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

July 24th, 2014

7/24/2014

0 Comments

 
Just a few more days on education policy------let's continue to look at higher education and Maryland is ground zero for the dismantling of our public education system at all levels.

Yesterday I showed that Economic students are demanding universities stop teaching only neo-liberal economics-----they said the field had become so narrow as to block all other thought.  Think how that translates to Common Core in our K-12.  They intend to do the same thing in our grade schools as they have done in universities.......narrowed the curricula to corporate policy.  'Competition' replaces personal best......'Getting the edge' becomes bullying........'Taking out the competition' becomes rape.  The level of aggression in our schools and universities is growing because of this corporate mentality.  Attacks on women are soaring even at universities because Chancellor Kirwan does not see himself as a public servant upholding public justice and Rule of Law-----


WE WILL SELECT WHOMEVER WE WANT TO BE HEARD IN ELECTION FORUMS AND THERE WILL BE NO DISCUSSION ON ANY UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CAMPUS THAT IS ANTI-NEO-LIBERALISM!

We heard recently that UMUC----the online college structure that O'Malley spent hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars to create is failing miserably.  No one wants online education yet neo-liberals funded by Bill Gates and Wall Street are going to push this until we have no choice they say.  O'Malley even went overseas to push our active military to use their GI Bill education benefits on these online degree programs----IT IS A DISGRACE.  As you will see below there is absolutely no research that shows these online education programs are providing any quality or creating higher achievement.  The data is not there.  The only reason they are creating these online venues for 90% of Americans is that it is cheap and only prepares for a job.

FORGET THE WELL-BALANCED EDUCATION THAT IS BROAD AND ALLOWS GRADUATES TO APPLY THEMSELVES TO MANY FIELDS.

First UMUC was going to be made a non-profit so the public could not see how it operates.....now University of Maryland is keeping a failed structure alive but wants to deregulate.  Bill Gates requires online instruction and neo-liberals are going to give it to him!
  The amount of education funding wasted on these global corporate policies mirrors O'Malley's tying the public to Hilton and Hyatt hotels in order to keep them from losing money.  Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are lost every year in all categories of industry in what is clearly public malfeasance and fraud against the citizens of Maryland.  Why do we need a UMUC Asia/Europe?

Meanwhile financial aid and grants are being cut and that aid given is being tied to these cheaper structures as WE THE PEOPLE see our strong public education dismantled by neo-liberals. 

DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN TO CHANGE THIS----THIS IS REPUBLICAN POLICY-----NEO-CONS ARE JUST AS BAD.



UMUC’s Mission in Asia


The mission of University of Maryland University College (UMUC) in Asia is to offer academic programs to United States military communities throughout Asia and the Pacific. While serving overseas, students can take a single course or many courses leading to a certificate, an Associate of Arts degree, a Bachelor of Arts degree, or a Bachelor of Science degree. Since University of Maryland University College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, students can take courses with the intention of transferring their credits to other colleges or universities in the United States. Students may also continue their studies with UMUC online. Additional information is available at www.umuc.edu.

Although the educational setting is overseas, UMUC’s programs in Asia are in all respects comparable to those offered at public institutions of higher learning in the United States. Courses are taught by faculty whose credentials meet standards set by appropriate University of Maryland University College academic departments in Adelphi, Maryland. All UMUC courses taught in Asia carry University of Maryland University College resident credit. UMUC is committed to maintaining standards of academic excellence. The past 50-plus years demonstrate that those standards can be maintained in overseas settings.



UMUC Europe offers thousands of courses for students interested in associate's and bachelor's degrees and undergraduate certificates. UMUC also offers graduate-level certificates and several master's degrees in Europe. With UMUC's 150 locations worldwide, and extensive online offerings, students can begin and finish a degree with us regardless of where they are located.


I bet the citizens of Maryland did not even know UMUC was a global corporation.  Meanwhile fewer Maryland citizens are going to 4 year universities.


I don't hold any credence to these online workplace comment programs because they work like American Idol.  It is good to see a consistent referral to 'people needing to be treated with respect'. ' Low pay with no opportunity to grow'.  THIS IS NOT AN ENVIRONMENT WE WOULD WANT IN A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY.  THAT IS WHAT A CORPORATE STRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE.  That is because it IS  a corporate structure.  Under neo-liberals labor is treated as badly as if a Republican were in office yet every election Maryland labor unions get behind these neo-liberal pols.  We need the citizens of Maryland taking back the Democratic Party to reverse this failed neo-liberal/neo-con policy!



“Failing company, horrible management” Academic Advisor (Current Employee) Pros – Great vacation/time off. Get to become a state employee after 3 years.

Cons – Moral is so low! Micromanaged beyond belief, constant layoffs, not worth you time.

Advice to Senior Management – Treat us like the educated adults that we are. Learn to value your employees.

No, I would not recommend this company to a friend – I'm not optimistic about the outlook for this company

Add Employer Response
  1. Apr 8, 2014
    • Culture & Values
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Senior Management
    • Comp & Benefits
    • Career Opportunities
     

    “Not good. Too many secrets and financial problems” Administrative Assistant (Current Employee) Largo, MD I have been working at UMUC full-time for more than 8 years


    Pros: Convenient location and great benefits Cons: Low pay and minimal advancement Advice to Senior Management: Treat the regular people like people No, I would not recommend this company to a friend – I'm not optimistic about the outlook for this company… More

                    

Below you see what the deregulation issues discussed by Mikulski and Kirwan will include----as you see again everyone in the system is in the dark as to what these discussions look like.  WE DON'T ALLOW CITIZENS IN MARYLAND KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING SAY NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS.


UMUC considering plan to become independent nonprofit with ties to university system
Under proposal, it would no longer be a state entity; president seeks input from university community




By Nayana Davis, The Baltimore Sun

7:54 p.m. CDT, July 10, 2014

The University of Maryland University College, which has been struggling with declining enrollment, is considering severing some ties with the state university system to avoid burdensome regulations and work more closely with the private sector.

Under the proposal, the university would become an independent nonprofit organization that retains an affiliation with the state system. The school's president, Javier Miyares, said during a Thursday town hall meeting in Largo that the idea came from a task force of experts organized by the university as a response to a shrinking student body.

UMUC, a mainly online institution, has struggled with a competitive online education market and a smaller military. Members of the military or their families make up about half of the college's students.



The main objective of the proposal is to more readily secure partnerships with the private sector, including working with companies to make courses more employer-friendly and building relationships to help students secure jobs. Miyares said such partnerships can be challenging to forge as a state agency.

"This way we would not be bound by all the regulations and statutes that apply to a public state agency," Miyares said.

University officials also hope the move would help it attract more students outside the United States, though it would retain the University of Maryland name. Based in Adelphi, UMUC offers courses to students in 24 countries.

The plan would allow the university to keep ties with the 12-institution University System of Maryland, but the details have not been worked out. "The validity and credibility you get by being part of the University of Maryland system is huge," Miyares said.

No immediate action will be taken on the task force recommendation, as the school begins a process of soliciting feedback from the college community. University officials said there are few concrete ideas on how the effort would be implemented at this stage; Miyares said he wanted to get input first.

UMUC has the support of the University System of Maryland to look into alternate business models.

"The university is facing some significant challenges," said William E. Kirwan, chancellor of the system. "They are appropriately addressing those challenges."

Kirwan said a more concrete proposal would need approval from the system's Board of Regents before implementation, and possibly the governor and General Assembly. The governor's office declined to comment on the plan.

But some higher education experts expressed concern about the university putting out such a proposal with few details.


Barmak Nassirian, director of federal relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, said it's not uncommon for public universities to form private-sector relationships to outsource certain functions, but it's unclear what the change in status would mean for the university.

"Honestly, I don't know what to make of this," he said. "The decision to operate under a different set of rules is interesting. Whether the move is good, I don't know."

UMUC has been struggling with declining enrollment both stateside and overseas since fall of 2011. Although the rate of decline stateside has remained less than 10 percent in the past three years, overseas enrollment declined 20 percent for spring 2014.

The school has struggled to increase enrollment because of competition from traditional academic institutions that have started offering Web-based classes and popular massive open online courses known as MOOCs, university officials said.

A shrinking military, which is facing large-scale budget cuts, also is a factor in loss of enrollment.

University officials said that 90 percent of its budget comes from tuition and 10 percent from the state. Other colleges in the university system get about 30 percent of their budgets from the state.

"We don't know what the future is going to be like," Miyares said. "But if we don't adapt, we will go into a death spiral."

UMUC's struggles are "a reflection of how competitive online education has become," Kirwan said. "What we do need is to explore if operational flexibility is possible."


"UMUC has been quite unique in the university system," Nassirian said. "It had been mostly self-sufficient because it provides excess revenue back to the system, but that [online] business model has not fared well as of late."

Traditionally, changes in business models for colleges have occurred when a struggling nonprofit university becomes a for-profit venture after a large corporation acquires it. Nassirian gave the example of the Clinton, Iowa-based school Ashford University being purchased by Bridgepoint Education.

Miyares said the change could occur as early as next summer. Academic programs and staffing levels are not expected to be affected if the model changes, unless enrollment continues to drop.

The school laid off 70 staff members from departments at the Adelphi and Largo campuses earlier this year, and 58 the year prior. The university employs about 2,000 in the U.S.

"The whole goal is to get enrollment up," Miyares said. "If enrollment is fine, there should be no dramatic difference to the academic side. This is a pivotal moment in our history."

nadavis@baltsun.com



________________________________________________

The article above gives yet another spin----that UMUC and online colleges are being edged out by the popularity of MOOCs-----only MOOCs are not popular.  They are used less frequently then online UMUC.  We are being fed nothing but spin and this happens more and more because the public universities that would be the first to shout THAT IS NOT TRUE ----IT IS SPIN are now the ones handing us spin because they are corporations.  Maryland Assembly was the very first to pass laws that move the accreditation process towards making these online structures legitimate.  NO ONE THINKS THIS IS GOOD POLICY.  Needless to say when it comes to bad education policy it is Johns Hopkins pushing it in Maryland.  Indeed, Baltimore is cursed with a gorilla in the room that pushes the worst of policy all so they can make more profits.


This looks like a Gates Foundation study-------most employers in North Carolina have not heard of MOOCS but 3/4 of them think they are good. Meanwhile, there is no interest in the public for MOOCs outside of simple extracurricular help with existing university structures. Gates says he will buy these policy implementation yet! You know, because he is the 'good billionaire' as NPR always tells us.



All Hail MOOCs! Just Don’t Ask if They Actually Work | TIME.com

Why Do So Many Students Drop Out of MOOCs?www.brighthub.com/education/online-learning/articles/...



Study: MOOCs Viewed Positively Among Employers

April 2, 2014 Inside Higher Education

Most North Carolina employers haven't heard of massive open online courses, but about three-quarters of them view MOOCs as having a positive effect on hiring decisions, a survey conducted by Duke University and RTI International shows. The study, founded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, also suggests 71 percent of employers could see themselves using MOOCs for professional development.

