The complete data tables are in Library Reference USPS FY13-22-2; we've put them on Google Docs here.
That is about all the regulations require the Postal Service to provide in its ACR, but the Commission will ask for more in order to prepare the ACDR.  PRC Chairman Ruth Goldway has already issued her first information request.  It asks for lists of post offices that closed and were suspended, as well as more information about CPUs, revenue data on POStPlan post offices, etc.  It’s anyone’s guess why the Postal Service doesn’t just provide the additional information to begin with, since it knows what it was asked for last time around, but the Postal Service doesn’t like to provide any more than required.

Since the PRC’s ACDR won’t be out for a couple of months, here's an overview of what happened during FY 2013 with respect to consumer access to postal services.  The Annual Compliance Report is here, the PRC Docket is No. ACR2013, and last year’s article on Save the Post Office about the ACR data and customer access is here. 


Post office closures One of the most direct assaults on people’s access to the postal system — and one of the main goals of postal liberalization — is closing post offices, but it’s also one of the most controversial.
 People value their post offices.  But corporate mailers don’t use post offices, and they typically advocate closures as a way to cut costs, avoid rate increases, and shift postal retail profits to the private sector.  That’s what has happened under postal liberalization in Europe.  In the U.K., they have closed almost half of their 23,000 post offices.  Germany closed virtually all of its government-run post offices and replaced them with privately owned retail outlets.  Sweden has very few government post offices anymore.

The Postal Service has been talking about closing thousands of post offices since the late 1970s, and the idea of replacing them with postal counters in convenience stores
(which we now see in the Village Post Office initiative) goes back decades.  But progress toward closing them has been relatively slow.  Over the past 40 years, the number of government-run post offices in the U.S. has dropped from about 36,000 to 32,000 — about a hundred closures per year.

The past year was somewhat below average for closures.  The ACR reports that the Postal Service closed 73 retail offices in FY 2013 — 60 post offices and 13 stations and branches.  That’s in contrast to the previous two years, which saw the beginning of a big push toward mass closures.  According to the PRC’s 2012 ACDR, the Postal Service closed 289 post offices, stations, and branches in FY 2012 and 382 in FY 2011.

The PRC has asked the Postal Service for a list of the closures in FY 2013, and it should be available soon.  In the meantime, there are several sources for information about post office closings.

Postal Bulletin regularly publishes discontinuances.  A list of discontinuances implemented during FY 2013 based on these announcements is here.  It shows 68 discontinuances: 58 post offices and 10 stations and branches.  It looks like all but ten of these closures were based on discontinuance studies done before the fiscal year began.

Postmasters Advocate, the publication of the League of Postmasters, published a list of its own a few weeks ago showing 70 closings during FY 2013.  That list is here.  A table based on the Advocate list, with additional information from the USPS facilities lists, is here. 

One can also search for post office discontinuances on USPS Postmaster Finder.  It shows 57 post office closures and does not include stations and branches.  A table based on Postmaster Finder is here.

These lists are largely the same, but there are several inconsistencies — closures on one list don't show up on the others.  It also appears that many of these closings did not actually occur during FY 2013.  Keene Valley, New York, for example, shows up on the lists, but it closed for an emergency suspension in 2010 over a lease issue, and it was replaced in 2011 by a Village Post Office.  Perhaps the PRC can get all this straightened out with the Postal Service so that there's a correct list of which post offices actually closed in FY 2013 after a discontinuance review.

It also appears that nearly all of the closures in FY 2013 were based on discontinuance studies that were done in 2011, before the five-month moratorium on closures when into effect in December of 2011.  If that’s correct, it should be a matter of some concern.  Much of the data on which those final determinations were based is probably out of date, and circumstances may have changed.  If the Postal Service is going to continue to close post offices based on 2011 studies, that problem will become even more pronounced.

There may also be a question about how many post offices actually closed.  In the USPS 10-K for 2012, the Postal Service reports that there were 31,150 post offices, stations, and branches in 2013, as opposed to 31,272 in 2012 — a net decrease of 122.  In the Reply Comments it filed in the exigent rate case a few weeks ago, the Postal Service said that during FY 2013 the number of retail facilities had been reduced by 155.  These numbers are both much larger than the 73 reported in the ACR.  The source of these discrepancies is unclear.


Appeals on closures The ACR doesn’t discuss post office appeals, but here’s a recap for FY 2013. Since there were so few new final determinations to close post offices issued during the year, there were very few post office appeals brought before the PRC.  Only ten appeals were filed between October 1, 2012 and October 1, 2013.  That’s in contrast to 127 for the previous fiscal year. 

Here's what happened with these ten appeals.  Two were not even considered because the appeal was filed late (in one case, by just one day late, in another, by just a few days).  Five appeals were dismissed — three because the closure was part of a relocation (even though no new location had been identified); one because it was premature (the post office was under emergency suspension, not discontinued); and one because the Postal Service withdrew the final determination.  Of the appeals that were actually reviewed by the Commission, two final determinations were affirmed, and one was remanded.  Here's a list of the ten appeals with links to the final orders.

Post Office Outcome Reason for decision Docket No. Order No. Santa Monica, CA dismissed relocation A2013-1 1558 Evansdale, IA affirmed   A2013-2 1674 Glenoaks, Burbank, CA affirmed   A2013-5 1866 Climax, GA dismissed suspension A2013-3 1852 Francitas, TX dismissed PS withdrew FD A2013-4 1737 Bronx GPO, NY dismissed relocation A2013-6 1802 Berkeley, CA dismissed relocation A2013-9 1817 Freistatt, MO not considered late appeal A2013-8 1839 Franklin Station, Somerset, NJ not considered late appeal A2013-10 Letter Fernandina Beach, FL remanded problems in FD A2013-7 1880 It does not appear that FY 2014 will be much different.  So far, three months into the fiscal year, only one appeal has been filed (on Stamford, Connecticut), and there seem to be only a handful of discontinuance studies underway.  One notable case is Redlands, California, where a historic post office is under review for closure.  If this post office is discontinued, the decision will almost certainly be appealed to the PRC.

For now, then, the Postal Service seems to have backed off of big initiatives to dismantle its legacy of brick-and-mortar post offices.
 That may change, however, if new legislation makes it easier to close post offices.  Darrell Issa’s Postal Reform Act (H.R. 2748) would help.  It would remove the prohibition on closing post offices solely for operating at a deficit; shorten the appeals process from 120 days to 60; deny a community the right to appeal a closure if a contract postal unit is opened within two miles of the closed post office; and strike “a maximum degree of” from the requirement that “the Postal Service shall provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices are not self-sustaining.” 

Emergency suspensions The Postal Service has a long history of bending the rules on emergency suspensions in order to close post offices without going through a long discontinuance review.  In 1997, Congress became sufficiently concerned that it asked the GAO to do a report, and in 2010, the PRC initiated an investigation into the problems (the docket, PI2010-1, is still open).

The ACR reports there were 254 post offices and 56 stations and branches under suspension when FY 2013 began, and there were 99 post offices and 31 stations and branches under suspension when the year ended.  During the year, 126 post offices and 36 stations and branches were placed under emergency suspension. 

Some of these suspensions are long-standing and represent unresolved issues, while others lasted a relatively short period of time and the post office soon reopened (like after a weather-related emergency).  The PRC has previously expressed concern about how long some post offices remain under suspension without being reopened or formally discontinued, and it may need to reiterate that concern this year.

The ACR materials do not include a list of those offices under suspension, but the Chairman’s first information request has asked for one.  It will be interesting to see the reason for each suspension. 

As in previous years, many offices have closed during FY 2013 because of problems that arose when it was time to renew the lease, and in many instances, the problems seemed manufactured by the Postal Service.  In other cases, health and safety issues were cited, even though the problem seemed minor — like a little mold in the building — or long-standing and not an “emergency” at all.  In some cases, the problem was an inability to staff the office, but that too seems as though it was a problem of the Postal Service’s own making.  When it reduces hours at a post office to two or four a day and is paying $12 an hour, whose fault is it when no one wants the job?

With over 160 post offices being suspended during the year, it’s likely that in many cases the reason cited by the Postal Service is suspect.  There have been numerous news reports about suspensions in which elected officials and citizens in the community expressed skepticism about the legitimacy of the Postal Service’s claims.  People believe that the Postal Service simply wanted to close the post office and basically cooked up the “emergency.” 

A list of suspensions in FY 2013 based on these news items is here.  It contains about two dozen cases — fifteen involving lease issues; four due to unsafe building conditions (three due to mold); and five caused by an inability to find adequate personnel to run the office.  Most of these suspensions are discussed in posts on Save the Post Office, which are archived here. 

POStPlan reductions The Postal Service has been reducing window and counter hours at post offices for decades.  In 2003, for example, the Postal Service began reducing hours in many locations, such as three quarters of the post offices in Maine.   (For more on this history, see Shaw, pp. 98-100.)

The current plan to reduce hours, POStPlan, is by far the most extensive effort in this regard.  By the end of 2014, hours will be reduced at 13,000 post offices.  The process is well underway.


The ACR says that since 2012, the Postal Service has reduced hours at 7,985 post offices under POStPlan.  Of these, 1,090 post offices have been converted to two hours per day; 4,203 have been converted to four hours per day; and 2,692 have been converted to six hours daily.  A list of 8,591 offices where POStPlan has been implemented is here.

The ACR says that more than 8,400 meetings have been held with community members.  A list of 8,512 meetings held between October 9, 2012, and November 15, 2013, is here.

The ACR says that the purpose of these meetings was to discuss the new hours of operations “as well as alternatives.”  But the community's preferences on the hours are typically trumped by the Postal Service's "operational needs," and the only "alternatives" to reducing the hours — like “transitioning” services to a nearby post office or using rural carriers — also involve closing the post office.  These aren’t real alternatives, and no community chooses one of them.  In fact, the PRC ought to ask the Postal Service for a breakdown of what “options” each of these 8,400 communities have chosen.  Has a single one elected to have the post office close?  Was it really necessary to hold 13,000 meetings and send out surveys to customers at each one of these post offices?  What was accomplished?

The PRC’s first information request has asked about closures at POStPlan offices.  That could be an issue, since the whole purpose of POStPlan was to keep post offices open, not close them.  It appears that a couple of dozen POStPlan post offices closed during the fiscal year for one reason or another.  A list is here.

In the ACR, the Postal Service says that so far POStPlan has saved $171 million in annual costs.  That’s about a third of what the annual estimated savings will be when POStPlan is fully implemented.  (There’s a detailed discussion of the cost-savings here.)

The Postal Service’s estimates on cost savings don’t include lost revenue, and that too could be a question for the Commission to consider.  The Postal Service has assumed from the beginning that there wouldn’t be any significant loss in revenue.  If revenue numbers were to go down at a POStPlan post office, it was assumed that the revenues had migrated somewhere else within the postal system.  That’s almost impossible to prove one way or another, but the PRC has nonetheless asked the Postal Service to provide revenue data for all the POStPlan offices.  If a significant amount of revenue has been lost at these offices, it could raise questions about the overall impact of the plan.

The numbers on POStPlan also don’t capture a lot of what’s happening at these post offices.  In a recent news report about POStPlan implementation in Montana, for example, the part-time PMR responsible for running one office said that she finds it impossible to get all the work done without working overtime, but whenever she puts in for extra hours, she’s questioned about it, so she feels like she’s working full-time for half-time pay.  “I’ll never work for the post office again,” she vowed.  Another PMR in Montana said the reduced hours since February have no doubt cost the post office business, but he doesn’t know if customers are going to another post office or not.

Overall, POStPlan has drastically diminished access to postal services for millions of Americans, and over the coming years, things will only get worse.  Another five thousand offices will have their hours reduced in FY 2014, and every POStPlan office will be reviewed annually to see if revenues have fallen to the point that the hours need to be reduced even further.  This year the Postal Service is also going to begin reviewing Level 18 offices for hour reductions as part of the next phase of POStPlan, which would be implemented in 2016.

Post office relocations One of the biggest sources of customer dissatisfaction during FY 2013 involved post office relocations.  As with reducing the hours, this practice has a long history.  The general pattern is for the Postal Service to close a large, historic post office in the center of town and to replace it with a small retail facility outside of downtown, often in a carrier annex.  Since the post office is being “relocated,” not closed, the Postal Service says it does not need to go through a formal discontinuance process, which keeps the public’s opportunity for input at a minimum.

For many years, the Postal Service barely even considered the community’s views at all when making relocation decisions.  That changed somewhat in 1998, when the Postal Service added a section to the federal regulations (39 CFR 241.4) guaranteeing at least some opportunity for community participation in relocation decisions.  That change may have been the result of what happened in places like Livingston, Montana, where the Postal Service decided to close the landmark downtown post office and replace it with a new one on the outskirts of town.  The town protested, the case drew national attention, and the historic post office remained where it was — and where it remains today. (For more on the history of relocations, see Shaw, pp. 54ff.)



The ACR does not discuss relocations, but during FY 2013 they were a much bigger source of controversy that post office closures and suspensions.  Issues about how the Postal Service has been conducting the relocation procedures have led to an audit investigation by the USPS OIG, now underway, and several of the post office appeal cases brought before the PRC involved these relocations. 

It would be helpful if the PRC included the issue in its compliance review.  Perhaps the Postal Service could prepare a list of relocations similar to those the PRC has requested concerning closures and suspensions, with information about when the relocation notice was posted at the post office, the date of the community meeting, the final decision date, the disposition of any appeals, the new location if it has been identified, and the current status of the relocation. 

A list of relocations over the past three years based on the news is here.  It doesn’t have the dates when the decision was made or implemented, so some of them were before or after FY 2013.  A discussion of the relocation issues can be found in this recent post.

Disposal of properties The most blatant form of privatization is the transfer of public property into private hands, and the sale of post offices and other postal properties has therefore been another matter of controversy over the past year.  As with relocations, this is not a subject covered in the ACR, but for many communities, when it comes to “consumer access to postal services” and “customer satisfaction,” nothing matters more than having your historic post office sold out from under you. 

Over two thousand towns and cities have a historic post office that is a landmark presence in the community.  Many contain priceless art commissioned during the New Deal.  The Postal Service has clearly embarked on a plan to sell many of these post offices, as well as properties of more recent vintage, but it refuses to provide a list of those that have been reviewed and those that have been earmarked for disposal, so the full scale of the plan remains unknown.  The National Trust and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have expressed their concerns, but the sales go on.