Think about how the real world views MOOCs but the article in the Maryland media makes you think they are supported.  It happens all the time because they can get away with it.  Online resources for education are good----everyone thinks online instruction adds to the classroom at any level.  The problem is that corporations have as a goal to replace the classroom with these online products ------aiming at the 90% of Americans becoming trapped by Vocational K-12.......
With all public education funding going to subsidize corporate research and Human Resources we have to make the cost of educating the 90% as cheap as possible say neo-liberals and neo-cons!  Calling MOOCS a democratizing tool in a nation with the strongest public education system in the world is a mockery.  STOP DEFUNDING AND DISMANTLING PUBLIC EDUCATION.


The University of Maryland is now taking a look at bestowing transfer credit to those who are able to demonstrate a specific level of knowledge after completing a MOOC.


- See more at: http://www.educationnews.org/online-schools/can-moocs-be-a-solution-to-the-us-student-debt-crisis/#sthash.uhO1mk7Y.dpuf


Are MOOCs really dead?

  • By Jake New, Editor, eCampus News
June 6th, 2014 Recent studies suggest that MOOCs are very much alive, but are not a threat to traditional higher education For some educators and journalists, the rasping final breaths of massive open online courses (MOOCs) began late last year.

They followed nearly two years of hype and excitement that even the most skeptical of instructors and reporters got swept up in. Many of those who denounced the courses did so in a similarly frantic fashion, writing proclamations and open letters condemning MOOCs, as though they were caught in a great academic war.

Then, suddenly, a blow was struck. And it came from one of MOOCs’ most famous creators.

“Sebastian Thrun, godfather of the massive open online course, has quietly spread a plastic tarp on the floor, nudged his most famous educational invention into the center, and is about to pull the trigger,” Rebecca Schuman wrote at Slate in November 2013.

It was a dramatic way of saying that Thrun had announced that his company, Udacity, would now focus its MOOCs more on vocational training rather than traditional liberal arts courses.

That Udacity was only one company of a growing number focused on MOOCs — and that many of these platforms, including its main competitor Coursera, still aimed to disrupt traditional higher education — did little to slow the wave of speculation.

It was the capper on a year of MOOC hand-wringing. If 2012 was the “year of the MOOC,” then 2013 was the “year of the MOOC backlash.” Those who trust Gartner’s “Hype Cycle” believed MOOCs were going through a common “trough of disillusionment,” that would soon be followed by a “slope of enlightenment.”

But by the start of 2014, many were already asking: “Are MOOCs dead?”

The answer is not as sensational as the question. MOOCs aren’t dead — not yet -- but they likely won’t be replacing any traditional means of higher education, either.




Here is the source of creating a massive online system of education for the 90% in Maryland-----Wall Street itself!  The quality of education drops each time they grow this online education industry.  Since it isn't working at the university level they are now talking of sending it to K-12 vocational.  Sitting children in front of computers for online classes the goal of education reform as vocational K-12----YOU BET


Johns Hopkins Offers Nine-Course Specialization in Data ...www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/coursera...   CachedThe series of nine MOOCs are now open for enrollment and free to anyone. ... 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205. ... Courses Careers Accreditation Web Policies ...

0 Comments

July 23rd, 2014

7/23/2014

0 Comments

 
THE REASON MARYLAND IS SILENT AS THE REST OF THE NATION BRINGS OUT MILLIONS IN PROTEST OF NEO-LIBERAL AND NEO-CONS POLICIES IS THAT ERHLICH/O'MALLEY HAS WORKED HARD TO PRIVATIZE MARYLAND'S PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES.  IT IS HERE THAT HOLDING POWER ACCOUNTABLE BEGINS AND THAT IS WHY NEO-LIBERALS FROM CLINTON TO OBAMA ARE WORKING AS HARD AS THEY CAN TO MAKE THEM INTO CORPORATIONS.

We saw yesterday that it is University of Maryland's Chancellor Kirwan seeing the need to deregulate universities.  Maryland has allowed for-profit career colleges defraud for a few decades now because of deregulation of private career education so now we need to see the same in our public universities.  Kirwan says we are making money using taxpayer money to patent research but we need to super-size the profits from the products we are now sending to the corporate structures attached to our campuses----YOU KNOW---THE 'BIOTECH FACILITIES'.  Kirwan and Mikulski are not only talking about getting rid of a silly regulation that is out of date----they are intending to deregulate how universities can operate as businesses.  All those requirements for receiving taxpayer money for research that make the public partners in this research need to go.  We have proprietary patents now with that taxpayer funded research and it is heading for the open market for profit! 

Below you see what Kirwan and Mikulski are working towards.  Corporations are dismantling their research facilities because universities ARE THEIR RESEARCH FACILITIES.  University students are now paying tuition to work in a corporate research project for free supported by NIH and NCA research money.  IT'S ALL ABOUT CREATING JOBS!  Actually, college grads are as likely now to remain unemployed now as at the time of the 2008 crash because global corporations and neo-liberals are keeping the US economy stagnant.  So, these students are more likely to work as VISTAs then to get a job in the field for which they received a degree.  Meanwhile, the foreign students coming in to get degrees------doing OK especially if they go back home to work for the US corporation overseas.  FREE LABOR PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS----NOW THAT MAXIMIZES CORPORATE PROFITS SAY NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS.  See why taxes and tuition are soaring on the working and midde-class?  It costs lots to subsidize every corporate activity.

CORPORATIONS NO LONGER NEED RESEARCH FACILITIES------UNIVERSITIES DO THE RESEARCH AND ANYTHING THAT IS SUCCESSFUL COMES TO THE GLOBAL CORPORATIONS THROUGH STARTUPS BUYOUTS.  THE PEOPLE THEY HIRED TO DO THE WORK IN PRIVATE RESEARCH LABS ARE NOW STUDENTS PAYING TUITION.

The process of patenting university research while having corporations 'partnered' with these universities is a mockery as if people cannot see that this is why student tuition is soaring and all of taxpayer money is funding this 'university' research leaving no money for student financial aid and grants. Directors of these 'university' research facilities being paid like corporate executives.

LET'S GO BACK TO PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES AS PUBLIC EDUCATION!


Below you see what deregulation Kirwan and Mikulski are working towards......making universities driven by profit-----



Colleges Urged to Count Patents in Tenure Reviews

April 29, 2014
  Inside Higher Ed


Universities should begin making patents and other industrial and commercial research count toward promotion and tenure, in an effort to stimulate such research nationwide, argues a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal. "There is a fundamental disconnect between technology transfer activities and incentives for faculty members in terms of merit raises, tenure and career advancement," Richard B. Marchase, co-author and vice president for research and economic development at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a news release. "Beyond the monetary benefit of licensing, which is small in most cases, there is presently little to no benefit to a faculty member's merit raises, tenure and career advancement."

The paper builds on a 2012 report from the National Research Council and other groups saying that business and industry have "largely dismantled large corporate research laboratories that drove American industrial leadership," and which argues that research universities must "fill the gap."
In the new paper, called "Changing the Academic Culture: Valuing Patents and Commercialization Toward Tenure and Career Advancement," the authors argue that filling the research gap will entail changing the university "rewards culture" to value not only large research grants but also professors' patents and other commercial activities. Co-author Eric Kaler, president of the University of Minnesota, notes that this kind of work should not replace but "add to" traditional means of assessing scholarly activity. The paper's lead author is Paul R. Sanberg, senior vice president for research and innovation at the University of South Florida and president of the National Academy of Inventors. An abstract is available here.


_________________________________________________

Keep in mind the same global corporations for whom University of Maryland's Chancellor Kirwan and neo-liberals work are the same entities keeping the US economy stagnant-----and it is deliberate.  Remember, the bond market is going to crash causing a greater recession is so there is no intent to employ these grads----but they do free work and pay to do it with ever-higher tuition.  THIS IS A SWEET DEAL FOR CORPORATE PROFITS SAY NEO-LIBERALS IN MARYLAND!

The media shout that all of this a great education policy.  That more students are being sent to college and graduating with skills that corporations need.  OH REALLY? 

THEY NEED THEM TO WORK FOR FREE WHILE PAYING FOR COLLEGE AND THEN FORGET ABOUT IT AFTER GRADUATION.

The structure neo-liberals and neo-cons are building have the job pipeline coming from the Ivy League schools-----business leaders now come from these schools and any startups that may come from the public universities are simply bought by those corporations in the portfolio of Ivy League schools.  Working and middle-class grads are largely being funneled into poverty jobs or the military.


University of Maryland Baltimore County and Grabinsky were front page news as UMBC is the face of this free labor as corporate university.  While Maryland says its unemployment is 6.1% we all know that is only the number of people receiving unemployment checks.  Maryland's unemployment is 36% and growing with this economic model.  Remember, these are Republican policies of placing corporate profit first so voting Republican will not help----Democrats simply need to shake the corporate neo-liberals out of the Democratic Party!


FOLKS----THIS IS A NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMIC MODEL THEY CALL THE 21ST CENTURY ECONOMY!

All we need is to rebuild state economies having domestic businesses driving the economy and all of this will disappear.


The Deliberate Low-Wage, High-Insecurity Economic Model submitted by pmcovay3 ScienceIndex.com  Dec 2012

In contrast to the general biases of orthodox economists, the jobs crisis in America is not inevitable or natural-and more important, does not contribute to more economic efficiency through lower wages or more productivity. It is the result of deliberate political policy choices the nation has made at least since the early 1980s, when productivity was rising on a secular basis at a slow rate. Also, the policy choices were made before the rise of very low-wage emerging markets like China’s. In sum, there has been a low-wage, high-unemployment policy regime in the rich world, and especially in the United States, for a generation.


Students Call for Reform of Economics Education


May 6, 2014  Inside Higher Ed

Economics students in 19 countries have issued a joint call -- published in The Guardian -- to change the way economics is taught. The students' analysis (similar to that of some professors in the United States and elsewhere) is that economics has become too uniform in its approaches and too removed from real life. "[I]t's time to reconsider the way economics is taught. We are dissatisfied with the dramatic narrowing of the curriculum that has taken place over the past couple of decades," the letter says. "This lack of intellectual diversity does not only restrain education and research. It limits our ability to contend with the multidimensional challenges of the 21st century – from financial stability to food security and climate change. The real world should be brought back into the classroom, as well as debate and a pluralism of theories and methods. This will help renew the discipline and ultimately create a space in which solutions to society's problems can be generated."



All academics and analysts now look at employment figures as below----the employment to population ratio.  We all know some adults of working age may choose not to work but that percentage is not too high.  So, if 58% of the population is working------42% are not.  36% unemployment is about right.  As this article points out----with wages at an all time low people are now forced to have two incomes in a family.  The employment data media and government provides is simply meant to conceal this deliberately high unemployment.

Do you know who is not fooled by the failure of neo-liberalism------ECONOMICS STUDENTS!

The article above shows that university students are fed up with universities that only offer neo-liberal economic models in economic degree programs.  As this article states----WHY STUDY A FAILED ECONOMIC MODEL?  It is the duty of public universities to hold power accountable and give the public real data and we see this is not happening because of this corporate capture.

That is what university heads like Kirwan are doing.....they are appointed to force global corporate policies that no one wants and it is the governor that appoints these people to public universities.

Unemployment Data Manipulation The Economic Recovery is a Lie!
  By Seth Mason
Friday, November 1st, 2013  Wealth Daily

I've argued time and time again that, due to the severity of job losses during the Great Recession, there cannot be a true economic recovery until the labor market has recovered.

Unfortunately, hiring was weak in September, continuing a slowing trend that began in the spring.

To make matters worse, the majority of jobs created last month were menial in nature (nearly 2/3 of them were truck drivers, bureaucrats, salespeople, and temps). These trends have been ongoing throughout this economic depression.

The number of new jobs wasn't enough to keep up with population growth.

And yet the unemployment rate fell.

So, all is well... right?

Clearly, the "headline" 7.2% unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story about the sad state of the American labor force.

You have to take any data from the Fed with a grain of salt, anyway, as the Obama administration has a vested interest in presenting the best-looking unemployment picture possible, just as all administrations have.

The employment-to-population ratio actually provides a much more accurate gauge of the health of the American job market — and wouldn't you know, it's been showing unhealthy readings since the economy crashed five years ago...

The proportion of Americans in the workforce has barely budged since falling from 63% to 58% during the Great Recession, as you can see on the following chart:



A Precipitous Decline

The last time the employment-to-population ratio was 58% — in the early 1980s — a relatively small proportion of American households sent more than one income earner into the workforce.

Now, in a nation of mostly one-breadwinner households, the 58% employment-to-population ratio was reasonable.

Today, however, due to a decline in real personal income (thanks for the inflation, Federal Reserve), most households send multiple income earners into the workforce.

In fact, it's not uncommon these days for households to have more than two income earners.

Under this paradigm, an employment-to-population ratio stuck at 58% like it's 1982 (when "homemaker" was still a common job title) is very unhealthy.


  Also worth noting is that a large percentage of the 58% of Americans who do work are working lower-quality jobs than they were before the economy crashed.

Although the population of the United States has increased by approximately 20 million since 2008, there are 5 million fewer “breadwinner” jobs in this country than there were before this economic depression.

"Breadwinner jobs" are those positions with a base salary of $35,000 or more that enable one to live independently, however meagerly. 

So the real health of the labor force is even worse than the unsettling 58% labor force participation rate!

Here we are, more than five years since the fall of Lehman, and the job market is still awful... and it's started to backslide again.



Niagara Falls

The Fed's Niagara Falls-scale liquidity pumping measures (I say "liquidity pumping" as opposed to "printing" because QE is only one of the Fed's tricks) clearly haven't had much impact on unemployment — or the federal government's $787 billion spending binge, also known as the grand "stimulus," for that matter.

Remember the laughable estimates of unemployment with and without the "Recovery Plan"?

According to the White House's October 2009 estimate (the dark blue line on the chart above), the Fed/federal government's plan should have taken us back to pre-recession unemployment levels by now...

Yet the unemployment rate sits at an unacceptable 7.2%.

And keep in mind the 7.2% headline unemployment rate belies the true awful state of the job market.

Considering the pitiful 58% employment-to-population ratio and the 5 million fewer breadwinner jobs since 2008, it would be an understatement to say that Washington's stimulus measures have failed to reduce unemployment. (That's assuming they were created for that purpose. More about that in a future article.)

We should expect more of the same from our esteemed central planners.

The Fed, which has officially delayed "tapering," will continue to pump indefinitely.

Uncle Sam will continue to borrow and spend like mad, whether he's wearing a DEM or GOP hat.

As a result, the "mother of all bubbles," as Nouriel Roubini has called it, will continue to expand...

And we'll continue party like it's 2006, only with higher unemployment.

We'll keep ignoring the fact that 2008 is just a couple of years away.

Happy crash 2.0!

Until next time,

Seth Mason for Wealth Daily
_____________________________________________


Having a policy that brings more foreign students into the US with the goal of green cards and employment in high-skilled jobs does nothing for the American people, the high unemployment, or creating quality education and higher achievement in our US students.  It is purely a profit-making scheme that continues to consolidate the wealth at the top.

Maryland pols are all neo-liberals so whether Milkulsi and Cardin working in the Senate on legislation to build corporate universities and send trillions of dollars to expand overseas as corporations-----or the Governor of Maryland O'Malley and the Maryland Assembly appointing these corporate university heads and building the corporate structures in our universities-----

THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLY REBUILD THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN MARYLAND BY RUNNING AND VOTING FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE.



Currency February 21, 2014

Should Universities Profit From Student Research?
By John Bringardner  The New Yorker





In 2011, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that Cornell University and Israel’s Technion would jointly open a new school on Roosevelt Island to help boost New York’s tech sector. The first buildings of the new campus won’t open until 2017, but classes are already under way in borrowed space on the third floor of Google’s New York office. And, on Monday, Cornell Tech, as the school is called, plans to announce that it has enrolled its first batch of post-doctoral researchers in a one-year “Runway” program, designed to launch them into business ventures based on their specialties: urban planning, e-commerce, health care. In an unusual twist, the school will invest in the companies founded through the program, but also allow students to keep ownership of the intellectual property they create on campus; typically, universities profit by keeping the rights to such property.



Cornell Tech isn’t the only institution to invest in student startups. Stanford announced last year that it would invest in companies founded by its students. M.I.T. also takes an equity stake in companies developed on campus. But Stanford and M.I.T. both require those companies to pay royalties on any technologies the students patent while in school.
Rather than negotiate complex patent-licensing rights with their researchers, Cornell Tech will treat the value of each post-doc position it awards—about a hundred and fifty thousand dollars—as an angel investment in any business spun out of the program; in exchange, Cornell Tech expects to get an average of a five-per-cent stake in each business. The Runway program echoes the accelerators and incubators popular among venture capitalists—three- or four-month programs in which entrepreneurs get resources to build new startups in exchange for a stake in their companies.

Universities didn’t always have the right to the spoils of the research they sponsored. The government spent heavily on research and development at U.S. universities during the Cold War, but new technologies developed with federal cash became government property. By 1980, the federal government had amassed twenty-eight thousand patents but licensed fewer than five per cent to companies that could turn them into products. That year, Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act, which allowed universities to keep and profit from the patents their students and researchers developed on campus using federal funds. The Economist called it “perhaps the most inspired piece of legislation in America over the past half-century.”

Soon, offices focussed on “technology transfer” opened up in schools around the country, staffed with lawyers who poked around campus research labs and flipped through student notebooks to suss out patentable research that they could license to corporations. A new chemical combination might become a blockbuster drug; a technological breakthrough could lead to smaller, faster semiconductors.

In 2012, American universities earned $2.6 billion from patent royalties, according to the Association of University Technology Managers. The tech-transfer model is entrenched in medical schools and in biotech development. But its usefulness in the software world has been less clear. The success of a software startup often depends less on any particular innovation than on how several pieces of technology fit together and appeal to users. A company’s value usually becomes apparent years after it has developed and refined its business model, not at the moment it files a patent application. Plus, the very concept of a software patent hangs in the balance: in December, the Supreme Court agreed to review a case that could eliminate them altogether.

Cornell Tech’s approach—taking an equity stake in each company instead of licensing rights to a handful of patents—may be a more straightforward way for the school to profit from spin-offs. “Universities look to place a value on technology at its inception, finding a fair rate for splitting royalties between the school and the inventor, but that’s not the way digital startups work,” Cornell Tech’s Dean, Daniel Huttenlocher, said. “I think intellectual-property protection, especially in software and digital tech, is a very small piece of commercialization, one that becomes too big a part of the conversation when universities are involved.”

The Runway program is designed to turn deep academic research into a marketable product; its first post-docs have already spent years in the lab, sometimes running into dead ends and starting over in a way that pure academic research allows but investors don’t. “A principal mission of Cornell University is the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit and use of society,” the school’s existing intellectual-property policy reads. Whether society benefits most when knowledge is turned into an I.P.O. is an open question.

“The entire Bay Area is enamored with these notions of innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship, mega-success,” the historian and Stanford professor David Kennedy told Ken Auletta in 2012, in a report from Stanford. “It’s in the air we breathe out here. It’s an atmosphere that can be toxic to the mission of the university as a place of refuge, contemplation, and investigation for its own sake.” And when students showed up for their first classes at the temporary campus, in January, 2013, Isaac Kramnick, a professor of government at Cornell in Ithaca, told the Times, “The university has been at the forefront of big science since the 1940s and 1950s. Now it’s entering an era in which it seems to be interested in for-profit science, and that does require some thinking as to what the fundamental purpose of a university is.” (“Such potential for conflicts is quite manageable with the appropriate procedures in place, enabling this very effective interaction between students, faculty, and companies,” Huttenlocher told me.)

Yet universities are forging ahead with more business-oriented models. Over the past decade, angel investors, the main source of capital for startups, have made high-risk bets, providing money for startups to get off the ground in exchange for the right to a piece of the company’s equity if it succeeds. Most never do. Venture capitalists call their strategy “spray and pray,” sinking money into lots of different startups in the hope that at least one will be the next Facebook. It’s a gamble, but it could be a better way for universities to take advantage of the work their students are doing. The amount of revenue schools generate from patent licensing is small compared with over-all university budgets. Alumni philanthropy brings in far more money. “What would happen if schools gave up rights to their students’ intellectual property?” Adam Shwartz, the director of Cornell Tech’s Jacobs Institute, which runs the Runway program, asked. “Their patent revenue goes to zero, but down the line the successful alumni give back far more money. Here we have the first controlled experiment of this nature.”

Rendering of Cornell Tech by Kilograph.
____________________________________________

Below you see how bad the success rate of this model is for the student /school so a corporation directs the research it wants to fund----gets free labor and a taxpayer funded research facility----and VOILA all the failures are paid for by you and me.  No need for corporate R and D.  In lieu of corporate taxes these investment firms just send there money to these university projects and we are told this is the best mechanism for funding universities.

All work on campus is now product-driven-----professors are judged on patenting rather than academics or teaching.  Tenure is tied to being this corporate executive.  Students are engaged only in what will pay off and not with a broad education limiting their futures.  As this article shows it is the student that loses and graduates with the tuition debt and limited focus degrees.


What is sad is that the student's future success with whatever they create requires handing a percentage of future earnings to these university/venture capitalist and the few that do create successful businesses simply hand them to these global investment firms.  This is all simply universities as corporate facilities.

THE ENTIRE ACADEMIC MODEL HAS BEEN RUINED AND THE US IS AGAIN ON THE BOTTOM ACADEMICALLY IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS.  THIS IS WHAT MIKULSKI AND KIRWAN ARE SITTING DOWN TO BOLSTER.

DEAR ENTREPRENEURS: Here's How Bad Your Odds Of Success Are
  • Henry Blodget  Business Insider

  • May 28, 2013, 11:03 AM

As a wise investor puts it: "Many turtles hatch. Few make it to the sea."


Everyone knows that starting companies — and investing in startups — is a risky way to earn a living. But few people appreciate just how risky it is.

Thanks to a recent tweet from Paul Graham, the founder of "startup school" Y Combinator, we now have a better idea.

Graham says that 37 of the 511 companies that have gone through the Y Combinator program over the past 5 years have either sold for, or are now worth, more than $40 million.

Most entrepreneurs would probably view creating a company worth more than $40 million as a success (unless the company raised more capital than that). And, on its face, the "37 companies" number seems relatively impressive.

In fact, however, the number tells a scary and depressing story.

This number suggests that a startling 93% of the companies that get accepted by Y Combinator eventually fail.

(Not all companies that sell for less than $40 million are "failures," obviously. Assuming a company hasn't raised much capital, a sale between $5 million and $40 million could be considered a success. But a high percentage of Y Combinator companies likely end up being worth zero. And for companies that are hand-picked by very smart investors, the 93%-below-$40 million rate is still surprisingly low). 