The USPS Annual Report to Congress says that there were 44 property disposals in FY 2013 and 49 in FY 2012.  That obviously does not include facilities currently on the market or being considered for sale.  The Postal Service has not released a list of those sold or for sale, but as with relocations, there’s information out there in news articles and in information gathered by Peter Byrne for his investigation into the sale of postal properties by CBRE. 

As with relocations, the PRC should consider including the sale of post offices part of its ACDR.  Since that probably won’t be happening, a list of recently sold properties is here, and a list of historic post offices sold, for sale, or under review for sale, is here.  For more, see this post and check out Byrne’s book.

Premier and Competitive Post Offices While hours are being cut at rural post offices and historic post offices are being sold off and replaced by small leased facilities, the Postal Service has been focused on increasing revenues at a few select post offices.  Over the past two years, two new classifications of post offices have been created — Premier and Competitive.  The ACR doesn’t have anything to say about these new classes of post office, but perhaps the PRC should ask for more information about them.

In 2011, the Postal Service designated about 3,100 of its most profitable post offices as Premier.  While they represent only about 10 percent of the retail network, these post offices account for 44 percent of all walk-in and self-service kiosk revenue.  The purpose of the program is to improve the customer experience and maximize revenues at these offices by giving the staff special training and by offering special products.  When the Harry Potter stamps were released, for example, they were initially available only at Premier post offices.  During the busy holiday mailing season, hours were extended at many Premier offices.  The Premier program thus raises questions about why customers at other post offices should get second-class treatment and why products and services aren't uniformly available.  A list of the Premier Post Offices is here.

In 2012 the Postal Service designated 6,800 post offices as Competitive post offices.  At these offices, the Postal Service charges more for post office boxes than it does at its regular post offices, while providing additional services like those offered by competitors, such as email notification of mail delivery, receiving packages from private carriers, and delivery on Saturday. The Competitive post office idea has met with opposition by FedEx and private mailing centers because of the competition they represent.  Like Premier post offices, the Competitive post offices also raise the question of why some post offices would offer services not widely available.  A list of the Competitive Post Offices is here.

About 1,280 of the Competitive offices are also classified as Premier, so at these post offices, customers are getting special treatment — and paying extra for it.  A list of these offices is here.

Coming next: The year in review, part 2: Alternate access, collection boxes, delivery points, and wait time

(Photo credits: Protesting the sale of the Bronx GPO; former post office in Keene Valley, NY; Glenoaks Station, Burbank, CA; suspended post office in Climax, GA; post office in Blue Mountain Lake, NY, on the POStPlan list; post office in Berkeley, CA, approved for relocation; post office in York, PA, sold; special flower box at the Premier post office in Hartford, CT.)



0 Comments

March 12th, 2014

3/12/2014

0 Comments

 
Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland stands for strong public, private libraries, and research institutions  


NEO-LIBERALS WORK FOR WEALTH AND PROFIT AND CONTROL THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!  HEATHER MIZEUR SAYS SHE IS PROGRESSIVE?  HAVE YOU HEARD HER SHOUT AGAINST ALL OF THIS? SHE SUPPORTS PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND WALL STREET CREDIT BOND LEVERAGE FOR THESE KINDS OF THINGS!



MOVING ALL FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING OF EDUCATION TO PRIVATE CORPORATE NON-PROFITS AND EDUCATION BUSINESSES IS DELIBERATELY MEANT TO PRIVATIZE AND CLOSE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS DEDICATED TO PUBLIC INTEREST.  THIS SHOULD HAVE EVERYONE ON THE STREETS.



  To:  Citizens for Maryland Libraries

I would like to share my views of policy that will concern the vision and mission of Maryland libraries.  As an academic currently working as a research professional I live in libraries and archives so I am one of the most frequent users of the institutions for which you advocate.  I would be a real friend to public and private libraries and research institutions. 

First, let me clarify a policy stance that drives my policies on education and by extension how libraries fit into education at all levels.  We have watched these few years of Governor O’Malley’s term the embracing of a Federal policy advanced by the Obama Administration under the direction of his Education Secretary Arne Duncan called Race to the Top and this policy guides any questions regarding libraries and Common Core materials.  As a progressive labor and justice candidate I see Race to the Top as an assault on public education K-12 and with it Common Core.  I will work hard to restore rigor and accountability in all public schools as I too agree that we have failed to assure these standards in public schools these few decades.  I think Race to the Top and Common Core are not the best approach for doing this.  Indeed, I feel these policies work against the very goal stated by politicians pushing this agenda.  The method of implementation of Race to the Top shows what I feel is a desperate attempt to move education policy that Federal officials know the public does not want and they are doing as quickly as possible with such a lack of transparency as to have no avenue for public comment and input in what is the cornerstone to our democratic society-------democratic education and equal opportunity and access to all education.  Common Core sold as a standardization of curricula is not progressive but regressive.  It is not even about making sure there is consistency across America in subject content and rigor.  As anyone who has a background in science and education as I do knows……STEM courses are already standardized.  Facts are facts and courses from science, technology, engineering, and math are fact based.  Now, some people may say that areas like evolution and environment have prejudice in political beliefs, but if students are required to know science standards for existing national tests, those requirements will continue to drive course content.  My concern with Common Core is more with the humanities and liberal arts where standardization greatly jeopardizes democratic freedom of thought and speech as each region of this nation has its own experiences with socio-economic evaluation, civics, history, music, literature, etc.  We do not want to standardize that which makes a nation a plurality.  As a progressive I do not like conservative states writing out the labor and civil rights era every opportunity they get, but I also would not like having the Bush Administration writing the Common Core history lesson on their administration’s foreign policies on War and torture.  Standardization never works well at a time when government is controlled by what we all know to be corporate culture that does not have the public interest in mind in writing policy.  So, just as a general statement on education policy I will open with my intent to fight Race to the Top implementation in Maryland.  My appointments would be strong public education advocates and my bully-pulpit as governor would address the Maryland Assembly as regards the movement of policy that has so little research showing its legitimacy in creating the achievements it states and the unwise decision to move forward so quickly with policy that has not had public comment, development of core materials to be used, and the discussions as to where these policies lead the state in the long-term.  I believe the majority of citizens in Maryland, both democrat and republican are not comfortable with these policies and particularly their being implemented without discussion and thought.     Please see my website Citizens Oversight Maryland.com for very clearly written policy stances on this education policy.  Keep in mind I am an activist and this site is written to be populist.  Accountability and public oversight is the passion of my campaign.  

Now, on to  three specific questions directed at libraries: 

1.        One of the greatest achievements of our last economic revolution, the Industrial Revolution, was philanthropy that gave us the public institutions of learning and the public library system we have today.  The idea that all people living in America were to be educated in a way that prepares them to be leaders and to be citizens is central to our Founding Father’s writing of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.  Public places were key to the American people being both.  The legal case of Brown vs Board of Education was successful in that the dictate of equal opportunity and access to public education was already a given; it was simply the acknowledgement, as if this needed to be acknowledged, that all men are created equal includes people of color.  So, simply having this philosophy of education identifies me as someone who by extension values the library system in providing that access and opportunity to all.  If we look at the future as regards digitization of all information and the ability of citizens here in America to afford the tools needed to access this digital information we know that libraries will be even more necessary to open access to many people.  Right now, for many it is libraries that offer the only access to the internet and as public schools become more wired and computers become integrated in lessons, access to computers outside the classroom is critical.  Funding for this transition in classrooms is a good thing and we need to see that libraries and community centers are viewed as equally needing of funding to meet these changes.   We are seeing a movement in Maryland of using private education non-profits to serve in providing after-school programs and even in-school programs.  Libraries on the other hand are being left to feel that budgets could be slashed or branches closed at any time.  The movement of these educational outlets from the public to these private non-profits shows a desire to privatize our public sources and services.  I write extensively on the negative impact of public-private partnerships and where I do see good coming from some of these partnerships the goal is clearly to make these relationships the rule and not the exception.  This will not end well for libraries whether public or private.  As a researcher I know that access to research is becoming limited as even universities are making research protected from public view through patents and by extension librarians are now having to tell consumers of the library sources that once accessible data is now proprietary.  This also limits what librarians can say in the course of their duties while on the clock and as we all know, Federal rules regarding surveillance of public records has librarians forced to operate in ways they may find disagreeable.  We see this as an assault on free speech and freedom of information.  All of this falls into policy that attempts to privatize our public spaces.    In order for an education policy to be dynamic and promote success for all Marylanders, we cannot restrict our public spaces and the flow of public information with these categorization of quasi-governmental or public private.  It is repressive and it hurts everyone.  We want to build community educational programs, we want to make libraries center of these communities and a vital part of each school’s structure.  This requires strong funding to public schools and I will say that the current policy of allowing corporations to donate rather than pay taxes skews all attempts at making educational opportunities equal.  Tiered-per-pupil funding in Baltimore for example with the desire to run individual schools as businesses has some schools pressed to buy toilet paper for the children’s bathrooms so whether that school has a good library falls to the whim of private donation.  This is not democratic and public education.  It does not meet the US Constitutional requirement of democratic and equal opportunity.  Libraries that are tied to private donation rather than by public funding are then under the restrictions that come with that donation and, indeed, that is the point of this policy.  Libraries whether private or public will not serve their consumers if policy is dictated by private donation only.  I know, Carnegie was one big private donation but he had the foresight of placing them in the hands of public operation.   We must continue the public funding of library resources of all kinds and with it public access and programming developed with the public in mind.  In Baltimore, small libraries have been defunded and public access ended because of cuts to library budgets and branches are in fear each budget season that the axe may fall.  Politicians thinking all information is online will be the ones who view physical buildings for libraries as extraneous.   In conclusion, I value private non-profits operating as a source for after-school programs.  I feel that libraries are already in the position of providing these programs as well.  A well-resourced library already in a community is necessary for any well-developed education mission.  In this age of technology we would want our libraries to have the same resources as our classrooms so the connection to after-school consumers is there.  

2.        Since I am not a supporter of all of the testing and evaluation policy I do not see a need to expand preparation for testing to libraries more than what exists right now.  Education that is broad and experiential needs to have more opportunity in group projects and exposure to any number of learning skill development tools.  Classroom teachers are not able to do the level of educational skills development needed for achievement and this is where libraries can be an excellent source for parents and students in their after-school choices.  We desperately need all hands on deck with skills development and I do not feel that private non-profits are the only avenue for this.  Our Pratt Central Library has wonderful programs for children and with a bigger budget would have the space to expand as a meeting place for after-school programs.  Having library staff coming to public community centers to help build and implement these programs, funding of mobile library buses all are extremely valuable in attaining educational goals in Maryland.  The upside down education policy of having students going online after school to prepare for classroom lessons is an excellent opportunity for libraries so having the software and materials used in the classrooms at the library is a must.  Parents have never needed more resources than now in learning how to help their children meet these new classroom requirements.   I cannot begin to share the importance for every student in having a library to which to retreat for all kinds of reasons.  Libraries are not only about classroom K-college.  They have as a mission to be the sight of Lifelong Learning.  To be able to meet this mission libraries must be well-resourced.  It is expensive to outfit a library for those with disabilities or to make sure the library collections cater to all kinds of tastes and cultural backgrounds.  All attempts to cut budgets makes the libraries less able to do this and in turn make them attractive to fewer people.  If your goal was to be rid of libraries, that would be the mechanism.  Look to the US Post Office to see this strategy for dismantling a national public treasure!  

3.       I will say as Governor of Maryland my responsibilities to move forward policies regarding Race to the Top will remain until a time comes that this policy can be changed.  It is my intent to push for this.  That said, as State Executive it will be my responsibility to move forward policy dictated by past legislation and indeed, MCC-RS and Common Core are those policies.  That said, I will be sure to see that libraries have what is needed to make them central in implementing this policy and support public school teachers in their classrooms and with promoting the success of students in achievement on these tests.  The amount of education funding going into implementing these Race to the Top policies is outrageous for people knowing all our public schools need are resources and rigor.  So, it would be my job to look carefully at all of the private consultants, all of the private educational businesses tied with this Race to the Top and assess how we might better implement these policies by using the resources such as libraries already in our community.  Since Race to the Top is mostly about growing an education business industry, corporate politicians working for these corporations are no doubt bringing the state into lots of business deals that may not be needed or effective.  I would look at these contracts to see how we can bring libraries and public community centers into the loop in assuring student readiness for these tests.  As a former classroom teacher I know these teachers are overwhelmed and really have little ability to accomplish all that is being placed upon them so quickly.  I would make it my goal to give relief to these classroom teachers in whatever way I can and that would extend to bringing in existing educational sources like libraries and librarians.     


WALSH FOR GOVERNOR IS A GREAT BIG FAN OF LIBRARIES AND ALL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS AND IN PROTECTING US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND CIVIL RIGHTS THAT GO WITH EDUCATION AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS! 


Update: Vermont Library Lays Off Whole Staff; Librarians Protest

By Meredith Schwartz on January 8, 2013 This article has been updated to include video footage of the “Hug” of the Athenaeum on January 12.

On December 3rd, 2012, the St. Johnsbury Athenaeum Board of Trustees announced it would lay off its entire library, docent, and information technology staff, then “ask them to consider applying for the newly formed Athenaeum positions,” Bill Marshall, chair of the Athenaeum Board of Trustees, said in a letter.

The first goal of the radical restructuring is to reduce costs: the library is eating into its endowment. It could be depleted in as little as seven years if spending continues at the current rate, which the Athenaeum’s Executive Director, Matthew Powers, said was between 10 and 20 percent per year, rather than the recommended 4.5 percent. The plan will cut personnel spending by eight percent, or about $40,000. Powers told LJ that personnel is the “single highest line” in the library-cum-museum’s budget. “Last year personnel costs were roughly $340,000 out of a total budget roughly of $500,000, and that doesn’t take into account the deficit,” he explained.

Although it is the staff restructuring that is raising the most controversy, Powers told LJ it’s far from the only cut. “Within the overall budget we reduced about $150,000; so we didn’t just look at the personnel budget,” said Powers. Other cutbacks affected general expenses and facilities. “No stone was unturned,” Power continued.

The other stated goal of the restructuring is to gear the Athenaeum up to meet the challenges of the rapidly changing world of librarianship, including a new focus on digitization, research and technical assistance, super-broadband Internet access, and off-site services, as well as more emphasis on programs and collaboration with other institutions. However, it is not entirely clear how the restructuring would place more emphasis on technology use and support, since it replaces a dedicated employee with an IT contractor.