A company accepted by Y Combinator, therefore, has less than a 1-in-10 chance of being a big success.

More alarmingly, the companies accepted by Y Combinator are only a tiny fraction of the companies that apply.

Some have estimated that Y Combinator's acceptance rate is 3-5%.

If we use the 5% rate, we can estimate that Y Combinator has received about 10,000 applications for the ~500 companies it has chosen over the years.

Assuming Y Combinator has even a modest ability to pick winners, therefore, the odds that a company applying to Y Combinator will be a success are significantly lower than the odds of success of the companies accepted into the program.

If only 37 of the companies that have applied to Y Combinator over the years have succeeded, this is a staggeringly low 0.4% success rate.

Put differently, only one in every 200 companies that applies to Y Combinator will succeed.

The reality is that Y Combinator probably misses a few winners, so the actual odds are probably slightly higher.

But in case any entrepreneur or angel investor is deluding themselves into thinking that startups are an easy way to cash in, they might want to think again.









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

February 28th, 2014

2/28/2014

0 Comments

 
FOLKS, WHAT IS HAPPENING BELOW WILL NOT STOP....IT WILL GET WORSE.  AS ALL GOVERNMENT REVENUE IS LOST MORE AND MORE PUBLIC ASSETS WILL GO.  I SPOKE OF WATER AND SEWAGE BEING NEXT....TRANSPORTATION IS GOING AND THE VERY PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS ARE BEING PLACED IN WALL STREET INSTRUMENTS.  THESE POLS INTEND ALL OF THESE PARTNERSHIPS TO TRANSFER TO PRIVATE HANDS AS THE NEXT ECONOMIC CRASH COMES!!!!

STOP ELECTING THE SAME CRONY POLS....RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL PRIMARIES TO RETAKE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!




Regarding Baltimore Development Corporation vs citizens of Baltimore:

THE MAYOR AND GOVERNOR ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS.....THEY WORK FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST. DEALS MADE WITH CORPORATIONS IN DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ARE ILLEGAL.....PUBLIC MALFEASANCE AND OFTEN INCLUDE FRAUD AND CORRUPTION. WE CAN REVERSE THESE CONTRACTS THAT MORTGAGE OUR FUTURE TO SHIELDING CORPORATIONS TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS.

Let's begin by reminding ourselves, the reason Federal, state, and local coffers are empty is massive corporate fraud of tens of trillions of dollars...hundreds of billions here in MD. So, there is not shortage of funding for development, we simply need to recover fraud. Last decade was all about creating public debt so corporations could come in to capture all that is public. Now, they are using the money stolen from government coffers to build as they want and hold the public captive with development schemes. The same politicians helping to allow this massive fraud to occur are now in office to see that those enriched get what they want.

THIS IS HAPPENING IN CITIES ACROSS AMERICA. IN BALTIMORE, IT IS ON STEROIDS JUST AS DETROIT....ALL PUBLIC COFFERS ARE BEING STARVED OF REVENUE BY DEALS NOT IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST.

We can see what led to Detroit's bankrupcty is indeed what is happening in Baltimore and Maryland today. Loaded with credit bond debt and all corporate and wealth revenues mortgaged....long-term public debt makes for corporate control.

Let's look at some development issues in Baltimore....


Detroit’s bankruptcy, the tip of the iceberg

States, cities hand out billions in tax abatements


By Nancy Hanover
27 January 2014

To some, it may come as a surprise that the bankrupt City of Detroit and the hard-hit State of Michigan are subsidizing the Big Three automakers, the pharmaceutical industry, energy companies and virtually every large Michigan business. But a massive giveaway—“corporate welfare,” both locally and nationally—is bankrupting municipalities everywhere as shown by reports from Demos (“The Detroit Bankruptcy”), the New York Times (“United States of Subsidies”) and Good Jobs First (“Megadeals”).

While making the political decision to use the bankruptcy court to destroy pensions, jobs, city services and public institutions like the Detroit Institute of Arts, the government has been nothing but generous to Fortune 500 CEOs asking for a handout.

In a city where citizens routinely wait for up to three hours for public transportation and tens of thousands suffer from utility shutoffs in the dead of winter, more than $20 million a year has been awarded to companies including Comerica Bank, Rock Ventures/Garbsman, the Farbman Group, Quicken Loans, the Detroit Medical Center and multibillion-dollar conglomerate DTE Energy.

Wallace C. Turbeville’s report on the bankruptcy for Demos calls these “extensive subsidies” and suggests the emergency manager “reclaim tax subsidies and other expenditures to incentivize investment in the downtown area” and treat them similarly to the rest of the city’s debt. Of course Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr, a Democrat, has been placed into his dictatorial position not to penalize his corporate masters but to ensure their interests and lay the basis for their dramatic increase in profit-taking.

Tax boondoggles in the city include a whopping $285 million to billionaire Mike Ilitch for a 45-block entertainment district and $100 million in tax abatements for Compuware, also a billion-dollar company.

Smaller gifts were available as well, including $27 million in tax incentives awarded to the Meridian Health Plan building to be built in the central business district. Owners David, Sherry, Jon, Sean and Michael Cotton are real estate developers whose core business is a series of health care businesses in Michigan, Illinois, Iowa and several other states. The Cottons believe they can boost that number to $35 million in public financing through additional credits, according to Crain’s Detroit Business.

Another recipient of the city’s munificence is Whole Foods Market, a wildly profitable firm paying out $500 million last year in stock dividends, which is receiving $4.2 million, but hopes to get more from so-called brownfield (“blighted” areas requiring “revitalization”) incentives.


Detroit has been saddled with 16 “renaissance zones” that were virtually tax-free for business and forgave millions of dollars in taxes. At the same time, Detroit homeowners have the highest property taxes among the nation’s 50 largest cities, and paid twice the national average in tax.

Last September, a frenzy of downtown Detroit developers spurred the first-ever Novogradac Historic Tax Credit Conference. It brought them together with hundreds of assorted accountants and tax attorneys looking to parlay the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentive program into millions of dollars. The possibility of funding 20 percent of rehabilitation costs with federal dollars has whetted the appetites of the gentrifiers/developers who are in the process of evicting hundreds of elderly and disabled Section 8 renters living in downtown buildings.

But it was not just Detroit and federal agencies that contributed to the corporate coffers. The role of the State of Michigan was pivotal to the Detroit bankruptcy on multiple levels. It was Governor Rick Snyder who conspired with law firm Jones Day and Kevyn Orr to declare the city in “financial emergency” and appoint Orr with the prearranged plan to impose bankruptcy, void contracts and loot the city’s assets.

Not as well publicized was the fact that the “tipping point” in Detroit’s cash flow crisis was reached when Michigan’s annual state revenue sharing was cut by $67 million per year. Author of the Demos report, Walter Turbeville, explains the mechanics in “The Detroit Bankruptcy.” It was in two stages, and part of the cut followed declining populations, but “$42.8 millions (64 percent of the total state cuts) were at the discretion of the state legislature.

“By cutting revenue-sharing with the city, the state effectively reduced its own budget challenges on the backs of the taxpayers of Detroit (and other cities). These cuts account for nearly a third of the city’s revenue losses between FY 2011 and FY 2012.” Turbeville, a former Goldman Sachs accountant, concludes, “Thus, the state was an active player in the events leading to the cash flow crisis.”

Put more bluntly, Governor Rick Snyder and the state legislature—with the full support of both Republicans and Democrats—pulled the plug on Detroit, suffering in the aftershock of the Great Recession of 2008.

Yet while depriving Detroit, as well as other Michigan municipalities, of desperately needed revenues, the State of Michigan was spending—as it has done annually—a staggering $6.65 billion on business incentives.
Michigan: More megadeals than any other state


According to the Good Jobs First report, Michigan—possibly the hardest hit state of the “Rust Belt”—has offered more large government-funded subsidies to corporations than any other in the nation. It identifies 29 megadeals involving awards higher than $75 million.

The New York Times series “United States of Subsidies” by Louise Story points out that 30 cents out of every dollar in Michigan’s budget goes to this type of “corporate welfare” at the direct expense of support to education, infrastructure and municipalities.

The lion’s share of these gifts went to the Big Three automakers, now expecting to post all-time record profits in 2013, above the already banner year of 2012 at $12.3 billion. General Motors (whose government bailout is now estimated to have cost taxpayers $10 billion) was the top beneficiary receiving $3.3 billion in aid, according to the Center for Automotive Research. The New York Times puts Ford at $1.58 billion and Chrysler at $1.4 billion. Overall national incentives for automakers since 1985 are pegged at an astronomical $13.9 billion. It should be noted that whether Democrats or Republicans were in power, the process escalated.

Among others, Story conducted more than two dozen in-depth interviews with former GM officials and tax consultants to prepare “United States of Subsidies.” She pointed to the role of Argonaut Realty, the automaker’s real estate division, in conducting the shakedown of local governments across the US. GM enlisted their tax managers, charities’ accountants and union representatives alongside plant managers and executives in a combination of threats and negotiations to rein in the biggest tax boondoggles. “For towns, it became a game of survival,” notes Story.

The procedure is classic: cities and states are pitted against each other in a reverse auction. Often even the scenario presented was a fraud, perpetrated by the transnational company seeking higher profits. One example in the GM saga was the company’s demand for tax cuts in Moraine, Ohio. GM told the city that Moraine was competing with Shreveport, Louisiana and Linden, New Jersey to maintain an auto plant. After the Moraine school board caved and accepted the property tax cuts to education funding, it was discovered that the other towns had not been in discussion with GM.

This is a national scourge. As the stakes for jobs has intensified, states are creating more and more incentives. In 2010 alone, 40 new types of tax credits were created or expanded. Oklahoma and West Virginia give up amounts equal to about one-third of their budgets, Maine about one-fifth. Texas awards $19 billion a year and Alaska, West Virginia and Nebraska give up the most per resident, according to the Times.

Because no national database of corporate incentives exists, Story and Good Jobs First had to conduct months-long investigations to uncover the myriad layers of giveaways by thousands of government agencies and officials.
$80 billion annually funneled to big business

The Times uncovered a staggering $80 billion annually donated by states, counties and cities to business. And it cautioned that the actual cost of awards is certainly far higher. The report points to the wide range of corporate entities receiving money, including many among the world’s most profitable firms: Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Boeing, Airbus, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Walt Disney, ESPN, Sears, General Electric, Dow Chemical, Amazon, Apple, Intel and Samsung. Sixteen of the Fortune 50 are represented.

Dozens of officials at large corporations who were questioned by Louise Story justified the whipsawing of communities as “owing it to the shareholders to maximize profits,” she reported. Hallmark CEO Donald Hall Jr. said, “this use of incentives is really transferring money from education to businesses.”


It is also no accident how difficult it was assembling these statistics; the government accounting standards board has failed to regulate the accounting of tax-based economic development expenditures. There is, furthermore, very little oversight once grants are issued. For the most part, no one tracks the “effectiveness” of job retention as a result of giveaways.

A poignant Metro Detroit example is the famed Ford Willow Run plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan, designed by Albert Kahn and used to build bombers in World War II. After the war, it became Kaiser Motors and then was taken over by General Motors, which expanded the facility into a complex. Over the years, the small outlying town of Ypsilanti granted more than $200 million in incentives to the facility.

Doug Winters, the city’s attorney, explained to the Times reporter, “They had put basically a stranglehold on the entire state of Michigan and other places across the country by just grabbing these tax abatements by the billions. They were doing it with a very thinly disguised threat that if you don’t give us these tax abatements, then we’ll have to go somewhere else.”

After the company closed the first plant, the city sued, but was unsuccessful. The judge said that a company’s job assurances “cannot be evidence of a promise.” In 2010 the company closed the remaining factory and Winters sued again. The claim has now been relegated to the corporate books of the defunct “bad GM.”

Referring to General Motors, Winters told Story, “We’re their own private ATM. When they need money, they come begging, but when they don’t want oversight, they say ‘get out of the way.’”

Like payoffs to the Mafia consigliere, there is no respite for states, counties, school districts or municipalities. Ford and GM are now slated to receive federal tax credits for making more fuel-efficient vehicles… worth $50 million, an event celebrated by Michigan Democratic Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. Republican Governor of Michigan Rick Snyder recently announced a state grant of $2.5 million for infrastructure improvements for Hyundai’s Superior Township technical center in Metro Detroit. The GM plant in the small enclave of Detroit, Hamtramck, is asking for $1.8 million in order to make critical investments in their operations.

It goes on and on. The substantial New York Times exposé demonstrates the proliferation of this “beggar-thy-neighbor” policy in the false hope of local officials maintaining economically viable communities. As a result, hundreds of school districts are in financial emergency, teachers and staffs are subjected to pay cuts and layoffs, recreation centers are closed and city infrastructure is allowed to rot.
Municipalities are systematically being bankrupted as a greater and greater portion of social wealth is diverted to the profits of their resident corporations.

The extent of corporate blackmail nationally demonstrates that the looting of Detroit is just the beginning. Here is a glimpse of the national picture:

*Walmart, the world’s most profitable corporation, receives $1.2 billion in taxpayer assistance.

*Alcoa receives a 30-year discounted electricity deal worth $5.6 billion.

*Sasol natural gas could receive as much as $21 billion on investment subsidies.

*Boeing’s tax breaks and subsidies are estimated at $3.2 billion.

*Nike’s 30-year single sales factor tax commitment nets it $2.02 billion.

*Intel’s property tax abatement for a computer chip plant means $2 billion in benefits.

*Cheniere Energy of Louisiana will retain $1.69 billion in earnings due to subsidies for the Sabine Pass natural gas liquefaction plant.

*Google’s North Carolina deal received $254,700,000 (for 210 jobs).

*Apple’s North Carolina negotiations yielded $320,700,000 (for 50 jobs).

*Goldman Sachs moved operations from Manhattan to Jersey City, New Jersey and netted $164 million in tax incentives.

What was once considered extortion or bribery has become a normal business model. The blood and sweat of the working class demands nationalization of the ill-gotten gains of the parasitic financial elite and the establishment of a society where jobs, housing, education, pensions, and culture are considered basic rights for all of society.

To counter the government/corporate conspiracy being prepared and to fight back, the Socialist Equality Party has organized a Workers Inquiry into the Bankruptcy of Detroit. We call on all workers, pensioners, students and youth to attend this important event February 15.


________________________________________

Let's look at what the citizens have working against them on this issue. First, we have an EPA under Obama that is worse than Bush in working for corporations and profit and against actual science and public interest. Across the country Obama's EPA is granting passes on projects with the worst of records. So, getting EPA approval under Obama is a joke.

Then, let's look at the fact that citizens in Baltimore found that the monitoring of toxic exposure by the developer was faulty....it was not operating correctly from the start. WHAT KIND OF RED FLAG IS THAT? We already know we cannot trust the data being given us on the safety of this project. Next, we look at the fact that sea level is going to rise over 12 inches in 20 years and we see that sea walls will be needed and even that will not guarantee wash of contaminents into surrounding water.

MD has some of the worst environmental conditions from neglected oversight of former corporate tenents and we are now being told----relax, we will have the best oversight-----OH, REALLY?

Lastly, we have yet to go to court over racketeering charges on the tax break for Exelon. Since this is indeed illegal and should stop that anchor business....why would any other actions in the project be legally done?


**********

Harbor Point a model for brownfield revitalization [Commentary]
Despite community concerns, the approach to the Baltimore site has been among the best in the nation


By Evans Paull

3:28 p.m. EST, February 27, 2014 Baltimore Sun

Cities around the world are working to revitalize brownfield sites — areas where redevelopment or reuse may be complicated by some kind of contaminant — particularly in former waterfront industrial zones, where there is often the greatest opportunity to remake the city's image. Just as Baltimore has succeeded in redeveloping industrial sites from Canton to the Inner Harbor to Locust Point, decades of experience across America have created a base of knowledge that is allowing many such projects to move ahead safely, attracting residents and business back to our urban core.

Those of us who have been in the brownfields trenches for 15 or more years see the Harbor Point redevelopment as an example of the best brownfields and smart growth practices, developed through the carefully prescribed progression of site assessments, cleanup and redevelopment construction methods that eliminate exposure pathways. The cleanup objective was always to get beyond a fenced­off lot and redevelop the site as a prominent and extraordinary asset to the city and the neighborhood.

The community will gain many advantages from redevelopment, but one worth emphasizing in the context of protecting public health is "site cap redundancy." The current cap is fully protective to residents, business occupants and neighbors; the new buildings and garages will be added over the top of the cap, in effect, providing an extra layer of protection.

As to the other benefits of redevelopment, let us recount: a mixed-use walkable community, reinforcing state and regional smart growth objectives; 9.5 acres of public open space including a new 5-acre waterfront park; continuation of Baltimore's No. 1 amenity, its waterfront promenade; and a jewel of a site to market to out-of-town businesses that might be looking for that one site that combines water views, a cool creative community, and walking distance to the East Coast's most complete set of urban amenities. With Exelon, a leading national energy company, as its core tenant, Harbor Point will undoubtedly gain national recognition as a model for redevelopment and reuse.

For perspective, many urban waterfronts are impacted by more heavily-contaminated sites than the former Allied site. Waterfronts and ports in Portland, Tacoma, Glen Cove (New York), Brooklyn, Queens, Seattle, Buffalo, Toledo and right here in Maryland on the Anacostia, are all dealing with Superfund sites that need to be remediated. Impacted sites often sit idle for decades while EPA battles multiple responsible parties and tries to come up with acceptable cleanup and funding plans.

Many of these other cities have long-term visions that have yet to be realized. In Tacoma, Wash., cleaning up the Thea Foss Waterway was such an important objective that the city participated in a $106 million cleanup agreement that included a $56 million contribution from the city's Surface Water Tax. By comparison, the cleanup of the Honeywell site in Baltimore was much more cooperative, straightforward, and certain. Throughout the process, Allied and then Honeywell cooperated with regulators as the sole responsible party; there have been no lawsuits holding up cleanup and no public funding.

Finally, the questions that have been raised in relation to protection of public health boil down to this: is there any reason to believe that the regulators are not doing their jobs? Certainly, most people who attended Baltimore City Councilman James Kraft's public meeting last fall came away with a favorable impression that the regulators are fully in charge and acting in the best interest of the public. They have every motivation to get this right: They are bound by law to protect public health and the environment. Their worst mistake would be to ignore a public health risk that might come back to haunt them, especially on a site with this kind of prominence.

Regulators tend to practice the brownfields version of defensive medicine — let's order one more test, just to make sure. This is an extra expense to developers but one they willingly accept because they, too, do not want to cut any corners in an environment where successful marketing of the property depends on complete confidence in the measures taken to protect public health.

Harbor Point is on the verge of completing the long process needed to move forward and transform this barren former manufacturing facility into Baltimore's newest live-work-play waterfront gem.

___________________________________________________

Do you know that property tax is about the only tax left corporations pay and that MD has a structural budget deficit created from all of these corporate tax breaks and corporate tax evasion? MD and Baltimore especially has mortgaged the future of the public for decades all under the guise of development when all that is public is given for global corporations moving into the city.

We do not want an economy driven by global corporations! They take control of all that is public policy----SOUND FAMILIAR?----they suck all public revenue to their own profits-----SOUND FAMILIAR?-----and they seek to impoverish and eliminate all labor and justice law on the books. STOP THE JOBS MANTRA WHEN JOBS DO NOT APPEAR AND WHEN THE WORK IS IMPOVERISHING.

The question is why did the companies creating the environmental damage not pay for the cleanup? Who did that and let's go after them now to do it. We saw a deal with Sparrow's Point Steel Mill that shows just that same thing....tons of environmental damage and a bankruptcy that will let the damage stay with the public. THIS IS PUBLIC POLICY BACKED BY NEO-LIBERALS. DEMOCRATS WOULD NOT DO THIS.

As Rawlings-Blake knows the Amazon Warehouse will become one of the most highly automated warehouses in the country. The number of jobs will fall dramatically in just years. So, we will have a huge business paying almost no taxes using tons of city services.

I am not against the Amazon warehouse coming to Baltimore. I am against making yet another corporate welfare case.....and all involved with O'Malley and Rawlings-Blake are corporate welfare. THIS IS WHY BALTIMORE/MARYLAND CITIZENS ARE SOAKED IN TAXES, FEES, AND FINED UP THE YING-YANG!


IF YOU WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE JOBS O'MALLEY AND RAWLINGS-BLAKE.......REBUILD PUBLIC JUSTICE AND OVERSIGHT AGENCIES AND DECLARE A WAR ON CORPORATE FRAUD AND GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION.


**********

Bigger tax breaks sought for industrial sites in Southeast Baltimore
Rawlings-Blake administration to propose legislation Monday

By Natalie Sherman and Luke Broadwater, The Baltimore Sun

11:30 p.m. EST, February 27, 2014

The Rawlings-Blake administration plans to propose bigger property tax breaks for industrial properties in Southeast Baltimore — including the site of a new Amazon warehouse — to bring more jobs to the area.

A new "focus area," which must be approved by the state, would give property owners a 10-year 80 percent property tax credit on value added by physical improvements. It also boosts the credits granted for wages paid to new employees and offers breaks for investments in "personal property," such as machinery.

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said the legislation is intended to spur development of the "many industrial properties that continue to remain underdeveloped and underutilized."

"I don't think a week goes by where someone doesn't say to us, 'I need help with getting a job,'" Rawlings-Blake said. "We're using economic development tools when we need them to get the results we need."

The proposed focus area contains properties already located in the city's 14,000-acre Enterprise Zone, where they are eligible for some degree of tax relief. The city already operates three focus areas, including properties in Station North and the site of the new Horseshoe Baltimore Casino.

The properties in the new targeted area include the location of the future Amazon warehouse and two operations that are set to close: the Sun Products plant and Mars distribution center.

The resolution to create the new area will be introduced at Monday's City Council meeting, officials said. The city must submit its application to the state by April 15. Baltimore Development Corp. President Brenda McKenzie said the city does not have an estimate for what the program could cost the city in lost tax revenue.

"We won't know until the investment has been done," she said.

The new credits are designed to enhance what is offered in Enterprise Zones. Under that program, the property tax credit phases out over 10 years, falling from 80 percent in the first five years to 30 percent in the last year. The Enterprise Zone also includes one or three-year credits for wages paid to new employees, usually a one-time credit of $1,000 per worker that would jump to $1,500 in the focus area.