According to Laurel Stanley, a retired academic library director, public library trustee, Athenaeum member and donor, and member of the Vermont Library Association Board, a new focus on these goals isn’t necessary. “They’re saying that the Athenaeum is behind in new services and technology and that’s just not true,” said Stanley. “The Athenaeum is definitely a leader in the Northeast Kingdom [section of Vermont], and measures well compared to other libraries in the state.”

According to a second letter from the Board, the Athenaeum is moving from a team of eight people working in the library—most part-time—to a team of four people, two of whom are full time. (Plus a new curatorial position which requires museum, not library, expertise, and a full time development position.) The letter compared the decision to the also-controversial restructuring at Harvard University, and also includes a Q&A section describing some background:

Q: Is there a future for public libraries?

A: Yes! Absolutely yes! There is an important role for public libraries, but it’s going to be different. Preparing for this new role for our library is the fundamental reason we are restructuring. Moreover, this change is occurring with great speed and we have some catching up to do. This is the reason we felt we needed to take a bold step forward, instead of small, incremental changes.

The Athenaeum’s new library positions include a full time librarian and assistant librarian, a part time assistant librarian, and a part time youth services librarian. Although the Board’s letter stated that the people hired into the four new positions will be qualified librarians, according to the job posting, an MLS is not required for any of the positions. While Vermont considers someone with a department of library certification to be a qualified librarian, Stanley told LJ, “it is highly unusual that a library the size of the Athenaeum would not have at least one MLS. You can’t tell me you’re going to do catching up and then say you don’t need an MLS.”

While the Athenaeum says the restructuring does not result in any significant cut in staffing, Stanley disagrees, saying the 130 hours of library staffing that the new positions provide will be insufficient to both staff the Athenaeum’s two service desks and children’s room for the library’s current 42-43 open hours per week, and provide the additional outreach services and programming called for by the plan. Likewise, expanding non-library positions such as a curator, a development director, a book keeper, and a custodian, while reducing library staff hours, is not focusing on library services, claims Stanley.

Stanley agrees that the budget must be balanced, but feels that “they’ve put far too much money into this art gallery, and library services has been far down” on the list of priorities.

Rural Librarians Unite (RuLU), a newly formed volunteer group, is organizing opposition to the cuts in the form of a “hug” for the library. On Saturday, January 12 at noon, the group will join with the Vermont Library Association and citizens of St. Johnsbury to hold hands around the library.

The demonstration is similar to that organized by 2012 LJ Mover & Shaker Christian Zabriskie in 2011. Zabriskie, founder of Urban Librarians Unite, coordinated a “hug” of the New York Public Library’s main branch, and Lydia Willoughby, spokersperson for RuLU, says that’s not a coincidence. “We contacted ULU before starting anything up here, and got their blessing. The ‘hug’ event was definitely influenced by their work at NYPL.”

The Vermont Library Association (VLA) said in a statement, “While the Vermont Library Association understands the Board’s responsibility for setting direction for their library during a time of financial stress, now, more than ever, Vermonters need libraries–and librarians. The Vermont Library Association feels that the board’s actions demonstrate a devaluation of libraries and the library professionals capable of leading them through a time of intense change in information resources and society.  Librarians are not replaced by the Internet–their skills and training enrich the Internet and facilitate access for all Vermonters.”

Both RuLU and VLA also called on supporters to contact the Athenaeum directly, as well as their elected representatives.

Willoughby told LJ, “While the timing of Rural Librarians Unite was definitely in response to the Athenaeum situation, the story was never about just the Athenaeum library staff…RuLU will serve as an activist force that libraries and librarians can go to whenever they want to get a campaign off the ground for any reason.”

RuLU’s future plans include building library and literacy services for correctional facilities and reentry programs in Vermont, an alternative email listserv for rural librarians to make action plans and share resources, support for safe physical spaces for vulnerable learners and library users, meet ups at independent bookstores, unconferences, collaboration with Every Library on State-wide advocacy, and reaching out to ARSL and other peer organizations. While RuLU is focused on Vermont right now, Willoughby doesn’t rule out expanding nationally/or and working with nearby Canadian libraries.


__


The “Hug” drew a crowd of about 200 people, according to RuLU. Video of the event can be seen below:



HUG the Athenaeum - The People Make the Library

- Jan 12, 2013 RuralLibrariansUnite·1 video
2 864 views 16     0 Published on Jan 13, 2013

In December 2012, the board of trustees at the St. Johnsbury Athenaeum laid off 11 library staff and invited them to reapply for 3.25 positions. Rural Librarians Unite organized a rally in response. Here is some footage! We love libraries!

Find out more on our website: rurallibrariansunite.org
facebook: facebook.com/rurallibrariansunite
twitter: @rurallibrarians


___________________________________________
This article shows the same happening in Maryland.  While I do fault union leadership for not shouting and using labor lawyers to fight worker wealth lost to fraud and corruption,these unions need the citizens of the state to come out in support of labor and public services.  When neo-liberals partner with republicans to privatize all that is public.......labor and justice must have public support.

PLEASE MOBILIZE AND SHOUT, PROTEST, PETITION AND RUN FOR OFFICE AT ALL LEVELS!  WE NEED TO TAKE BACK THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE.

Remember, budget shortfalls come from failure to recover tens of trillions of dollars in corporate fraud at the national level and tens of billions at the state and local levels.  IT IS ALL ABOUT REINSTATING RULE OF LAW AND ACCOUNTABILITY!




SCOD Public Blog
Sustainable Cooperative for Organic Development

Maryland Budget Cuts = Drastic Library Layoffs Maryland State Budget Cuts Public Services




County library workers in unions, pay more than $500 a year in dues. What have all those dues done for them? That is the sum total effect that paying all those union dues has done for thousands of workers in 21st Century Maryland. Luxurious Legislators have waited until the State deficit is almost $800 million, before they decided to radically chop down the life-long careers of countless loyal State workers and their families.

Montgomery County Executive Dictator Isiah Leggett is calling for a reduction in government spending for the first time in more than 40 years. Regardless of political party, there is nothing “democratic” about his legacy. He spent all the County’s money on bullet-proofing his personal security, and a gold-leaf bathroom in his office. Now in his $4.3 billion budget Monday, he calls for cuts across the state, including libraries and other services. The plan also gives schools $137 million LESS than required by the state. Leggett is calling for an energy tax that would cost about $3 per month for the average household. He has called for a $62 million ambulance fee that was rejected by the county council in the past.

All of these drastic cuts are his attempts to address his own political follies that have aggregated into one of the largest budget deficits in the region. Leggett is proposing no pay increase for county employees. He would eliminate hundreds of currently filled jobs and impose 10 days of furloughs for non-public-safety employees. The overall job reduction amounts to well over 750 work years.

This massive reduction in much needed public service, is almost as bad as the General Assembly cuts to Baltimore’s highway aid from the state. The evidence is clear that the public demands more access to these services, yet the wrong decisions are made. There are many ways to cut budgets over a period of years, without forcing a mass exodus.

The future of civilization in Maryland does not look good. Already homeless and people without internet access clamor at the doors of the libraries. What will all those thousands of people do? Get a job with all these cuts? Yeah, right.


________________________________________

Libraries are now one of the last places for the public to meet in a public space especially in Maryland.  The intent is to take that away as well.  With loss of net neutrality and consolidation of the communications industry, prices will soar and content standardized across the nation in the hands of global corporations.  THE INTENT IS TO CONTROL INFORMATION AND ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION.  Libraries are and will become the only outlet for people to computers and content online. 

Meanwhile, librarians are being threatened by Federal Security agencies against making public illegal searches, illegal blocking of information, and privacy issues libraries have always protected.  Free speech and free flow of information is threatened by neo-liberals.



Librarians Protest Against Budget Cuts At City Hall October 31, 2011 1:32 PM Library Generic (Photo by Andreas Rentz/Getty Images)

CHICAGO (CBS) – It was reading time and protest time for more than 100 city librarians and supporters Monday morning at a rally outside Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s office at City Hall.

WBBM Newsradio’s Bernie Tafoya reports that one librarian read to children at City Hall about a “big green monster,” but what librarians found even scarier were the mayor’s planned cuts to the library system.

LISTEN: WBBM Newsradio’s Bernie Tafoya reports




“At a time we’re taking more and more things away from our kids, we need to give them something to expand their imaginations,” said Beverly Cook, who has been with the library system for more than 25 years.

The mayor plans to trim $11 million from the budget for public libraries next year by eliminating 268 vacant positions and laying off 284 workers – including two dozen various librarians, 112 clerks and all 146 pages charged with shelving books.

Library student Megan Russell said, “The effect will be horrendous for both children and people that cannot afford Internet and cannot afford books.”

Library supporters arrived at City Hall with more than 4,000 petition signatures backing up their opposition of the library cuts.

________________________________________
You may not understand the outrage over issues with Trans Pacific Trade Pact (TPP) like intellectual property protections and IT protections but the article below shows the problem.  Since universities are being made into corporations and patenting their research, what was free and open sharing of all academic research internationally will now be threatened.  Proprietary means that the decades of building an international system of sharing academic information to cut the costs of taxpayer funding of costly research will be closed to the public.  Librarians used to be the experts on finding all of this information to share with the public and now those resources are mostly accessible to only university personnel.



Bill Clinton placed privatization of universities on the fast track once he and Reagan tag-teamed global corporate rule.  Obama has sent hundreds of billions of dollars to build these university research centers that are now simply corporations while sending relatively small funding connected to Race to the Top to fund K-12.  Most of that too attached to building private education structures.  Meanwhile, researchers like myself cannot access what Federal, state, and local taxes fund in research because patented research is proprietary.

Why have library staff when most of what libraries did is now being lost.....the public does not need to know!  'Innovation startup' is just a political phrase for spending all taxpayer money on the R and D costs for new product development.  All these startups that are successful are simply folded into global corporations and the university department heads are paid as if they are manufacturing executives. 

NEO-LIBERALS WORK FOR WEALTH AND PROFIT AND CONTROL THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!  HEATHER MIZEUR SAYS SHE IS PROGRESSIVE?  HAVE YOU HEARD HER SHOUT AGAINST ALL OF THIS? SHE SUPPORTS PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND WALL STREET CREDIT BOND LEVERAGE FOR THESE KINDS OF THINGS!


Academic Patenting: How universities and public research organizations are using their intellectual property to boost research and spur innovative start-ups

Mario Cervantes, Economist, Science and Technology Policy Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD1

Introduction Universities and other public research organizations are increasingly protecting their inventions – from genetic inventions to software – helping raise additional funding for research and spurring new start ups. The rise in university patenting has occurred against a broader policy framework aimed at fostering a greater interaction between public research and industry in order to increase the social and private returns from public support to R&D. The general strengthening of intellectual property protection world-wide as well as the passage of legislation aimed at improving technology transfer are additional factors that have facilitated the expansion of patenting in academia in OECD countries.

Indeed, in 1980, the United States passed what is widely considered landmark legislation, the Bayh-Dole Act, which granted recipients of federal R&D funds the right to patent inventions and license them to firms. The main motivation for this legislation was to facilitate the exploitation of government-funded research results by transferring ownership from the government to universities and other contractors who could then license the IP to firms. Although patenting in US universities did occur prior to the passage of Bayh-Dole Act, it was far from systematic.

At the end of the 1990s, emulating the US policy change, many other OECD countries reformed research funding regulations and/or employment laws to allow research institutions to file, own and license the IP generated with government research funds. In Austria, Denmark, Germany and Japan, the main effect of these changes has been the abolishment of the so-called “professor’s privilege” that granted academics the right to own patents. The right to ownership has now been transferred to the universities while academic inventors are given a share of royalty revenue in exchange. There has also been debate in Sweden on whether to follow a similar path and transfer ownership to institutions. For now at least, the status quo remains and policy efforts are focusing on developing the ability of universities to provide professors with support for patenting. 

In Canada, where rules on IP ownership by universities vary across Provinces, efforts have nevertheless been made to harmonize policies at least with respect to R&D funded by federal government Crown Contracts. In Ireland and France, where institutions normally but not always retain title, the government has chosen an alternate path: issuing guidelines for IP management at institutions in order to foster more consistent practices. Such reforms are not only confined to the OECD countries. China has recently made legislative reforms to allow universities to protect and claim IP, but implementation of such reforms remains a challenge. One lesson from all this is that despite the importance of patent legislation in fostering technology transfer, different national systems may require different solutions.

Institutional ownership of IP is not sufficient Encouraging universities to commercialize research results by granting them title to IP can be useful but it is not sufficient to get researchers to become inventors. The key is that institutions and individual researchers have incentives to disclose, protect and exploit their inventions. Incentives can be “sticks” such as legal or administrative requirements for researchers to disclose inventions. Such regulations are often lacking in many countries, even in those where institutions can claim patents. Government rules that prevent universities from keeping royalty income from licenses are another disincentive to institutions. Incentives can also be “carrots” such as royalty sharing agreements or equity participation in academic start-ups. Recognition of patent activity in the evaluation and recruitment of faculty can also provide incentives for young researchers. Tsinghua University in China offers its young researchers prizes for inventions that are commercialized. 

Given the diversity of research institutions and traditions, it is important that incentives are set at the institution level, but national guidelines can help bring about coherence and the sharing of good practices. As important as incentives is the need for research institutions to clarify IP rules and disseminate them among faculty, staff as well as graduate students- who are increasingly involved in public research activities.

Building critical mass in IP management To bridge the gap between invention and commercialization, universities have established "technology transfer offices" (TTOs), on campus or off-campus intermediaries that carry out a wide range of functions, from licensing patents to companies to managing research contracts. Results from an OECD report on patenting and licensing at public research organizations2 show that there is a large diversity in the structure and organization of TTOs within and across countries (e.g. on or off -campus offices, arm’s length intermediaries, industry sector-based TTOs, and regional TTOs) but the majority appear to be dedicated on-site institutions and integrated into the university or research institution. Many of the TTOs are in their infancy; most are less than 10 years old and have less than five full-time staff. Still, the number of new TTOs is growing, to the order of 1 per year per institution.

In terms of performance, the report also found enormous variations in terms of the size of patent portfolios as well as revenues obtained from licensing. In 2000 the United States had a huge lead over other OECD countries in academic patenting: universities and federal labs received over 8 000 patents (5% of total patenting, rising to 15% in biotechnology). Academic patenting in other countries, as measured by the number of patents granted to public research institutions, ranged from the low hundreds in Japan, the Netherlands and Switzerland, to close to 1 000 at German public labs and Korean research institutions in 2000-2001. While leading universities and public research organizations in countries such as the United States, Germany and Switzerland may earn millions of dollars or euros in licensing revenue, the gains are highly skewed – a few blockbuster inventions account for most revenue. Furthermore, income from licensing academic inventions remains quite small in comparison to overall research budgets. Academic patenting is thus more about boosting research and transferring technology to industry than about making a profit. In fact, evidence from the US show that the break even point for TTOs is between 5 to 7 years.