Jon Laria, a managing partner at the Baltimore office of law firm Ballard Spahr who chairs the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission, said creating "creative and aggressive" tax incentive programs are essential to helping Baltimore attract business, given the city's high property tax rate.

"Credits that lower the tax burden for a period of time really make a difference in terms of our ability to attract business and compete," he said. "Everybody wins when these things happen. We bring residents or we bring businesses or we bring economic investment."

Amazon, which was already due to receive more than $43 million in state and city incentives for its new distribution center, did not respond to requests for comment.

Gregory Hummel, a Chicago-based partner at the Bryan Cave law firm who spoke in November at a session on tax incentives organized by the Baltimore Efficiency and Economy Foundation, said creating a focus area around the Amazon site could be an effort to jump-start creation of a "supplier campus" that would feed off the new center.

"I've seen that work," he said. "It's rarely city-wide because in order to achieve clustering you need some density of development."

Greg LeRoy of the Washington-based research center Good Jobs First, said property taxes can often be a company's largest tax.

"If the city feels like that's the meaningful variable and those reductions would improve the [return on investment] and reduce the risk perception of an investor, it could be meaningful," he said. "The tension there obviously is: Are you paying a company to do something they would have done otherwise?"

Many of the properties have been underutilized for years. In 2011, the Pulaski Limited Partnership, of which Willard Hackerman was the principal, proposed a big-box store, warehouses or a combination of the two for the Pulaski Incinerator site. The BDC sought development for the former Ainsworth paint plant at 3200 E. Biddle St. before demolishing the plant in 2012.

City Councilman Brandon Scott, whose district encompasses much of the proposed new focus area, said he believes the incentives are needed.

"This is great because this is an example of focusing on old-school Baltimore, old-school industrial areas. It's focusing on the areas that have blue-collar jobs," he said. "It's supporting industries that typically don't get that kind of support."

The properties involved, many of them clustered around rail lines rather than highways, have been tough to develop, with obstacles that in some cases go beyond high property taxes, said Chris Ryer, director of the Southeast Community Development Corp.

Still, he said, it could help.

"These are very difficult sites," he said. "It couldn't hurt."


________________________________

Below you see a community that has been the strongest activist group for their community yet. We thank these committed community activists for shouting out against what will be a horrible corporate big box blow to the community. This group has been after this for years and each time City Hall moves with WalMart in making this development work.

Small businesses will be killed and choice gone with these development decisions. Baltimore development is completely geared to big business and they write the public policy. WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE SURE THAT THE NEXT ELECTION FOR MAYOR AND CITY HALL IS ABOUT RUNNING AND VOTING FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE AND SHAKE THESE NEO-LIBERALS OUT OF THE RUG!


After developer fails to post notice, 25th St. Station meeting rescheduled

Wal-Mart-anchored project runs into timeline trouble

Fern Shen February 19, 2014 at 10:29 pm Story Link 12

The Board of Municipal Zoning Appeals had been scheduled Tuesday to consider a request by the developer of 25th Street Station for an extension of the deadline for submitting a detailed time schedule for the project.

But during the past few days, residents who live near the proposed North Baltimore shopping center peppered BMZA executive director David C. Tanner with emails asking why notice of the meeting had not been posted at the site, as required by city charter, 21 days before the meeting.

Today, Tanner told The Brew that the matter will now be heard a month later – at the March 25th meeting – and that the proper notice will be posted.

“We are not in agreement that it is necessary for this on-going matter, but the developer has agreed voluntarily to comply and to post this,” Tanner told The Brew by phone.

Some matters to be discussed on Mar. 11

Attorney Jon M. Laria, who represents the development team, had been furious at the November Planning Commission meeting, when a lawyer representing the Remington Neighborhood Alliance rose to say the developers had missed the deadline in 2012.

If that were the case, attorney J. Carroll Holzer had argued, the Planning Commission’s approval at that meeting of the Planned Unit Development for the project would be invalid.

Laria had disagreed about having missed the deadline, but since then has submitted a written request to the Board to grant an extension.

Tanner said the BMZA had also been scheduled on Tuesday to discuss other matters involving the 25th St. Station project.

Residents have appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to approve design revisions to the project’s Planned Unit Development as a “minor amendment.” They have also objected to the Planning Department’s handling of subdivision plan filings.

“The Board has to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction over these actions,” Tanner said, noting that the question now will be taken up at the BMZA’s Mar. 11 meeting.

UPDATED with this from Jon Laria:

“We were really disappointed by the mischaracterizations in your 2/19 piece. It’s just factually wrong to say “After developer fails to post…”. We were never advised of a February 25 hearing date so there was no “failure” to do anything. While we don’t agree that posting is required under the law for this type of BMZA action, we nonetheless volunteered to post the property because we have come to expect the ultra-litigious in the community to raise this and any other issue they can think of to obstruct progress without regard to merits. So, we pre-emptively agreed to post 21 days in advance of the Board’s hearing, as if this were a conventional zoning appeal, and that necessarily takes us to the March 25 hearing.

Perhaps those who have filed a negative appeal to the BMZA should be required to post the property at their expense, so the hundreds of community members who support the project and greater City shopping options would have adequate notice of these ongoing obstructionist actions by their neighbors?”


__________________________________________________

Below you see that development from the wealthy business parks in Enterprise Zones to all of what Baltimore HUD is doing all works against the people it pretends to help. The middle/working class are being shafted by having to be the source of all revenue as corporations pay nothing.....the same group are having to fight to have their communities developed as they want and ignored, and as this article shows.....the poor are getting the biggest shaft of all. The working class and poor are being zoned right out of the city.

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley plans to run for President in 2016 with a history of building this system of fraud and corruption.

The problem is systemic collapse of all oversight and accountability not only in Baltimore, but in Maryland. This fraud and corruption is state-wide and it happens because public justice has been dismantled and regulatory and oversight agencies are packed with people told to look the other way.

We have organizations and people dedicated to helping people and using funds wisely, but we know that much of the money funneled through these programs are lost to fraud and corruption and that places the good guys in unwanted spotlight. We can be sure given the number of times fraud and corruption has been exposed in Baltimore that this case will prove more of the same.

Maryland is one of the richest states in the country so this is not a problem with funding....it is a problem of Rule of Law and holding government and corporations accountable.....something the rich do not want. WE CAN CHANGE THIS BUT WE HAVE TO STOP ALLOWING CRONY POLITICAL MACHINES SEND IN THE SAME KINDS OF PEOPLE. RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL PRIMARIES.....REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT!


Cindy Walsh is running as the labor and justice candidate for Governor of Maryland.....see my website Citizens Oversight Maryland.com




Baltimore BrewBaltimore Brew - News and Views in Baltimore

Mayor and homeless providers praise grants faulted by HUD
Rawlings-Blake mounts defense of city's use of federal homeless funds, saying no fraud or abuse was uncovered


Mark Reutter February 26, 2014 at 8:53 pm Story Link 5
cicely franklin

“I’m proud of the work that we’ve accomplished with these funds,” Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said today, introducing three homeless providers and two formerly homeless people who praised the embattled city program required to return nearly $4 million in federal funds.

At a City Hall press conference, the mayor framed the issue as a matter of not having “proper documentation” for $9.5 million in federal stimulus grants awarded to the city in 2009 to help the homeless.

Yesterday, it was disclosed by The Sun and The Brew that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is requiring the city to reimburse $3.76 million in grant money.

The Brew has obtained a copy of HUD’s order. So far, neither HUD nor the mayor’s office has released the document, which details the city’s failure to keep track of expenses by homeless providers and to vouch for the eligibility of clients.

“HUD is not alleging any fraud or abuse,” the mayor said at the media event. “Nor are they questioning our commitment for serving our homeless individuals.”

The mayor insisted that the city “did spend these funds helping the homeless,” but “we found it difficult to provide the proper guidance to our allies,” meaning the groups who handed out the funds.

The HUD investigation reported a complete absence of documentation of $393,000 by the now-defunct Prisoner’s Aid Association and $336,000 by the Public Justice Center.
Mayor Rawlings-Blake said she was proud of the work accomplished with the federal stimulus funds. (Photo by Mark Reutter)

Mayor Rawlings-Blake said she was proud of the work accomplished with the stimulus funds. (Photo by Mark Reutter)

The agency faulted eight other providers with deficiencies in record-keeping, which the providers argued resulted from the city’s failure to tell them what documentation was needed.

The mayor today conceded that point by saying, “We found it difficult to provide the proper guidance to our allies [the providers].”

She went on to criticize the federal government for dispensing the stimulus funds far too quickly, calling the process “like building an airplane while you were flying.”

Grantees Praise Their Work

Three homeless providers said the program was of great help to the homeless. John Schiavone, president and CEO of St. Vincent de Paul, said the federal funds helped his group find housing for over 115 families.

Cecily Franklin was presented as one of the recipients. “Programs like this take place and really help you,” she said. “I had to come to the shelter to stay for six months. I wasn’t working. Thankfully, I have since attained employment and am still at that same job and it’s been two years.

“My children are fine and in school. They helped me pay for my home for six months, which was great and it helped me to get on my feet.”

Of the $980,409 in stimulus funds awarded to St. Vincent de Paul, the HUD report says it will require repayment of $466,912 for undocumented financial assistance to homeless clients, $33,242 for an ineligible cost billed under “services,” and $23,075 for not properly documented administrative costs.

Spokesmen for two other homeless providers spoke of the benefits of the program today – Adam Schneider of Health Care for the Homeless and Bill McCarthy, executive director of Associated Catholic Charities.

Both groups were reviewed by HUD and were given a clean bill of health.

Asking for Repayment is “Atrocious”

Without his organization’s stimulus grant of $1,042,000, McCarthy said that some 116 homeless families would probably not have been housed during the Great Recession.

“Remember that we were in crisis – a crisis in humanity and a crisis in our economy at the time these dollars were issued to be deployed,” he said.

“The fact that in hindsight, through an audit, that documentation wasn’t in place for some of the families and individuals that were housed really misses the point. And the fact that the city would be asked to repay $3.7 million of funds that were properly deployed to house homeless people is just atrocious.

“This money,” McCarthy continued, “could be used to continue the great work that the mayor and my colleagues and partners are doing in order to end homelessness in Baltimore.”
0 Comments

October 28th, 2013

10/28/2013

0 Comments

 
PLEASE LISTEN HOW NEO-LIBERAL LEADERS ARE PRETENDING TO BE FORCED INTO 'REFORMING' ENTITLEMENTS AND SOCIAL SECURITY AND THINK ABOUT HOW THEY ARE USING ISSUES TO SELL WHAT WE ALL KNOW IS A BAD DEAL FOR ALL AMERICANS.

The young are being told it is the baby boomers soaking all the Trusts......the middle-class are being told it is the poor that are causing their rates to go up in order to insure the poor---who are getting almost nothing for the insuring......the unions are seeing their union plans take a hit as another way to make the unions look useless to workers.