A main barrier to the development of TTOs is access to experienced technology transfer professionals. Not only are the skills sets of such professionals in short supply but sometimes government employment rules and pay-scales prevent public institutions from being able to provide competitive salaries to such professionals. Governments are nevertheless trying to help universities build IP management capacity. Denmark and Germany have both invested several millions of euro to spur the development of technology transfer offices clustered around certain regions or sectors such as biotechnology. The UK government has increased expenditures on the training of intellectual property management at universities. Even in the United States and Japan, universities pay reduced patent application fees. National patent offices are also involved in reaching out to universities to provide training in intellectual property.

Start-ups versus licensing to other firms One of the questions facing technology transfer managers and inventors is whether to license a technology or to create a start-up firm to commercialize it. Governments and university managers, especially in some European countries, have tended to favour start-ups as opposed to licensing strategies. Part of this stems from the rise in government funded venture funds that aim to promote new firm creation. The key question, however, is: which is the best channel for transferring the technology to the marketplace? The answer in fact depends on the technology in question, the market for such a technology, the skills set of the staff and researchers involved the invention, access to venture capital, and finally the mission of the institution. Certain “platform” technologies with a wide range of applications may be commercialized via a start-up company for example while others may be licensed to larger firms with the business capacity to develop the invention further and integrate it into its R&D and business strategy.

Balancing IP protection with the need to maintain public access Despite the relatively small amount of (formal) academic patenting activity that takes place, the increased focus on patenting academic inventions and licensing them to companies has raised a number of concerns common to countries throughout the OECD area and beyond. These concerns range from the impact of patenting on the traditional missions of universities, the effect on the direction of research, on the actual costs and benefits of patenting and licensing, to the effects on the diffusion of and access to publicly funded research results.

What has been the impact of IP and technology transfer activities on the direction of research? Quantitative studies tend to show that patenting has led universities to conduct more applied research. By making university research more responsive to the economy, is there a danger that basic research will suffer? On the one hand, several studies in the United States have found that universities and individual researchers that have seen the largest increases in patenting are also those which experienced the greatest gains in academic publications. On the other hand, the rate at which academic patents are cited in other patents fell (relative to the average) between the early 1980s and late 1990s in the United States and is now lower than the citation rate of patents granted to business. This could suggest a possible drop in the quality of public research – or at least of its patented component. Alternatively, it may reflect the inexperience of newly founded technology transfer offices.

Exclusive versus non-exclusive licensing Should universities and other public research organizations grant exclusive licenses to firms for inventions that have benefited from public funds? Licensees often require exclusive licenses as they offer more protection for the necessary development to be conducted before a university-provided invention can become a marketed product. The issue is particularly crucial for start-ups which have few assets other than their IP. On the other hand, by definition, exclusive licenses limit the diffusion of technologies. The OECD report has found that the mix of exclusive and non-exclusive licenses granted by public research organizations is fairly balanced, and that exclusivity is often granted with restrictions on the licensee side. Research institutions often include clauses in license agreements to protect public interests and access to the IP for future research and discovery. Licensing agreements in many institutions include a commitment to exploit the invention on the part of the licensee, particularly if the license is exclusive, and to agree on milestones in order to assure that commercialization will take place. Such safeguards can be used to ensure that technology is transferred and that licensed patents are not used simply to block competitors.

As academic inventions arise in areas closer to basic research, scientists and policy makers are also concerned that patenting certain inventions could block downstream research. One example is that of research tools, in which granting a patent could inhibit diffusion by increasing the costs and difficulty of using such tools in applied research. In response, the National Institutes of Health in the United States (NIH) have espoused a policy that discourages unnecessary patenting and encourages non-exclusive licensing (see link). Such guidelines are now being emulated by funding agencies and research institutions in other countries.

Research exemption Another area of debate concerns the use of the so-called “exemption for research use” that has been in use in universities in both the United States and in EU countries, either formally or informally. Traditionally, universities have been exempted from paying fees for patented inventions they use in their own research. The rationale is that universities fulfill a public mission. As more public research is carried out with business and generates monetary rewards, the divide between public mission and commercial aims becomes less stark. The extent and status of this exemption differs across countries and is often ill-defined. This research exemption – or rather its interpretation – has recently been the subject of policy debate and litigation: recent court decisions in the United States have restricted its meaning.

Conclusions Making universities and other public research organizations more active in protecting and exploiting their IP means not only actively promoting faculty and student research, but also determining how best to pursue any relationship with business clients while protecting the public interest. Many of the concerns or issues related to balancing IP protection with public access will take time to resolve. The growing reliance of public research institutions on various sources of funding, including from industry and contract research, as well as demands by society for greater economic and social returns on investment in public R&D, have made academic patenting a reality that is more likely to increase than decrease. At the same time, it should be recalled that intellectual property is but one of several channels for transferring knowledge and technology from publicly funded research which include publication, the movement of graduates, conferences as well as informal channels. While research institutions and firms are working to find solutions to problems as they arise, governments and research funding agencies have a role to play in providing guidelines on academic patenting and licensing and in fostering debate.





_________________________________________

Keep in mind that Maryland and especially Baltimore are ranked at the bottom for fraud, corruption, and the lack of transparency.......billions of dollars are lost in Baltimore alone to the richest.  This is the structural deficit for all government budgets and it is being used to privatize and close all that is public.

Neo-liberals are doing to the US what Gorbachev did to USSR during Perestroika......privatizing all public wealth to create Oligarchs.  The US has a Constitution and Equal Protection under law that protects Americans from these actions. 

WE SIMPLY NEED PEOPLE IN OFFICE THAT ARE NOT COMPLICIT



Maryland Historical Society cuts operating hours, staff

Budget gap of $670,000 to blamemuseum, library open on Thursdays, Saturdays onlyDecember 03, 2009|By Liz F. Kay | liz.kay@baltsun.com

A $670,000 budget shortfall caused by the dismal economic climate has prompted the Maryland Historical Society to cut hours at its Baltimore museum and library and to eliminate several staff positions, according to the president of its trustee board.


In addition, Wednesday was director Robert Rogers' last day with the society, board president Alex G. Fisher said. Rogers' departure is unrelated to the 165-year-old organization's budget problems, according to Fisher. The board will name an interim director until it can conduct a search for a new leader.

The society was able to close nearly half of its budget gap by cutting the equivalent of seven full-time positions. To make up the rest, it also limited operating hours at the museum and library to noon to 8 p.m. Thursdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturdays, and the 28 trustees agreed to double their gifts to the society's annual fund.

Many charitable organizations have been struggling to remain solvent during the economic downturn.

"It's no secret that all nonprofits are suffering as a result of the economy," Fisher said.

Although financial markets have recovered somewhat, they are still lower than they were several years ago, which affects the income drawn from the historical society's endowment, as well as the confidence of supporters who make contributions, Fisher said. State funding for the society has also decreased by $450,000 in the past three years, according to Fisher.

He described the decrease in hours as "regrettable." However, "if you're going to be fiscally responsible, you just have to do that," Fisher said. The library and museum were formerly open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Wednesday through Sunday, though the library would close during lunch.

Scholars and historians worry that the decision to reduce hours will make it difficult for researchers to conduct their work.


"If you're an out-of-town researcher, you can't even go back-to-back days," said Jessica Elfenbein, an associate provost and professor of history at the University of Baltimore. "It's going to be very hard for any researcher to do justice to Baltimore if you can't get to the collections it supports."

Said Robert Brugger, senior editor at the Johns Hopkins University Press: "That means that people who would like to be doing research are not going to do it, or need to find more money than would otherwise be needed to get work done."


Fisher acknowledged that was a legitimate concern. The society is hoping to restore some operating hours at its Mount Vernon facilities by relying on volunteers.

"But it will take time to get that accomplished," Fisher said.

The society is also revamping its Web site.

"Once that's done, access to library material will expand dramatically to anyone off-site," courtesy of the Web, Fisher said.

Education programs in Maryland schools will also be curtailed through the remainder of the school year, according to Fisher. As student tours of the museum have dwindled in recent years, outreach in schools has filled that void, he said, and the society would send staff to train teachers to use replicas of museum holdings for Maryland history lessons. But next summer, the society will transition to offering more Web-based resources.

______________________________________




0 Comments

January 21st, 2014

1/21/2014

0 Comments

 
THE 1% ARE KILLING ALL AVENUES FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ABILITY OF THE PUBLIC TO NETWORK WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITIES!  WE SHOULD SEE A FLOOD OF PROTEST OVER ENDING NET NEUTRALITY, THE WAR ON THE POST OFFICE, THE PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY CENTERS, AND THE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS/DATA MINING  WITHIN SCHOOLS AND PRIVATE NON-PROFITS TAKING THESE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

TOTALITARIANISM LOOKS JUST LIKE THIS!!!!!


Regarding news outlets the American people no longer listen to:

If you listen to the social media bunch you never hear or see any mainstream media repeated or posted and MSNBC is losing any viewership because they are neo-liberal.  I happen to watch a Sunday CBS talk show that showed why.  The commentator asks the Obama representative about NSA and the fact that it is run by hedge funds and is not really a public agency and the Obama spokesman ignored the question and went on to say the issue is whether the government or private businesses should store the data,......THE POINT IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT AS A PUBLIC AGENCY IS NOT INVOLVED....IT IS PRIVATE BUSINESSES RUNNING NSA.  Then we read where Microsoft's Seattle is trying to pass anti-spying on the world legislation because since they are part of the hedge funds running NSA, tech companies are losing the world's business because no one trusts them.  So, they are pretending to be against the spying system they helped develop.  Today corporate NPR/APM's Marketplace tells us the world's monied elite and elite politicians need to do something about wealth inequity because the natives are getting restless.  This is like listening to the monied Godfather called elite and his Goodfellas called elite politicians.  Absolutely no one thinks of the crew at the top as elite.  People have even stopped viewing Ivy League schools as good academic institutions.  Abroad, American universities are looked at as the least of choices because they are now so sullied and thuggish.

This is why no one watches/listens to mainstream news.
This is also what people in second/third world autocracies hear when they listen to the news.  They sit there for a minute looking at news people saying nothing that is true, other nations are telling their citizens Russia and Iranian news is propaganda because they are doing the same thing.  Meanwhile the citizens have a completely separate system of media and communication. This is the state of US news media.

The important things for the American people in this regard are two-fold.  As we listen to neo-liberals handing the US Post Office over to Staples and cuts to buildings and employees we are seeing the VISIGOTH politicians dismantling the only public means of communication....if you think 46 cents is a lot for a letter wait until neo-liberals get rid of public mail.  The Maryland pols are all neo-liberals and when a supermajority of democrats had all branches of government.....they pretended to be writing a Financial Reform bill that has nothing enacted and is totally dismantled.  Maryland in fact is the most naked capitalist state in the country with its neo-liberals running as democrats pretending they are fighting for public interests!  Indeed, creating postal kiosks and giving Staples the rights to postal activities is simply killing the Post Office.  So, do you think two global corporations like UPS and FED-X will be looking for quality and cost competition without the Post Office?  Of course not.  Do you think they will be delivering RAIN, HAIL, SLEET, OR SNOW.....OR SOCIAL REVOLUTION?  Good luck, as people in third world countries get mail a few times a month.  The Post Office is the best run company in the country, it is just having a BAINS CAPITAL gutting of all of its assets so it cannot do its job. 

THOSE CRAZY PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS HANDING ALL THAT IS PUBLIC TO PRIVATE HANDS IN A RUSSIAN PERESTROIKA COUP AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S WEALTH!

IF YOU KEEP ALLOWING THE SAME NEO-LIBERALS TO RUN FOR OFFICE EVERY ELECTION....IF YOU ALLOW A NEO-LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHOOSE YOUR CANDIDATES, YOU WILL LOSE ALL PUBLIC POST OFFICES AND THE LAST METHOD OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION!  NET NEUTRALITY?  NEO-LIBERALS SAID FORGET-ABOUT-IT!  WE CAN TURN THAT AROUND.

The second issue is depending too much on social media.  As we saw a few years ago, the first thing neo-liberals did when the economic collapse revealed the entire business and government system in the US was criminal and corrupt was to pass laws allowing the government to do a wholesale shut down of all media in the US in the case of civil unrest.....just as third world Egypt and other revolutionary nations.  You see, since the US is going to have a revolution because VISIGOTHS have stolen all our wealth and intend to keep it.....they are preparing to be the autocratic crowd they are.  Indefinite detention, mass communication shut down, and spying extraordinaire!!!  Now we know what Muslim countries are feeling when they shout DEATH TO AMERICA, which means Wall Street and the TROIKA.  We know what they mean now don't we!  When you go from being hated around the world for your IMF activities taking over government control of undeveloped nations to doing the same in US cities and government.....you are pretty much hated by everyone.  This is what Obama and his NSA are all about.

 EVERYONE IS THE ENEMY.....WE WANT ALL WEALTH AND CONTROL.....ERGO, WE MUST BE THE MOST TOTALLY REPRESSIVE NATION IN THE WORLD.  THAT IS WHAT THESE PACIFIC TRADE AGREEMENTS.....TPP DO.  IT IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT TRADE.....IT IS ABOUT ENDING NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONS TO BUILDING A GLOBAL  NETWORK THAT CONTROLS ALL NATIONS. PRETTY TALL ORDER.

So, this is why Market Place said that the 'elite' need to get busy giving the poor some way to have money to survive....notice they did not suggest simply reinstating Rule of Law to recover tens of trillions of dollars in corporate fraud giving each person in America some hundreds of thousands of dollars.....and a democracy!!



REMEMBER, THE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS WITH THE POST OFFICE ARE A DISMANTLING OF ALL ITS ABILITY TO GENERATE REVENUE WITH SPINOFFS OF IT BASIC BUSINESS AND THE INCREDIBLE PRE-FUNDING OF PENSIONS IN THE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS, WHICH IS NOW BEING STOLEN BY WALL STREET THROUGH PENSION FRAUD AND GOVERNMENT RAIDING.

YES, YOUR MARYLAND NEO-LIBERAL IS NOT ONLY RESPONSIBLE.....THEY ARE WORKING AS HARD AS THEY CAN TO HAND ALL THAT IS PUBLIC TO PRIVATE HANDS.