Now that the ACA is rolling out people are beginning to see the effects of this reform on their ability to access care.  They may not have been able to access these health system websites but they are reading social media and research that shouts out what is being seen.  REMEMBER, THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS A MIRROR IMAGE OF BANK REFORM FROM BILL CLINTON----IT IS ONLY ABOUT CONSOLIDATION THE HEALTH INDUSTRY INTO GLOBAL SYSTEMS LIKE THE FINANCIAL SECTOR AND WALL STREET TO MAXIMIZE CORPORATE PROFIT.  As with all global businesses they will prey on the poor, sick, and elderly, not care for them.

This is what we are seeing: 

The Bronze Plans that will be what 80% of Americans will sign to because the costs are too great are said to have more in them but the costs of premium will be all most people will be able to afford as co-pays and deductibles are prohibitive.  70% of health care costs adds up to a substantial bill and we know each health incident can be tens of thousands.

The idea was to get people out of emergency rooms and private offices so health profits can increase and indeed, that is what is happening.  Hospitals will now transport a patient to a facility that handles what insurance level you can afford and that may mean no quality care or specialist.  I told the story of the MedStar in my neighborhood setting a severely broken bone and ankle sprain without ever taking an XRAY because they thought the patient was uninsured.  The patient was told to go elsewhere for followup.  MedStar is listed as a non-profit paying no taxes even as it now has a for-profit structure.  This is the kind of health care that is given in third world clinics and it often leaves that patient with permanent physical challenges just to save the cost of an XRAY. 

This is the level of coverage most people will have as they choose not to go to the hospital because the deductibles are so high.  AS YOU CAN READ FROM THE RESEARCH, THE PEOPLE MOST AFFECTED NEGATIVELY IN COST WILL BE THOSE WITH CATASTROPHIC PLANS -----GENERALLY THE YOUNG WHO DON'T EXPECT HEALTH PROBLEMS AND THE CHRONICALLY ILL WHO WILL FALL INTO THESE HIGH-DEDUCTIBLES/CO-PAY CATEGORIES.  Hey-----they said the insurance company would offer the insurance plan for pre-existing conditions----they didn't say anyone would be able to afford to seek care!

The Silver and Gold Plans increase the premium for lower co-pays so all around the idea was to limit the most costly patients by making access too expensive.  If you can pay $600-800 a month for health insurance you will get what Americans have gotten for several decades.  THE POINT BEING THE COST IS TOO HIGH AND THIS REFORM NOT ONLY DOES NOT ADDRESS THIS BUT MAKES COSTS HIGHER.

Look at Medicare to see a continuing problem for seniors.  Medigap vs Medicare Advantage.  If you didn't know better would you think Medicare Advantage is closest to Medicare?  OF COURSE YOU WOULD!  Yet, Medicare Advantage is the private health insurance.  Now, if you wanted to get people off a public plan and into yours what would you do?  GIVE THEM A SWEETENER LIKE A CREDIT CARD GIVES A LOW INTEREST RATE UNTIL IT SOARS!  That is what Advantage is all about and it does it because of what you see below----if you sign up for Medigap and then leave it to go to Advantage you will not be able to come back to Medigap because of 'pre-existing' health restrictions. NOTICE THE REFORM DID NOT REMOVE THIS PRE-EXISTING HEALTH RESTRICTION AND THIS IS THE AGE THESE CONDITIONS SOAR.  So, many people leave Medigap to Advantage for a sweetener and then find they are stuck with this private plan that then acts like a credit card in soaking you for cost!  THEY ARE DELIBERATELY LURING PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC PLAN AND LEAVING THEM NO WAY TO GET BACK.  Keep in mind that the deductible is already 80% and these few years the cuts to Medicare has raised co-pays and deductibles. They are doing the same to entitlements as they remove the health protection in old age for those not able to pay higher premiums-----MAXIMIZING PROFITS ON THE BACK OF SENIORS AND WORKING CLASS AND POOR.  Remember who paid all the payroll taxes that fund the Trusts for just this?  THESE SAME PEOPLE NOW NOT ACCESSING THE CARE!


For those thinking that democrats tried to end Advantage or other things like public option----look at your own state to see what they did with their health systems----private systems that maximize profit in all neo-liberal states.


“More of the cost responsibility is being shifted to patients, and more to patients with serious chronic illness,” Mr. Mendelson said, noting that the silver plans, the second cheapest, are intended to cover only about 70 percent of a patient’s medical costs.

News Analysis ‘Affordable Care’ or a Rip-Off?

Tim Lahan By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL Published: September 28, 2013

IT is no wonder the Obama administration branded its signature health care legislation the Affordable Care Act. For many Americans the basic problem with medicine — health insurance and health care — is that it has simply become too expensive, especially in a sluggish economy.

As Americans begin signing up this week to buy insurance, they will begin to test the legislation’s tantalizing promise to make health financially viable. Will the policies deliver care at manageable prices, or will “affordable” seem like a hollow promotion?

That probably depends a lot on patients’ needs, where they live and — importantly — their preconceptions of what health insurance is supposed to do, experts say. The insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, will sell four different levels of plan — bronze, silver, gold and platinum — with the more expensive plans offering the most extensive benefits. And while premiums for the low-end plans may be relatively cheap, they still require significant out-of-pocket payments, in the form of co-payments and deductibles that could add up to more than $6,000 a year.

“The perception of cost will vary a lot,” said Dan Mendelson, the chief executive of the consulting firm Avalere Health and a former associate director for health at the federal Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. Mendelson predicted that the plans would be welcomed by people who had wanted to be insured but couldn’t obtain or afford insurance because of pre-existing conditions, for example, and for low-income earners who would qualify for heavy subsidies for premiums. “For some people it will be free, and that is a pretty good value,” he said.

But the required outlays might seem like a lot of cash to healthy families who previously did without insurance. And they could be downright shocking to patients who last had insurance a decade ago, when health plans tended to require little if any patient payments.

“More of the cost responsibility is being shifted to patients, and more to patients with serious chronic illness,” Mr. Mendelson said, noting that the silver plans, the second cheapest, are intended to cover only about 70 percent of a patient’s medical costs.
“This is different from the concept of insurance we’ve been carrying around for a long time. So people who sign up for insurance thinking all will be covered are in for some surprises.”

Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president for health initiatives at the Community Service Society of New York, says that — perceptions aside — the exchange plans she has vetted in New York State provide consumers a good deal. For a number of years, the group has operated a hot line to help patients troubleshoot their medical bills; 45 percent of callers are uninsured.

“The premium prices are reasonable — for some people we’re talking about as much as my cable bill,” she said. “Yes, there are high co-pays, but there’s also a cap,” she added. “We now have people come to us owing $50,000 or $150,000. So if the worst-case scenario is you pay $5,500, you won’t go bankrupt over that.”

Health experts also point out that the larger patient payments required under policies developed for the Affordable Care Act are increasingly a feature of private health care insurance as well.

“We are going through a period of revolution in what health insurance is, from more comprehensive to less comprehensive,” said Drew Altman, president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. In 2006, he said, only about half of employer-provided insurance plans had any deductibles; now 78 percent do.

Insurers impose co-payments and deductibles as an alternative to raising premiums, which are often more tightly regulated. But many health economists approve of the practice because even a small co-pay can push patients to price shop for cheaper care, studies show.

The goal of the new legislation is to make sure everyone has decent health insurance, but that ideal will come at a cost for many Americans. Even though the White House celebrated the fact that premiums released this week by the exchanges in 36 states proved lower than anticipated, those premiums vary tremendously depending on where you live, your age and which plan you choose. For example, the monthly premium for a low-end silver plan for a 40-year-old runs about $300 in many places, but as high as nearly $700 in parts of New York. And monthly premiums are more than $600 for 60-year-olds in some states, although a few states, like New York, charge the same rate regardless of age.

And perhaps more important, all of the plans have significant deductibles and co-payments. Silver plans often do not kick in until the patient has spent $2,000; many states require patients to cover 20 percent of hospital costs and some drugs — although that cost-sharing is capped at $6,350 per individual, or $12,700 per family, and effectively less for low-income patients.

The Affordable Care Act also includes tens of millions of dollars in spending for patient navigators, who will help patients choose the plan that best suits their needs, and their pocketbooks.

Still, a $2,000 deductible is high compared with plans provided by employers, where the average annual deductible is $1,135, Dr. Altman said.

For those who balk at the new bills, it is useful to remember that those high co-payments are largely a function of the uniquely high price of medical services in the United States — everything from drugs to scans to operating room time.

In a country where even minor medical procedures cost two or three times more than elsewhere in the developed world, cost-sharing is far more likely to be a burden. A healthy 60-year-old in California with a chronic condition like asthma who needs little more than asthma medicine and an outpatient hernia operation could easily pay $7,000 in premiums plus a $2,250 deductible plus $3,000 for the 20 percent hospital co-pay. When my husband recently developed a blood clot in his leg after a bicycling injury, the generic heparin shots to treat the condition cost $1,400 at the pharmacy. Though the medicine is nothing new, our insurer considered it a specialty drug because of its price. Under some states’ silver plans, that would require a 50 percent, or $700, co-pay before getting this potentially lifesaving treatment.

Does that seem affordable, or not?

Elisabeth Rosenthal is a reporter for The New York Times who is writing a series about the cost of health care, “Paying Till It Hurts.”





______________________________________
Below you see groups in Maryland that are working for Universal Care because they know that most people will not be able to access health care and as Sharfstein, the Wall Street policy writer for Maryland states----it is simply about the insurance status.  This is to guarantee profits for hospitals that used to have to take everyone as a public service!

This hits the poor the hardest even as neo-liberals are trying to paint it as an aid to the poor---but it hits the middle-class as hard as they lose their private coverage and public plans are thrown into these systems!


Group marches for health care for all Participants rally to promote single-payer system


October 26, 2013|By Andrea K. Walker, The Baltimore Sun


The federal Affordable Care Act is expected to provide access to medical coverage to hundreds of thousands of Maryland's uninsured, but one group said that doesn't go far enough.

The group, Healthcare is a Human Right-Maryland, led a rally Saturday in Baltimore to push for single-payer coverage similar to that in countries such as Canada and Sweden, where the government runs most of the health system and there are no insurance companies.

The health reforms widely known as Obamacare require most people to get insurance. The uninsured will be able to buy from private insurers on a state exchange. Low-income people will qualify for plans under expanded Medicaid.

Healthcare is a Human Right-Maryland said that while health reform will expand coverage to many of Maryland's 800,000 uninsured, many people still won't qualify, including immigrants in the country illegally who can't get insurance under the law.

Others still won't be able to afford adequate coverage or coverage at all, members of the group say. Health reform creates a tiered system where people who have more money can buy better plans, the group said. For example, people who buy insurance on a state exchange in Maryland can choose between bronze, silver and gold plans. The bronze plans have less costly premiums but higher deductibles.

"Although the Affordable Care Act has helped some people get insurance, it doesn't solve the problem," said Roxanna Harlow, a member of the organization's Carroll County chapter.

Maryland Health Secretary Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein said he agrees that the ultimate goal is for everyone to be insured. But he said the access Marylanders will have to insurance under reform shouldn't be underestimated.

Obamacare will also create a system that focuses on preventive care and keeping people out of the hospital. This will help create a healthier population and curb health care costs, he said.

"I think we're engaged in the task at hand right now, which is making progress in the areas that we can," he said. "We can help a lot of people through what we're working on now," he said.