Staples' mini post offices draw union ire
By Gregory Wallace  @gregorywallace January 19, 2014: 9:04 PM ET  CNN Money



"The Staples-USPS deal has to be looked at in the context of a drive towards privatizing the U.S. Postal Service," said Mark Dimondstein, president of the American Postal Workers Union. His group is a network of local unions that represents over 220,000 current and retired mail workers.

"We are willing to support this program as long as it's staffed with United States Postal Service employees," he said.

Staples declined to comment on the unions' concerns and said it doesn't discuss agreements with vendors, but said the pilot program is intended to offer "added convenience for our customers."

"Staples continually tests new products and services to better meet the needs of our customers," said spokeswoman Carrie McElwee.


And Postal Service spokeswoman Darleen Reid-MeMeo rejected the idea that the Staples program was "an attempt to replace stand alone Post Offices."

The post office, whose financial struggles are well-known, is adapting, Reid-MeMeo said. The Staples pilot is the next step of a program that already has over 65,000 retail partners -- including grocery stores and pharmacies that sell stamps and village stores that sell flat-rate boxes in rural areas.

Sarah Ryan, a faculty member at The Evergreen State College in Washington, said she thinks the Staples partnership does little to help traditionally underserved postal customers.

"The interesting thing is this won't do anything to help people who are in rural or lower income neighborhoods," Ryan said. She has studied privatization and the Postal Service and is a former retail clerk at a Seattle post office and held elected positions in the local postal union.


"This is the first time since the Sears deal that there's an effort to move the retail into a national, corporate chain," she said.

In the 1980s, the Postal Service and Sears (SHLD, Fortune 500) struck an arrangement similar to the one at Staples today. Postal unions protested and the program was eventually canceled.

This time around, Dimondstein said, the union president, said workers want guarantees their jobs will be protected and not outsourced to Staples.

"We do not have any problem with the people of this country getting expanded access to postal service," said Dimondstein. "We are willing to support this program as long as it's staffed with United States Postal Service employees."

The Postal Service counters are currently available at just over 80 Staples stores in and around San Francisco, San Diego, Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Worcester, Massachusetts, said Reid-MeMeo, the USPS spokeswoman. She said the postal service is "always looking to expand access to postal products and services in locations where our customers frequent."


_________________________________________
Well, if they kill the public Post Office we will go to our community schools and communicate in public meetings and networking!!!!  Oh, that's right....they are privatizing all public education and schools are going to be run by national charter chains.  In Baltimore, people do not see their schools as center of community public forums and there goes the public community centers handed over to private non-profits run by corporate interests that just won't allow public dialog on political issues.  What is a person fighting for democracy to do in Baltimore and Maryland?

Below you see what school privatizers have already thought on that issue.  You see a Department of Education agency network designed specifically to give private education businesses the means to education data and how to capture a communities communications through schools.....

THERE GOES THAT PUBLIC OUTLET......OBAMA, ARNE DUNCAN, AND MARYLAND NEO-LIBERALS HAVE BEEN BUSY DISMANTLING ALL AVENUES FOR PUBLIC GATHERING FOR DIALOG AND NETWORKING.....OH, THAT IS WHY ALL THE PUBLIC COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTERS IN THE CITY ARE NOW CLOSED AND RUN BY PRIVATE NON-PROFITS!!!!!


A School-Community Communication Model:

1. Specific Behavioral Concerns of the Community for Its Youth. A Report on the Instructional Tasks Project.Abbot, William P.; And OthersThe longrange goal of the Instructional Tasks Project is to determine the requirements for an effective community-school communication model and its implementation. In the project's first year, the critical incident technique was used to identify the specific behavioral concerns of the community served by the Newport-Mesa Unified School District, for its youth. Over 1,000 persons sampled from parents, youth, school staff, and the social community contributed data from which several thousand specific valued behaviors were abstracted and then classified via content analysis into a taxonomy of community concerns. Although subsequent data obtained from nonrespondents to the original sample and selected citizens indicated that the taxonomy was comprehensive, ratings of importance were not significantly associated with frequency of behavioral concerns mentioned by respondents in the initial sample. Hopefully this taxonomy will serve to progress further toward (1) an effective model and language for school-community communications about student performances, (2) development of instructional objectives based on community concerns, and (3) a description of similarities and differences among parts of the community in their concerns for youth. [Fig.1, p14 & Table 22, p46-56 may be of doubtful legibility in HC because of size of print.] (Author/JH)


THINK WE HAVE A DO-NOTHING CONGRESS AND WHITE HOUSE......MAN......THERE IS NOT AN AGENCY LEFT WITHOUT PRIVATIZATION AND IT IS AUTOCRATIC AS CAN BE!!!!!


WHEN OBAMA AND O'MALLEY SAYS THEY SUPPORT OPEN GOVERNMENT.....THEY DO NOT MEAN PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY.....THEY MEAN BUSINESSES CAN COME AND TAKE ALL DATA ACCUMULATED BY GOVERNMENT AND SELL IT, USE IT FOR RESEARCH.....WHATEVER. 


  • WWW.ERIC.ED.GOV
    PandaStats » Eric.ed.gov Analysis » www.eric.ed.gov





  • Summary Eric.ed.gov is the 2645:th largest website within the world. The website is created in unavailable, owned by unavailable, currently located in United States and is running on IP 165.224.212.115 registered by unavailable network. This site not uses Javascript for user interaction. This site uses CSS to manage the site layout. This site is running on the BigIP webserver. The server side programming lanquage of the site is unavailable. Eric.ed.gov Google Pagerank is 8 and it's domain is Governmental. Eric.ed.gov estimated worth is $1,509,461.55, with 378072 estimated visites per day and ad revenue of $ 1,134.22.
  • Estimated Data We are absolutely certain that every one is able to earn money from his website, Therefor we will display a short estimated numbers that might be achievable through dedication and seriousness work on your website.
    Our estimations point that your Website Value is $1,509,461.55, Your Daily Visitors could be in the area of 378072 per day and your potential Daily Revenues could be around $1,134.22.
  • Meta Data Title: ERIC - Education Resources Information Center

    Description: ERIC is an online library of education research and information, sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education.



____________________________________________

Obama and neo-liberals just allowed for the end of internet neutrality by not declaring the internet a utility regulated just as any vital service system in the US......electricity, water, communications.  What neo-liberals want to do is keep most people from being able to access the one ubiquitous means of communication by placing it in tiered payment levels that have full access too expensive except for the wealthiest.  Consolidation in the US has openly broken all ant-trust and monopoly laws and is allowing a few global corporations decide how the public's internet will run and be accessed.  The public paid for the internet.....it is our internet.  Not now say the VISIGOTHS and their neo-liberal pols!


I DON'T HEAR YOU SHOUTING LOUDLY AND STRONGLY AGAINST TAKING A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY THIRD WORLD!!!!!  RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL PRIMARIES!!!!!


Living in the Third World of Communications

March 8, 2007 digg  TMCNet Bloggers

If you haven’t heard, a court decided Vonage needs to pay Verizon $58 million in past damages for patent infringement in the following areas:  
  • Technology used to bridge Internet calls to the traditional phone system
  • Features such as call-waiting and voice-mail
  • Wireless Internet phone calls
  Now I know many people at Verizon and they are very smart, well rounded and seem nice enough. From an investment perspective they did a good thing by using patents as a competitive weapon against a small provider who has revolutionized the telecom industry and made telcos wake up and realize they need to compete.   The question worth posing however is how is the consumer benefiting from this lawsuit?   My concern is with the government and the various agencies who are supposed to be protecting me, my family and friends’ from monopolistic practices such as this.   When I learn about large companies using the legal and regulatory systems, to flush their competitors down the toilet I have to stop and remember what country I am living in.   I am a US citizen. I was born in the US and I am proud of it. I want consumers to have the best of everything. Lower prices, better quality – again, the best of everything.   VoIP has afforded consumers many benefits. FCC Chairman Michael Powell realized this and used Vonage as a poster child for competition that was pro consumer.   Unfortunately the massive amount of telco consolidation leaves a few large service providers with war chests full of cash and patents they will use to wipe out any and all competition in the market.   The system is so broken it is tough to imagine it can be called a system. How could the FCC feel good about this sort of decision? How could it ever be argued that a huge patent portfolio wielded like nuclear weapons can benefit consumers?   Merger after merger gets approved and no one puts an end to it.   This patent case is but one result of consolidation.   The damage of these mergers is not only to consumers but to the very telcos who are merging. I am speaking tomorrow at the VPF in Miami and as I sat through the sessions today I almost started tearing as I heard the amazing technologies and services being rolled out by companies like BT.   It seems phone companies in every country in the world are rolling out services that are many years ahead of the US.   The United States of America is the third world of telecom. It is an embarrassment and an outrage. Worse yet, we invent the leading edge technologies which actually get deployed on our shores next to last!   The few telcos in this country are falling behind in innovation and to be honest I do not blame them one bit. If I were a shareholder I would be proud of these accomplishments. In fact the way things are going, AT&T will be a single telephone company left to battle a single cable company.   At what point does the FCC need to stop mergers? It looks like there will soon be one choice in satellite radio for example.   Who decides how much competition is enough?   I remember a telecom market with no choice. I do not recall any innovation taking place with one company at the helm. Disruption and fear breeds competition and makes companies experiment with new products to get consumers excited. Duopolies do not.   When the old AT&T saw the threat from Vonage they rolled out a competitive service called CallVantage and you know what ? Tthey had a bunch of enthusiastic people at the helm of this organization and they innovated regularly. It was very refreshing to see AT&T act like a start up.   CallVantage now has pretty much been left for dead.   Every day I worry the path the US is going down is very wrong. We have to focus more on expanding competition and stop killing it at every turn. All government officials are responsible for what is happening to consumers through rulings such as the one above.   I suppose all I can ask is does anyone want to be responsible for telling their kids they are the reason there are 2 choices for telephone service where there was once thousands? Is this a legacy anyone wants to leave? How do you want to be remembered?   One day your kids may read this article – or even your grandchildren. Are you concerned at all? Please tell me you are.   I am very interested in opinions to this entry and I apologize if I come out harsh. Unfortunately some things just have to be said and someone has to start protecting consumers and keep them from getting thrown to the sharks.
___________________________________________
It is important for the American people to develop community-wide communications and having DEMOCRACY NOW MEETINGS STARTS THAT.  Whether newsletter or using local school networks, develop a strong system of communication that is not tied with social media and private phone services.  Democracy depends on free press and free speech and a national shut down of communications because of threats of civil unrest does not meet this mark.  We do not have as of now the mainstream media reporting on millions of people in the US and Europe marching and rallying....so think what will happen when everyone sees how TOTALITARIAN these neo-liberals are with TPP!!!!!

GO OLD SCHOOL WITH YOUR COMMUNICATION NETWORKS!!!!



New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet



Government would have “absolute power” to seize control of the world wide web under Lieberman legislation



Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.

The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.

Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”



The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.

The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.

“If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh.


Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”.

As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.

We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.

The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.

Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.

The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.






0 Comments

June 13th, 2013

6/13/2013

0 Comments

 
WHY DOES MEDIA AND YOUR THIRD WAY CORPORATE DEMOCRAT SIMPLY PRETEND THAT SELLING ALL OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION IS OK?  WHAT'S A LITTLE PRIVACY EVASION IN EXCHANGE FOR USING SOCIAL MEDIA OR TO PROTECT YOU FROM TERRORISTS THEY SAY!

We are seeing much of what I have been saying for four years unfold as the powers are now not able to hide their intentions.  They are confident that they are so well positioned as far a capture of politics and media that they will prevail, but I think not.  It is already crumbling and more and more people are coming forward to shout out and make all public.  I will say that some of these organizations or pundits calling themselves progressive that are only now commenting on what has been happening for years.....are not working for you and me!!

Regarding the campaign promise of 'NET NEUTRALITY' by all democratic candidates in 2008:

Before NPR became corporate they spoke often of net neutrality and indeed this issue was a major campaign issue that may have moved many voters to Obama from Hillary. Obama after all was the Community Organizer working for the people after all....until he wasn't. So, why has a critical issue for the future of American communications suddenly disappeared from media? It is all tied to NPR/APM telling us that the American people don't mind surveillance and data-mining unlike everyone else in the world. WE ACTUALLY DO REALLY HATE ALL THIS MORE THAN OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.. we simply no longer have a free press and journalism in media.

So what is NET NEUTRALITY now that it is never mentioned? The article below gives a good overview. Basically it addresses the fact that the Internet is a product of a taxpayer funded Department of Defense program and therefor is owned by the public......and it needs to be run as a public utility. Think of electricity. You turn on your lights, run your refrigerator, and watch TV with electricity that has one rate at which you are billed. You do not pay more to run your refrigerator than to run your TV for example. That is how the Internet needs to be run. When you pay a monthly charge of $40 for internet access that needs to be it. If a company wants to sell a product or service that you choose to add to your account, as we do with cable TV....they can charge. THE IDEA THAT A CONSUMER MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR DATA-MINING FOR PROFIT SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THE INTERNET IS WRONG AND IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW YOUR THIRD WAY CORPORATE DEMOCRAT IS USING YOU FOR CORPORATE PROFIT! If the Internet is a public utility they do not have the right to suspend your Privacy with these huge contract disclaimers! The only reason they do is that Obama and the supermajority of democrats in 2009 ignored their campaign pledge of NET NEUTRALITY and now are making it more and more easy for corporations to charge you and sell your personal information. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN MOST DEVELOPED NATIONS....IT IS THIRD WORLD AND NAKED CAPITALISM THAT IS NEO-LIBERALISM. THIRD WAY = THIRD WORLD.

We simply need to stop allowing the DNC which is controlled by Third Way corporate democrats to choose our candidates and run and vote for labor and justice candidates to reverse all of this bad policy.


Net Neutrality101

Free Press.net


When we log onto the Internet, we take lots of things for granted. We assume that we'll be able to access whatever Web site we want, whenever we want to go there. We assume that we can use any feature we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, searching, e-mailing and instant messaging -- anytime we choose. We assume that we can attach devices like wireless routers, game controllers or extra hard drives to make our online experience better.

What makes all these assumptions possible is "Network Neutrality," the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. But all that could change.

The biggest cable and telephone companies would like to charge money for smooth access to Web sites, speed to run applications, and permission to plug in devices. These network giants believe they should be able to charge Web site operators, application providers and device manufacturers for the right to use the network. Those who don't make a deal and pay up will experience discrimination: Their sites won't load as quickly, and their applications and devices won't work as well. Without legal protection, consumers could find that a network operator has blocked the Web site of a competitor, or slowed it down so much that it's unusable.

The network owners say they want a "tiered" Internet. If you pay to get in the top tier, your site and your service will run fast. If you don't, you'll be in the slow lane.

What's the Problem Here? Discrimination: The Internet was designed as an open medium. The fundamental idea since the Internet's inception has been that every Web site, every feature and every service should be treated without discrimination. That's how bloggers can compete with CNN or USA Today for readers. That's how up-and-coming musicians can build underground audiences before they get their first top-40 single. That's why when you use a search engine, you see a list of the sites that are the closest match to your request -- not those that paid the most to reach you. Discrimination endangers our basic Internet freedoms.

Double-dipping: Traditionally, network owners have built a business model by charging consumers for Internet access. Now they want to charge you for access to the network, and then charge you again for the things you do while you're online. They may not charge you directly via pay-per-view Web sites. But they will charge all the service providers you use. These providers will then pass those costs along to you in the form of price hikes or new charges to view content.

Stifling innovation: Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Unless we preserve Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web. On a tiered Internet controlled by the phone and cable companies, only their own content and services -- or those offered by corporate partners that pony up enough "protection money" -- will enjoy life in the fast lane.

The End of the Internet? Make no mistake: The free-flowing Internet as we know it could very well become history.

What does that mean? It means we could be headed toward a pay-per-view Internet where Web sites have fees. It means we may have to pay a network tax to run voice-over-the-Internet phones, use an advanced search engine, or chat via Instant Messenger. The next generation of inventions will be shut out of the top-tier service level. Meanwhile, the network owners will rake in even greater profits.


______________________________________________
Regarding NPR/APM's assertion that Americans are more accepting of surveillance and data-mining for profit:

Listening to Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik acting as NPR's one cheerleader and describing it as a 'public media' giant can be illustrated as propaganda by the issue below. It is sad to see current media people pretend to be journalists, but they themselves know they are not. I am constantly at public events and hear Sun writers say to the old school former Sun reporters...'You are a REAL JOURNALIST'. I ask Sun writers why they never incorporate my comments into their articles since all my comments are true and I'm told.....'We write what we are told'. INDEED. A friend vacationing overseas came back to tell me...'You should hear NPR overseas. They sound like Radio Free Chamber of Commerce; completely corporate'! INDEED. So, when Zurawik is brought on air to tote a commercial news outlet as public....YOU SEE THE MESS THAT IS AMERICAN CAPTURED MEDIA.

Let's take a look at the Snowden affair one more time. First, I'd like to say that Snowden is obviously a genius as is Assange. High school dropout like Bill Gates and many CEO geniuses only he has a conscience. It appears that outing Europe and China as to the spying against their citizens will get the world to pressure the US to stop being criminal. Citizens need to get out and fill the streets with protest and get rid of incumbents who 'are conveniently uninformed...they don't even know what is happening with TPP' REALLY? What we are seeing is the unraveling of globalism as nations are becoming more and more aware of the consequences. So all of this is adding to the dismantling of global infrastructure. Here is one issue the Chamber of Commerce NPR/APM fail to cover...

Below you see what is a common meme throughout Facebook and involves even those stalwart right wing Hillary fans. Yet, for some reason media, and corporate NPR/APM has not asked the question.......this is one of the comments on social media---


WHY IS THE NSA BEING RUN BY A PRIVATE FIRM ???????

You want a scandal, who the hell is Booz Allen Hamilton, and what is this country thinking in allowing a FOR PROFIT COMPANY to data mine the COUNTRY. Are they selling this Information?????

This is another carry over from the Disaster Called BUSH and this needs to be stopped. These firms run about 7 to 10 times more expensive than if the Government actually did the same JOB.
You wonder why the Military Budget is so out of touch to this country -- Privatized that is the answer and it must STOP.


From the Article:
In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:

"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."



Edward Snowden: saving us from the United Stasi of America

Snowden's whistleblowing gives us a chance to roll back what is tantamount to an 'executive coup' against the US constitution

Link to video: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an "executive coup" against the US constitution.

Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.

The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa – but that unconstitutionally sweeping warrant is from a secret court, shielded from effective oversight, almost totally deferential to executive requests. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: "It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp."

For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense – as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads –they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know.

The fact that congressional leaders were "briefed" on this and went along with it, without any open debate, hearings, staff analysis, or any real chance for effective dissent, only shows how broken the system of checks and balances is in this country.

Obviously, the United States is not now a police state. But given the extent of this invasion of people's privacy, we do have the full electronic and legislative infrastructure of such a state. If, for instance, there was now a war that led to a large-scale anti-war movement – like the one we had against the war in Vietnam – or, more likely, if we suffered one more attack on the scale of 9/11, I fear for our democracy. These powers are extremely dangerous.

There are legitimate reasons for secrecy, and specifically for secrecy about communications intelligence. That's why Bradley Mannning and I – both of whom had access to such intelligence with clearances higher than top-secret – chose not to disclose any information with that classification. And it is why Edward Snowden has committed himself to withhold publication of most of what he might have revealed.

But what is not legitimate is to use a secrecy system to hide programs that are blatantly unconstitutional in their breadth and potential abuse. Neither the president nor Congress as a whole may by themselves revoke the fourth amendment – and that's why what Snowden has revealed so far was secret from the American people.

In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:

"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America's intelligence gathering capability – which is today beyond any comparison with what existed in his pre-digital era – "at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left."

That has now happened. That is what Snowden has exposed, with official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former "democratic republic" of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of. Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.

So we have fallen into Senator Church's abyss. The questions now are whether he was right or wrong that there is no return from it, and whether that means that effective democracy will become impossible. A week ago, I would have found it hard to argue with pessimistic answers to those conclusions.

But with Edward Snowden having put his life on the line to get this information out, quite possibly inspiring others with similar knowledge, conscience and patriotism to show comparable civil courage – in the public, in Congress, in the executive branch itself – I see the unexpected possibility of a way up and out of the abyss.

Pressure by an informed public on Congress to form a select committee to investigate the revelations by Snowden and, I hope, others to come might lead us to bring NSA and the rest of the intelligence community under real supervision and restraint and restore the protections of the bill of rights.

Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA's surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans' and foreign citizens' privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we're trying to protect.

• Editor's note: this article was revised and updated at the author's behest, at 7.45am ET on 10 June



Exactly....BOOZ is an International Management corporation who works to design corporate structure to maximize profits...so an NSA job would be like the Insider Trading of data-mining....




________________________________________________
Maryland is co-opting all that is Texas these days including privatizing K-college and we are seeing the same thing at our universities and colleges as is happening in this article below.  As I say over and again....they are making R and D and Human Resource facilities out of our public universities and having students and taxpayers pay for the operating costs of corporate business to maximize profits.....these are Third Way corporate democrats!!

Think about NET NEUTRALITY AND HOW THESE POLS ARE TRYING TO PRIVATIZE ALL PUBLIC EDUCATION BY ONLINE CLASSES THAT WILL HAVE TAXPAYERS AND STUDENTS PAYING FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF QUALITY IN EDUCATION....IT IS PERVERSE TO DEMOCRACY AND IT IS WHAT ALL OF MARYLAND/S THIRD WAY CORPORATE DEMOCRATS ARE WORKING!!!


Resisting Corporate Education: Is "Business Productivity" Coming to the University of Texas? Thursday, 13 June 2013 09:26 By Reihaneh Hajibeigi, Occupy.com | Report


Educational institutions are no longer safe from the reaches of profiteers. For the University of Texas at Austin, the “Smarter Systems for a Greater UT” is the newest move by the administration to treat the university not as a school but rather as a business.

Introduced early this year by UT President Bill Powers as a way for the university to survive state budget cuts, the school's so-called Business Productivity Initiative seeks to foster an educational system that is “reformed and always reforming.” In his January 29 speech, Powers said business operations and efficiency have always been a part of UT’s story and that the ideas proposed by 13 business leaders would save the university as much as $490 million over a decade.

But if we correctly consider businesses as organizations that work contrary to the interests of most people -- in this case especially, the consumers -- then Powers will achieve his goal. The Business Productivity Initiative will harm students greatly, in addition to faculty and workers.

According to Powers and his team, the plan will help run the university using less resources. Currently the state only funds 13 percent of UT’s costs, which is a problem in itself. But rather than prioritize the necessary costs of the university, the administration has turned to outsourcing all non-academic functions of the university in order to save money.

For concerned students like computer science sophomore Mukund Rathi, this is an issue that should not be overlooked by the community.

“Education is a public good, and the more selective it becomes, the more selective our success prospects will become,” Rathi said. “This plan takes education out of the right hands and into the hands of businessmen.”

The report is the epitome of the 1 percent ruling the 99 percent, Rathi added.

“The committee’s chairman is from Accenture, and this company’s negative effect on Texas’ food-stamp program shows what happens when businessmen are in charge.”

Active protesters like Rathi and UT senior Michelle Uche said it is necessary to bring as much attention to the university's profiteering efforts as possible.

“When this plan is implemented at UT, it will show other universities that they can also do whatever they want to cut costs while making a profit,” Uche said. “The administration says that it will save money, but the president never talks about the actual math of the report or what the human toll will be.”

In the plan, three areas of the University of Texas system will be targeted: Asset Utilization, Technology Commercialization and Administrative Service Transformation. Each of the areas has a group of either students, faculty, staff -- or even all three -- that will be penalized in the push to save costs.

“Asset Utilization” focuses directly on UT’s constituents, and introduces ways to make greater profits from parking, food and housing. It was noted at the start of the plan's business report that these areas are functioning well enough for the UT community and do not require change. Yet the Smarter Systems measure would either raise the prices to “market rates” – rates that are found in competitive industries outside the UT campus – or privatize those services altogether, putting them into the hands of companies not directly associated with the university.

Having their food, parking and basic living costs increase would put further strain on already cash-strapped students, and would also result in significant worker layoffs – a projected 64 percent in reduction in food and housing staff at the university.

The plans for “Technology Commercialization” and “Administrative Services Transformation” would consolidate and prioritize the school's academic departments. Once the plan is implemented, research initiatives will be evaluated and the ones that are deemed most profitable in various industries will be moved to the top of the funding list. This means liberal arts majors and departments will be given minimal funding if the benefits of those studies aren't seen as being profitable to UT.

Consolidation within information technology services may indeed save the university money after layoffs go into effect, but limiting access to these services will hinder students' and faculty’s ability to correct tech problems quickly.

Rathi said UT community members need to care about the impacts of a plan that will be directly affecting their livelihoods. Until now, though, the administration is successfully pulling off the heist without outrage from students, faculty or workers.

“The simple fact is that ‘privatization’ means that instead of socializing the costs of education to society, to which the benefits of education would ultimately flow when we graduate and get jobs, the costs will be privatized to individuals and their families,” Rathi said.

“This is a plan to save money, but they don’t bother to explain to us how they plan on doing this.”




______________________________________________

Baker is right! Absolutely not!!!! The 1% want the domestic economy to stay stagnant for decades as this allows them to exploit labor and profits while expanding overseas. They have no intentions of building the domestic economy!!! We will be swamped with cheap and unhealthy products so US global corporations can get into other nation's markets.

HE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG WHEN HE ASSUMES WE CANNOT STOP THEM BECAUSE THESE TRADE DEALS ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!!!



I was at a Progressive gathering in Washington a few years ago with Dean Baker on the panel.  I and others raised a few major issues for which all of America's progressive academics were silent....that is that The Affordable Care Act was simply about making global health systems that would end up looking just like Wall Street and just as profit-driven and predatory on the public and should not be supported by democrats.  The second was the existence of this TPP and how no one knew of the catastrophe these deals would be for American democracy. We knew a few years ago that these deals would usurp Constitutional rights of citizens to legislate.....a basic tenet of the US Constitution.  So, these politicians are pretending it is legal to enter treaties that they say trump our Constitution.....which is illegal of course.  They are basically preparing a 'coup' of the US government.  Howard Dean and those members of the progressive panel not only ignored what was the most important issue brought forward......they lamented having opened the floor to questions. I am telling Dean now, you are wrong when you say the American people cannot stop this......it is illegal and if indeed a coup as many think it is.....it is treasonous.

The Trade Deal Scam

Wednesday, 12 June 2013 09:19 By Dean Baker, Truthout | News Analysis

President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference in the East Room of the White House. (Photo: Stephen Crowley / The New York Times)As part of its overall economic strategy the Obama administration is rushing full speed ahead with two major trade deals. On the one hand it has the Trans-Pacific Partnership which includes Japan and Australia and several other countries in East Asia and Latin America. On the other side there is an effort to craft a U.S.-EU trade agreement.

There are two key facts people should know about these proposed trade deals. First, they are mostly not about trade. Second they are not intended to boost the economy in a way that will help most of us. In fact, it is reasonable to say that these deals will likely be bad news for most people in the United States. Most of the people living in our partner countries are likely to be losers too.

On the first point, traditional trade issues, like the reduction of import tariffs and quotas, are a relatively small part of both deals. This is the case because these barriers have already been sharply reduced or even eliminated over the past three decades.

As a result, with a few notable exceptions, there is little room for further reductions in these sorts of barriers. Instead both deals focus on other issues, some of which may reasonably be considered barriers to trade, but many of which are matters of regulation that would ordinarily be left to national, regional, or even local levels of government to set for themselves. One purpose of locking regulatory rules into a trade deal is to push an agenda that favors certain interests (e.g. the large corporations who are at the center of the negotiating process) over the rest of society.

Both of these deals are likely to include restrictions on the sorts of health, safety, and environmental regulation that can be imposed by the countries that are parties to the agreements. While many of the regulations that are currently in place in these areas are far from perfect, there is not an obvious case for having them decided at the international level.

Suppose a country or region decides that the health risks posed by a particular pesticide are too great and therefore bans its use. If the risks are in fact small, then those imposing the ban will be the primary ones who suffer, presumably in the form of less productive agriculture and higher food prices. Is it necessary to have an international agreement to prevent this sort of "mistake?"

As a practical matter, the evidence on such issues will often be ambiguous. For example, does fracking pose a health hazard to the surrounding communities? These agreements could end up taking control of the decision as to whether or not to allow fracking away from the communities who would be most affected.

In addition to limiting local control in many areas these trade deals will almost certainly include provisions that make for stronger and longer copyright and patent protection, especially on prescription drugs. The latter is coming at the urging of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, which has been a central player in all the trade agreements negotiated over the last quarter century. This is likely to mean much higher drug prices for our trading partners.

This is of course the opposite of free trade. Instead of reducing barriers, the drug companies want to increase them, banning competitors from selling the same drugs. The difference in prices can be quite large. Generic drugs, with few exceptions, are cheap to produce. When drugs sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars per prescription it is because patent monopolies allow them to be sold for high prices.

If these trade deals result in much higher drug prices for our trading partners, the concern should not just be a moral one about people being unable to afford drugs. The more money people in Vietnam or Malaysia have to pay Pfizer and Merck for their drugs, the less money they will have to spend on other exports from the United States. This means that everyone from manufacturing workers to workers in the tourist sector can expect to see fewer job opportunities because of the copyright and patent protection rules imposed through these trade deals.

To see this point, imagine someone operating a fruit stand in a farmers' market. If the person in the next stall selling meat has a clever way to short-change customers, then his scam will come at least partly at the expense of the fruit stand. The reason is that many potential fruit stand customers will have their wallets drained at the meat stand and won't have any money left to buy fruit.

The drug companies' efforts to get increased patent protection, along with the computer and entertainment industries efforts to get stronger copyright protection, will have the same effect. Insofar as they can force other countries to pay them more in royalties and licensing fees or directly for their products, these countries will have less money to spend on other goods and services produced in the United States. In other words, the short-change artist in the next stall is not our friend and neither are the pharmaceutical, computer, or entertainment industries.

However these industries all have friends in the Obama administration. As a result, these trade deals are likely to give them the protections they want. The public may not have the power to stop the high-powered lobbyists from getting their way on these trade pacts, but it should at least know what is going on. These trade deals are about pulling more money out of their pockets in order to make the rich even richer.


0 Comments

December 26th, 2012

12/26/2012

0 Comments

 
YOU WILL LOSE YOUR DEMOCRACY IF YOU DO NOT SHOUT LOUDLY AND STRONGLY FOR FREE PRESS THAT WORKS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST!!!!



I want to address a media issue before returning to K-12 in Baltimore and across the country.  It is simply  unacceptable to have media that tells us after the fact that policy that is decades in the making produced something  bad, and that is what is happening yet again with these corporatized university campuses.  I am having to listen to our local public media WYPR decry this policy as bad after it is in place.  Even as I spent years trying to get media on this policy and demanded of all media to make this an issue in elections, all of Maryland media was silent.  You will see my comment to our local 'economic' commenter.

Another issue is the Affordable Care Act.  The exact same thing is happening and media are yet again allowing these pols to say one thing while doing another.  So I tell my local public media:

Regarding the deficit reduction debates and Basu's economic forecasts:

Rather than wait for two decades more to have Basu tell us that Affordable Care was all about consolidating the health industry into Wall Street-sized global corporations that will prey on or ignore the poor and elderly and allow health care for about 20% of the population that can afford insurance coverage.....so forget about entitlements....let's talk about it now.  Your incumbents are not protecting your entitlements.

The idea of Affordable Care is how to make health care more profitable to health businesses, not to offer more or better care.  This is why we see the push to preventive care because that is all the care that the 80% of Americans will be able to access.  With health data in hand....Hopkins is leading that public interest nightmare....they will be able to determine who gets insurance and how much according to these health records.  You say 'but they told us it was to lower costs and give better care!  They promise the data won't be used against us'!

We have gone through two decades of the US as a third world government that is as corrupt and criminal as ever in American history.  Are you really going to continue to believe what you hear?

What is important to those of us wanting our democracy back is demanding and fighting for media that serves the public interest.  These issues most important to the public are silenced.  I was so glad to hear that NPR in Washington was flush with hate mail and threats simply because it shows the political action needed for change.  We don't need to break the law, but we do need to make these media outlets think twice about who they serve.  Did our public media economist Basu know two decades ago the direction of this university  corporatizing policy.....of course.  He very well was a part of the planning.  THESE PEOPLE ARE SHOWING GRAVE DISRESPECT BY ACTING AS THOUGH THIS BEHAVIOR IS OK.

I PICK ON PUBLIC MEDIA BECAUSE THAT IS THE PEOPLE'S NETWORK....ERGO......'PUBLIC' MEDIA.


Basu is like the weather forecaster who tells us after the storm that the storm has occurred...with great indignation. O'Malley has worked for 2 decades to build what Basu now protests. It is why Maryland is ranked first in Education Week and Time put Grabowsky and UMBC on their corporate rag front page....privatizing public education. It is also why O'Malley is in the national spotlight; he is a good corporate team player.

Basu did identify the problem the public now has to reverse. A generation of students who were forced to pay high tuition to build this corporate pipeline are the ones now spoken of as the lost generation because of the debt piled upon them by this corporatization of private and public universities. We can easily disband the business administrative piece designed to move taxpayer money into corporate R and D. The new facilities are not so easily gone so they will simply be a reminder of misguided public policy. The Feds can pay for that since they drove the policy. Getting rid of the innovation centers and the partnerships with all kinds of agencies will bring tuition down substantially and bring universities back to the task of teaching. Having the state reinstate Rule of Law in Maryland so as to bring back billions and billions of dollars in corporate fraud across all business sector will bring back the money for state university funding for all.

We need to demand more from Maryland media as the citizens of Maryland have a government that feels it can hide all of development plans until the plan is finished and then simply tell the public what is going to happen afterwards. This is not democracy and it is not first world.....it is third world and autocratic. Every media outlet protects this system against the interests of the public. This is why we need to VOTE OUR INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE AND THE FARM TEAM BEHIND THEM!



Community Advisory Board The WYPR Community Advisory Board

CAB members are a volunteer group of interested citizens and listeners who are appointed by the WYPR Board of Directors.  The CAB is required to meet at regular intervals.  The CAB deliberates independently of station management and WYPR's Board of Directors. It determines its own agenda and elects its own leadership.


012/2013 CAB Meetings held at Our Daily Bread Employment Center and begin at 6:00 PM.September 24, 2012 (Please note date change from 9/26/12)

January 23, 2013

___________________________________________________
I HAVE ASKED THE CENTER FOR MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY HOW IT CAN REPORT ON ALEC ISSUES AND NOT INCLUDE THE OBAMA EDUCATION REFORM.  THIS REFORM IS WRITTEN BY WALL STREET AND BILL GATES WITH THE HELP OF EDUCATION TECH COMPANIES AND AIMS TO PRIVATIZE PUBLIC EDUCATION.  WHAT CAN BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT????  SO, I QUESTION WHY THEY DO NOT OUT A THIRD WAY CORPORATE DEMOCRATIC SCHEME AND ONLY REPUBLICAN.  FINANCIAL REFORM IS BEING WRITTEN COMPLETELY BY THE BANKS, AND OUR INTERNATIONAL TRADE POLICIES ALL BY CORPORATIONS AND THEIR LAWYERS.  THESE ARE ALL HAPPENING IN A THIRD WAY CORPORATE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION.

Does Media and Democracy do good things....of course it does.  WHY ARE WE HEARING OF RIGHT TO WORK LAWS AFTER IT HAPPENS?  THESE POLICIES WERE CREATED YEARS AGO.  It is working in our interest if it  neglects the largest offenses of our time?  OF COURSE NOT!!!  LET THEM KNOW!!  Remember this......most of these petitioning organizations are simply trying to get your email info to tell you how to vote next election.  Most of them will be telling you to vote for a Third Way corporate democrat like Clinton, Cuomo, Biden, or O'Malley.

Your Support Helped Us Kick ALEC in the Pants December 13, 2012


Dear Friend:

With your help, we've accomplished some amazing things this year!

We connected the dots between corporations, politicians, and controversial legislation pouring out of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) -- like the “Right to Work” (for less) law that was just passed in Michigan by the ALEC/Koch cabal, and the “Shoot to Kill” law cited in Florida to protect Trayvon Martin's killer which was crafted by the NRA and pushed out nationally by ALEC.

Together with our allies, we convinced 42 major corporations to dump ALEC (including Wal-Mart!). Plus, at least 70 state legislators quit the organization and another 117 others lost their seats in the last election.

We sued ALEC legislators who were trying to hide public access to lobbying communications from ALEC in their private emails and won! And time and time again, the courts rejected key parts of the ALEC agenda on voter suppression, immigration, school privatization and more.

We won five major awards for our investigative journalism and leadership of the public campaigns to expose corporate influence and corruption of our democracy, including an "Izzy" named for the great investigative journalist I.F. Stone, a “Sidney” from the Hillman Foundation, a “Bennie” from the Business Ethics Network, and more.

We picked these fights because playing defense is just not good enough. We did it because corporations are undermining essential American institutions, manipulating opinions, and diverting your taxes from the public good to private profit through "privatization" schemes.

Will you help us continue our work to expose the bad guys by donating today? Every dollar you contribute helps us hit harder with the facts!

Sincerely,



Lisa Graves
Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy
About the Center for Media and Democracy The Center for Media and Democracy is a non-profit investigative reporting group whose work aids public awareness about the people, companies, and groups attempting to shape the media and our democracy. Founded in 1993, our national reporting and analysis focus on exposing corporate spin. We accept no funding from for-profit corporations or the government. The Center for Media and Democracy's websites are PR Watch, SourceWatch, BanksterUSA, ALECexposed and Food Rights Network.
_________________________________________________

I THINK ALL MINORITIES IN BALTIMORE AND MARYLAND WILL SHOUT OUT THAT CORDISH IS ACTIVELY ABUSING AND MARGINALIZING BOTH HISPANICS AND BLACKS AS THEY ARE CHEATED OUT OF WAGES AND FORCED TO ENDURE POOR WORKPLACE CONDITIONS.  WE NEED TO KNOW THAT CORDISH HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED AS THINKING OF BUYING THE BALTIMORE SUN.  CAN YOU IMAGINE AN ORGANIZATION KNOWN FOR CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT AND ABUSE HOLDING A REGIONAL PAPER....

WE NEED TO LET THE FCC KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT HOW MEDIA IN AMERICA WORKS!!!!


Cordish division named in Louisville, Ky., lawsuit alleging discrimination Plaintiff claims employees of Cordish tenant turned away party with black attendees

By Richard Gorelick The Baltimore Sun 10:55 a.m. EST, December 22, 2012

A division of the Baltimore-based Cordish Cos. has been named as a co-defendant in a lawsuit alleging discriminatory practices at The Maker's Mark Bourbon House and Lounge, a tenant at Cordish's Fourth Street Live! property in Louisville, Ky.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, alleges that the lounge's employees "demanded to know the ratio of 'black people' to 'white people'" who were expected to attend a party, then denied entrance to every black person who showed up.

Andre Mulligan, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, is suing Louisville Bourbon LLC (doing business as Maker's Mark Bourbon House and Lounge) and Cordish Operating Ventures LLC of Baltimore in Jefferson County Court in Kentucky.

In the suit, Mulligan says that he met Aug. 17 with employees from Maker's Mark Bourbon House and Lounge about a party he was planning there. He alleges that they asked him about the proportion of black patrons vs. white patrons and, upon learning that all the attendees would be black, told him that "he and other African Americans would not be allowed to hold an event." The lawsuit claims that the next evening, when Mulligan and other black would-be party-goers showed up, bar employees refused to serve them.

In addition, Mulligan's suit contends, "Cordish security told the Plaintiff to 'shut up' and that he was trespassing. Cordish security informed the Plaintiff that he would be 'locked up' if he did not leave the grounds."

Kurt A. Scharfenberger, who is representing Mulligan in his lawsuit, told The Baltimore Sun that Mulligan had booked the party at Maker's Mark Bourbon House and Lounge before his Aug. 17 meeting with the lounge's employees. It was only when Mulligan showed up in person for the meeting, with his brother, that he was asked about the party's racial make-up, Scharfenberger said.

Asked Friday evening about the incident, the Cordish Cos. supplied a statement from Fourth Street Live spokesman Mike Leonard.

"This is a matter between a third party tenant and an individual. Neither Fourth Street Live! nor The Cordish Company nor any of their employees were involved in the alleged situation," he said.  "The tenant has vigorously denied the allegations and stated they are totally false.  In addition, we have conducted an independent investigation of the allegations and believe them to be without merit."

Maker's Mark released a statement distancing itself from the Maker's Mark Bourbon House and Lounge.

"Maker’s Mark licenses its name and trademark to a third party appointed by Cordish Operating Ventures, LLC, which is solely responsible for the ownership, operation and management of the Maker’s Mark Bourbon House and Lounge in Louisville Kentucky," said the statement from Chairman Emeritus Bill Samuels Jr. and COO Rob Samuels. "Maker's Mark has no ownership or involvement in the Lounge whatsoever. ... Maker’s Mark does not accept, and will not tolerate, discrimination in any form, and has so notified and warned the company which is solely responsible for the operation of the Lounge."

Follow Baltimore Diner on Twitter @gorelickingood

__________________________________________________

THIS IS A GREAT OVERVIEW ON AN IMPORTANT TOPIC.  IT WILL BE THE SUPERHIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION OF THE 21ST CENTURY.  SINCE THIS GRID WILL ENCOMPASS ALMOST ALL OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION...THINK THE POST OFFICE......IT SHOULD  BE PUBLIC.  THIS IS WHERE THE ISSUES FOR MOST PEOPLE START.  ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY.

THEY WILL PUSH PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.  AGAIN, THIS MEANS YOU AND I PAY TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN IT AND THE CORPS WILL RUN THE PROCESS AND DECIDE HOW IT CAN BE USED.  THAT IS WHERE YOUR THIRD WAY CORPORATE DEMOCRAT IS TAKING IT.

NET NEUTRALITY IS THE MOST CRITICAL OF ISSUES THAT IS NEVER DISCUSSED.  OBAMA RAN AS A PROPONENT OF NET NEUTRALITY AND YET, HIS APPOINTMENT TO THIS AGENCY IS ALLOWING ALL OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS DISAPPEAR AND NET NEUTRALITY HAS BEEN SHELVED.  DO WE NEED TO LOSE ALL OF OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES SO WE CAN HAVE UNLIMITED APPS AND CABLE STATIONS THAT NO ONE USES?  FREE TV, FREE RADIO, AND FREE INTERNET SURFING (OTHER THAN PAYING YOUR MONTHLY FEE JUST AS WITH YOUR ELECTRIC BILL) ARE ALL UNDER ATTACK.  THESE CORPORATIONS INTEND TO RAISE THE COST FOR INTERNET CONNECTION TO A PRICE THAT MOST PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD; THEY INTEND TO CHARGE EVER MORE FOR HOW MUCH YOU DOWNLOAD; THEY INTEND ON SIDELINING PEOPLE WITH SLOW INTERNET SPEED (DIAL UP ANYONE) ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD TO PAY.

THESE POLICIES WILL PUSH MANY PEOPLE INTO THE STONE AGES.  THIS ALL NEEDS TO BE PUBLIC AND REGULATED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF DEMOCRATIC ACCESS JUST LIKE ELECTRICITY.

"Progressive America Rising"

What Is the Smart Grid? Core Infrastructure for the 'Green New Deal'

By Joe Miller

SolidarityEconomy.net via Smartgridnews.com

Many people are asking, “What is the Smart Grid?”

Many more are trying to define it with short “sound bite” descriptions. These short statements cannot adequately convey the level of detail needed to provide a clear understanding.  The Smart Grid isn’t a thing but rather a vision and to be complete, that vision must be expressed from various perspectives – its values, its characteristics, and the milestones for achieving it.

Smart grid values

The transformation to the Smart Grid will require new investment and commitment by its many stakeholders.  These stakeholders expect significant value in return.  Understanding how this value will be created is an important step in defining the vision.  Expectations for the Smart Grid are great and will be realized through advances in each of the six value areas described below:

It must be more reliable.  A reliable grid provides power, when and where its users need it and of the quality they value.

It must be more secure.  A secure grid withstands physical and cyber attacks without suffering massive blackouts or exorbitant recovery costs. 
It is also less vulnerable to natural disasters and recovers quickly.

It must be more economic.  An economic grid operates under the basic laws of supply and demand, resulting in fair prices and adequate supplies.

It must be more efficient.  An efficient grid employs strategies that lead to cost control, minimal transmission and distribution losses, efficient power production, optimal asset utilization while providing consumers options for managing their energy usage.

It must be more environmentally friendly.  An environmentally friendly grid reduces environmental impacts thorough improvements in efficiency and by enabling the integration of a larger percentage of intermittent resources than could otherwise be reliably supported.

It must be safer.  A safe grid does no harm to the public or to grid workers and is sensitive to users who depend on it as a medical necessity.



Smart grid principal characteristics

The Smart Grid can be considered a “transactive” agent. That is, it will enable financial, informational, as well as “electrical” transactions among consumers, grid assets, and other authorized users.  Its functionality is defined by the following seven principal characteristics:

First, it will enable active participation by consumers.  The Smart Grid will give consumers information, control, and options that enable them to engage in new “electricity markets.” Grid operators will treat willing consumers as resources in the day-to-day operation of the grid.  Well-informed consumers will modify consumption based on the balancing of their demands and resources with the electric system’s capability to meet those demands.

Second, it will accommodate all generation and storage options.  It will seamlessly integrate all types and sizes of electrical generation and storage systems using simplified interconnection processes and universal interoperability standards to support a “plug-and-play” level of convenience.  Large central power plants, including environmentally friendly sources such as wind and solar farms and advanced nuclear plants, will continue to play a major role even as large numbers of smaller distributed resources, including Plug-in Electric Vehicles, are deployed.

Third, it will enable new products, services, and markets.  The Smart Grid will link buyers and sellers together – from the consumer to the Regional Transmission Organization.  It will support the creation of new electricity markets from the home energy management system at the consumer’s premise to technologies that allow consumers and third parties to bid their energy resources into the electricity market.  The Smart Grid will support consistent market operation across regions.

Fourth, it will provide power quality for the digital economy.  It will monitor, diagnose, and respond to power quality deficiencies resulting in a dramatic reduction in the business losses currently experienced by consumers due to insufficient power quality.

Fifth, it will optimize asset utilization and operate efficiently.  Operationally, the Smart Grid will improve load factors, lower system losses, and dramatically improve outage management performance.  The availability of additional grid intelligence will give planners and engineers the knowledge to build what is needed when it is needed, to extend the life of assets, to repair equipment before it fails unexpectedly, and to more effectively manage the work force.  Operational, maintenance and capital costs will be reduced thereby keeping downward pressure on prices.

Sixth, it will anticipate and respond to system disturbances (self-heal).  It will heal itself by performing continuous self-assessments to detect and analyze issues, take corrective action to mitigate them and, if needed, rapidly restore grid components or network sections. It will also handle problems too large or too fast-moving for human intervention. And finally, the Smart Grid will operate resiliently against attack and natural disaster.  The Smart Grid will incorporate a systemwide solution that reduces physical and cyber vulnerabilities and enables a rapid recovery from disruptions. Its resilience will create an image that intimidates would-be attackers.  It will also be less vulnerable to natural disasters.

Smart grid milestones

Smart Grid milestones represent the building blocks of the Smart Grid.  Completion of each requires the deployment and integration of various technologies and applications. “One size does not fit all” – the sequence for implementing these milestones and the degree of implementation will depend on the specific circumstances of those involved.

Consumer Enablement (CE) empowers consumers by giving them the information and education they need to effectively utilize the new options provided by the Smart Grid.  CE includes solutions such as Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), home area networks with in-home displays, distributed energy resources (DER), and demand response programs as well as upgrades to utility information technology architecture and applications that will support “plug-and-play” integration with all future Smart Grid technologies.

Advanced Distribution Operations (ADO) improves reliability and enables “self-healing.”  ADO includes solutions such as smart sensors and control devices, advanced outage management, distribution management, and distribution automation systems, geographical information, and other technologies to support two-way power flow and microgrid operation.

Advanced Transmission Operations (ATO) integrates the distribution system with RTO operational and market applications to enable improved overall grid operations and reduced transmission congestion.  ATO includes substation automation, integrated wide area measurement applications, power electronics, advanced system monitoring, and protection schemes and modeling, simulation, and visualization tools to increase situational awareness and provide a better understanding of real-time and future operating risks.

Advanced Asset Management (AAM) integrates the grid intelligence acquired in achieving the other milestones with new and existing asset management applications. This integration enables utilities to reduce operations and maintenance and capital costs and better utilize assets during day-to-day operations.  Additionally, it significantly improves the performance of capacity planning, maintenance, engineering and facility design, customer service processes, and work and resource management.

Summary

It is this combination of values, principal characteristics and milestones that answers the question, “What is the Smart Grid?” Brief “sound bite” descriptions cannot do justice to this complex subject.

Joe Miller is the DOE/NETL Smart Grid Implementation Strategy Team Lead and Senior Vice President at Horizon Energy Group.







0 Comments

June 04th, 2012

6/4/2012

0 Comments

 
I walked into the University of Maryland Baltimore to spend a few hours in between appointments and spoke with the Information Desk about jumping on the public computers.  A state university has always had a computer bank available to the public and this university had about 10 public access computers......their law school library as well.  The new legislation in Maryland joining the two campuses of University of Maryland College Park with that of Baltimore brought with it an edict to save money and that meant eliminate public computer access.  All universities are making it harder for the general public to access computers and as public library budgets fall, their ability to fund enough public computers is falling.  IF YOU CANNOT ACCESS A COMPUTER IN TODAY'S SOCIETY, YOU HAVE BEEN MARGINALIZED AND HARMED IN A SERIOUS WAY.  PEOPLE CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT COMPUTER ACCESS.

Banks are moving towards online accounts only; public TV stations are geared to disappear; public land lines for phone are being eliminated...........your government is systematically pushing all formerly public utility and services to private computer.....and more specifically, mobile broadband access.  I'm listening to NPR's On The Media estimate ten years until this transition is complete and estimated that by then, the major players in internet access will be charging $120 a month for cable, phone, and web......an then downloading data will be packaged as to limit further by cost how much your will be able to access.  As they push to shut down the public Post Office...........how will the majority of people communicate?  When you do communicate, the government and corporations will have access to your every word.

Remember, all the middle-class is being pushed into poverty........so we are looking at 70-80% of the population in the next decade IF YOU DO NOT VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT!

ALL OF THESE DECISIONS TO DOWNSIZE ALL THAT IS PUBLIC ARE FUELED BY THE DECLARATION OF HAVING NO FEDERAL FUNDS......THAT DEFICIT YOU KNOW.  YOU SEE BELOW THEY ARE TRYING THEIR HARDEST TO SPEND WHAT LITTLE WE HAVE COMING INTO THE GOVERNMENT ON BUSINESS.......SENDING YOUR MONEY RIGHT TO CORPORATE POCKETS!  GIVING MEGA-RICH VENTURE CAPITALISTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FOUNDATION MONEY TO FUND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE!    REALLY?

Overview of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. As President John F. Kennedy said in 1963: Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races [colors, and national origins] contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial [color or national origin] discrimination.

If a recipient of federal assistance is found to have discriminated and voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, the federal agency providing the assistance should either initiate fund termination proceedings or refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal action. Aggrieved individuals may file administrative complaints with the federal agency that provides funds to a recipient, or the individuals may file suit for appropriate relief in federal court. Title VI itself prohibits intentional discrimination. However, most funding agencies have regulations implementing Title VI that prohibit recipient practices that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

To assist federal agencies that provide financial assistance, the wide variety of recipients that receive such assistance, and the actual and potential beneficiaries of programs receiving federal assistance, the U.S. Department of Justice has published a Title VI Legal Manual. The Title VI Legal Manual sets out Title VI legal principles and standards. Additionally, the Department has published an Investigation Procedures Manual to give practical advice on how to investigate Title VI complaints. Also available on the Federal Coordination and Compliance Website are a host of other materials that may be helpful to those interested in ensuring effective enforcement of Title VI.
______________________________________________________

IT TAKES THE COURTS AGAIN TO STOP WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS PASSED BY THIRD WAY DEMOCRATS ------ WE HAVE NO ONE IN LEADERSHIP PROTECTING THE PUBLIC------THE MORE REAL PROGRESSIVES ELECTED, THE MORE POWER TO ELECT PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP!

House to Consider Proposal to Bar Indefinite Detention After Arrests on U.S. Soil


By CHARLIE SAVAGE Published: May 17, 2012 WASHINGTON
New York Times

— The House is preparing to vote again on an unresolved legal controversy: whether the military may imprison terrorism suspects captured on United States soil without trial. The renewed debate comes as a federal judge has enjoined the government from enforcing a statute codifying the government’s powers of indefinite detention. Lawmakers are considering amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act. One of them, sponsored by Representative Adam Smith of Washington, a Democrat, and Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a Republican, would scale back a highly contested provision about indefinite detention created in last year’s version of the law, by saying it does not apply to domestic arrests.
_________________________________________________
AS YOUR POLITICIAN TELLS YOU THESE SOCIAL AND SERVICE PROGRAMS MUST BE CUT TO PAY DOWN THE DEFICIT, THE NEXT PHASE OF CORPORATE GIVE-AWAYS ARE HEADING FOR CONGRESS.  PROGRAM-RELATED INVESTMENTS (PRI) ARE BASICALLY THE SAME AS b CORPORATIONS AND NON-PROFIT GRANTING AGENCIES IN THAT THEY GIVE YET ANOTHER CHANNEL FOR PEOPLE WITH MONEY TO MOVE THEIR MONEY TO PRIVATE COMPANIES THROUGH CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS. 

VENTURE CAPITALISTS HAVE MORE MONEY THAN THE GOVERNMENT AND NEED NO GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE FOUNDATION FUNDING.  VENTURE CAPITALISTS ARE THE ONES WHO FUND THE INNOVATORS.  SO THIS IS JUST A BLATANT CORRUPTION OF THE PUBLIC SYSTEM BY TREASURY SECRETARY GEITHNER--------OBAMA'S FAVORITE BANKER!

Opinion | June 3, 2012  Wall Street journal

Why Not Venture-Capital Philanthropy?


Some of our brightest, most innovative thinkers are at start-up companies. But these companies often have a hard time raising capital. Venture-capital firms have become more cautious, unwilling to fund start-ups that have bright ideas but whose products are a long way from commercial viability. Venture capitalists consider such start-ups—such as early-stage biotech firms—too risky to justify their investment.

Charitable organizations can now step up and help. The U.S. Treasury Department has recently issued a proposal to clarify that foundations may buy stock or make loans to a commercial venture if its activities promote its charitable objectives. Legal uncertainties surrounding such investments had previously held back the risk-averse trustees at many charities.

And so, instead of making a $500,000 grant to a university, an Alzheimer's foundation could buy $100,000 of stock in each of five private companies trying to find a therapy for Alzheimer's. Or a foundation dedicated to improving financial access for the poor could make $100,000 low-interest loans to five microfinance banks in different countries.

Both of these investments would be permissible for a foundation as so-called program-related investments, or PRIs.

Foundations have traditionally fostered research through grants to universities and other nonprofit institutions. They will continue to do so, because many of our best minds work in the academy on basic research.

Nevertheless, program-related investments can be more effective in certain situations. Some of the world's most talented scientists work in commercial companies. And they have a financial incentive to make breakthroughs in areas that foundations consider vital to their charitable missions.

At the same time, PRIs in for-profit companies generally count toward meeting a foundation's requirement to distribute 5% of its endowment every year. Even if a commercial investment generated no financial return, the foundation making it would not necessarily be any worse off than had it made a grant for research that didn't pan out.

However, if a foundation makes an investment in a successful commercial venture, it wins doubly. Imagine that an Alzheimer's foundation's investment leads to a blockbuster drug. That drug would improve the lives of Alzheimer's patients, and the foundation would realize a return that would replenish and grow its endowment.

Investments must meet two main criteria to qualify as a PRI according to existing Treasury rules. First, the primary purpose must be to carry out the foundation's charitable purpose. This means that foundations must monitor their investment targets—much as they would a recipient of a grant—to ensure that the company remains focused on research and development that is relevant to the charity's mission.

Second, "no significant purpose" of the investment may be to generate income or capital appreciation. In practice, this generally means that the investment must be on terms that would not be attractive to an investor purely motivated by profit.

A below-market-rate loan, or an equity investment that generates below-market expected returns, would fit this criterion. (There is also a third requirement, that such an investment may not be designed primarily to influence legislation or support a political campaign.)

Though the Treasury's recent clarification should make PRIs more attractive, foundations must still be careful in selecting investments to avoid creating any potential conflict of interest. For example, a foundation should avoid investing in a company controlled by an officer or director of the foundation.

Despite the limitations, foundations now have significant new ways to advance their purposes and serve the public through investments in innovative, for-profit enterprise. In this manner, they will increase the likelihood of making scientific breakthroughs, help create more jobs, and bolster small businesses with good ideas that cannot easily get private funding.

0 Comments

    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.