Harlow was one of many who shared their experiences of living without insurance during Saturday's rally. When she left a full-time job to start an education nonprofit, Harlow said, she didn't make enough to pay for insurance. Under Obamacare, she will qualify for Medicaid. But she said that is only because Maryland chose to expand Medicaid under reform. The law gives states the choice to opt out of Medicaid expansion, which many states chose to do. Because of this, many people will remain uninsured.

In addition to Medicaid expansion, federal subsidies will also be offered to help people who fall under certain incomes pay for insurance.

That won't help everyone, those at the rally said. They believe that under health reform, deductibles, co-pays and other out-of-pocket medical expenses will continue to keep health coverage out of reach for some. They also say people will still be in danger of falling into debt or medical bankruptcy because of health costs they can't afford.

Raquel Rojas Rojas knows what it's like to incur exorbitant medical fees. She didn't have health insurance when she recently contracted pneumonia and landed in the hospital for two days. It cost her $12,000, and she said she feels that she'll be paying that off for the rest of her life.

Rojas now has a job as a cook at a restaurant that provides health benefits, but she said she knows many others who don't have insurance and have gotten stuck with hefty medical bills.

"As someone who has been uninsured, I really understand the importance of fighting for this," she said.

Rojas and a large group marched from Highlandtown to the Canton waterfront and the offices of CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield.

Healthcare is a Human Right-Maryland believes that insurance companies such as CareFirst cause many of the problems with access to coverage. CareFirst officials could not be reached for comment Saturday.

Margaret Flowers was a pediatrician until 2007, when she said she became fed up with the insurance industry. She said insurers don't pay for much-needed tests and drugs. She also had a hard time getting paid for services, she said.

"The system is not about health," she said. "It is about profit. I decided I would quit and fight for health care."

Sergio Espana, the statewide organizer for Healthcare is a Human Right-Maryland, said he hopes the rally brings more attention to the need for a better health care system.

"What we have now is not enough," he said.



__________________________________________
Here is an example of where unions have compromised themselves.  They behave as corporations when they create things like insurance systems for their members and when they allow labor pensions be invested in projects or with financial vehicles that prey on people and their union members.  When I talk with Federal employees about fighting in courts the pension fraud they say we have 401Ks which are probably invested in corporations maximizing profits off of low wages and undocumented workers that are fleeced. 

Below we see the only way these health insurance corporations are made to pay for this health reform is through this individual tax on policies.  We all know that placing taxes on all industries is the only way to recover massive fraud so if you have a union as an insurance provider then that explains why it supported the ACA rather than Universal Care.  THESE CONFLICTS RUN THROUGHOUT UNIONS AND WE NEED TO REFORM THESE.

THIS IS WHAT CORRUPTS OUR LABOR MOVEMENT AND WE NEED UNIONS TO CLEAN SHOP AND RETURN TO THE WORK OF PROTECTING ALL LABOR!

The second issue is having the Republicans supporting issues that are democratic while the neo-liberals work to prey on people.  This is an example of how both parties are captured and they are simply playing good cop bad cop tag team.  NEO-CONS AND NEO-LIBERALS ARE BOTH WORKING FOR WEALTH AND PROFIT SO NEO-LIBERALS ARE KILLING ALL OF LABOR AND JUSTICE.

Don't allow neo-liberals to play these games.  Run and vote for labor and justice!



Here's a tax increase Republican lawmakers support

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER 4 hours ago



  • .
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans in Congress don't usually fight for tax increases, especially ones that are part of President Barack Obama's health care law.

But GOP senators balked when Democrats proposed delaying a new temporary fee on everyone covered by health insurance.

So employers, insurance companies and other health plan sponsors are in line to pay $63 a person next year for everyone who has coverage. The temporary fee covers all workers, spouses and dependents covered by health insurance.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., proposed delaying the fee in recent budget talks with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. McConnell and other Republican senators objected; the fee was left intact.

GOP senators complained the delay was basically a favor for labor unions, traditional Democratic allies that oppose the new fee.

"It's beyond ironic that the mantra from the president and the Democrats has been, 'There can't be any changes to Obamacare. After all, it's the law of the land,'" said Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. "And then big labor comes along and wants a change and, lo and behold, there's got to be a change."

But also opposing the fee are large employers, traditional Republican allies, even though in many cases the fee probably will be passed on to workers.

"It's a sizable expense. For some of my employers it's millions of dollars a year and we don't get anything from it," said Gretchen Young, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, a group that represents large employers on benefits issues. "It's definitely not solely a union issue."

View gallery."Graphic shows several examples of how health coverage might change for different people; 6c x 10 inc …Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said the proposed delay was meant to balance Republican demands for other changes to the health law. Republicans in Congress have been attacking the law since it was passed in 2010, and earlier this month, they forced a partial government shutdown over Obama's refusal to negotiate changes.

Cardin said he didn't want any changes in the law to be part of the deal for reopening the government and extending the country's ability to borrow. In the end, the only change was an income verification procedure for people applying for tax credits to help them purchase health insurance.

The temporary fee on people with health insurance is designed to raise $25 billion over the next three years.

The money will provide a cushion for insurers from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering previously uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden, effective Jan. 1, 2014, to turn away applicants who are ill.

Insurance companies hit by unexpectedly high costs for insuring people with medical conditions will be able to tap the fund, which will be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. The fund will mainly benefit companies participating in state-based health insurance exchanges.

The fee will total $12 billion in 2014, $8 billion in 2015 and $5 billion in 2016. That means the per-head assessment would be smaller each year, around $40 in 2015 instead of $63.

It is being assessed on all "major medical" insurance plans, including those provided by employers and those purchased individually by consumers. About 150 million workers, spouses and dependents are covered under employer-sponsored health plans.

Large employers will pay the fee directly. That's because major companies are usually self-insured, with the health insurance company that workers deal with basically acting as an agent administering the plan.

View gallery."Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, left, talks with Dr. Norma Parra, right, afte …Unions that operate multi-employer health plans also will pay the fee. More than 20 million union workers and family members are covered by such plans.

These unions and large employers argue that they shouldn't have to pay the fee because they won't benefit from the fund.

The AFL-CIO passed a resolution at its convention this year calling for the fee to be repealed. Large employers are fighting the fee, too. But, Young noted, the political atmosphere in Congress, especially when it comes to the health care law, will make it difficult to win any changes.

"The Affordable Care Act is now kind of a third rail," said Young, referring to the law's formal name. "If it wasn't before, it is even more so now."


_______________________________________________

With Medigap, once you sign up for a plan upon first joining Medicare, it can be hard to switch plans later because outside of when you first enroll, Medigap plans can turn you down or charge you extra if you have pre-existing conditions. (Note that this is not changing with the new health law, because the law does not apply to "supplemental" plans like Medigap.)



If you look more closely you will see that this Medicare Advantage is designed to get people out of the public plan and into the private one.  Even the name makes you believe it is the public one.  Look closely as this industry tries to lure you away from the public Medigap with sweeteners that will be offset by huge costs----which is the point.  When Obama and neo-liberals shouted that pre-existing conditions would be covered they failed to mention that Medigap -----the public supplement plan will not.


The Affordable Care Act is a disaster for health care access for most people and the pols pitching it are neo-liberals running as democrats.  RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE!

Is Medicare Advantage the same as Medigap?

October 15, 2013 8:30 PM





Q. Is Medicare Advantage the same as Medigap?

A. This is probably the most common question I get from people about Medicare. And it's especially common now, with Medicare open enrollment starting today and running through December 7. The answer: No. They are in no way, shape, or form the same thing, and confusing them can in some circumstances lead to tears.

Medigap plans, also called Medicare supplements, are a way for you to fill in some of the holes in Medicare Part A (hospitals) and Medicare Part B (doctors and other outpatient treatments). Those two together are often called "Original Medicare." In Original Medicare, your medical providers send bills for your care to the government, and the government pays, minus deductibles and coinsurance that you're responsible for paying out of your own pocket. Medigap plans cover all or most of those out-of-pocket costs, which can be substantial if you need a lot of health care. You can sign up for Medigap plans when you first enroll in Medicare. Here's our advice on how to find and price a Medigap plan.


Medicare Advantage plans are simply a different way for you to get your Medicare Part A and B benefits. Instead of getting them directly through Medicare, you get them instead through private insurance companies. You'll have a private insurance card, your providers will bill the insurance company, not Medicare, and if you owe anything out of pocket, the bill will come from the insurance company, not Medicare. To find a Medicare Advantage plan, use Medicare.gov's Medicare Plan Finder. Also check the rankings of Medicare Advantage plans from the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) on our website. Note that if you have Medicare Advantage you can not buy a Medigap plan to cover out-of-pocket expenses. In fact, if you have a Medicare Advantage plan, it is against the law for an insurance company to sell you a Medigap plan.


Health reform countdown: We are doing an article a day on the new health care law until Jan. 1, 2014, when it takes full effect. (Read the previous posts in the series.) To get health insurance advice tailored to your situation, use our Health Law Helper.

Here are some important things to know about Medicare Advantage vs. Medigap.

Enrollment: You can switch Medicare Advantage plans every year at open enrollment. With Medigap, once you sign up for a plan upupon first joining Medicare, it can be hard to switch plans later because outside of when you first enroll, Medigap plans can turn you down or charge you extra if you have pre-existing conditions. (Note that this is not changing with the new health law, because the law does not apply to "supplemental" plans like Medigap.)

Premiums: Medicare Advantage plans charge the same premium to everyone. Medigap premiums can vary greatly depending on the age at which you bought the plan, how long you have had it, and the state of your health.

Providers: Medicare Advantage plans cover care only from providers in their networks. If you go to an out-of-network provider, you can get stuck with a big bill, like the reader who once sent me an indignant email demanding to know why Medicare had stopped covering cataract surgery. It hadn't, of course; the reader had made the very expensive mistake of not realizing she had a network-restricted Medicare Advantage plan. If you stay in Original Medicare, you can go to any provider that accepts Medicare (which is practically all of them), and your Medigap plan will automatically pay all or most of whatever original Medicare did not, depending on the specific type of Medigap plan you hae.  

In the next few weeks we'll be discussing some of the ins and outs of Medicare Advantage and Medigap. Which you will never mix up again, right?

Got a question for our health insurance expert? Ask it here. It helps if you include the state you live in.


— Nancy Metcalf


__________________________________________







0 Comments

October 22nd, 2013

10/22/2013

0 Comments

 
TODAY'S BLOG WILL BE LONG BUT I THINK YOU WILL BE INTERESTED.  THOSE OF YOU NOT FROM BALTIMORE SHOULD KNOW THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING IN YOUR CITIES!

KNOW WHO IS GOING TO GET MASSIVE PROFITS FROM AN INFRASTRUCTURE STIMULUS FROM CONGRESS----$1 TRILLION IS THE SUGGESTION SO FAR.  See why US cities allowed the infrastructure to decline even as last decade profits for government soared! 

Hopkins was building its global corporate campus


For those that do not know that all that is development in Baltimore is Johns Hopkins then this blog will clear that up.  We need to be clear.....all these development decisions that most citizens in the city hate.....all of their tax revenue used to advance these development plans...ALL END UP IN MASSIVE PROFITS FOR JOHNS HOPKINS AND PLACES THE CITIZENS OF BALTIMORE IN THE HANDS OF THIS CORPORATION IN EVERY WAY.....WE WILL BE OWNED BY THE COMPANY STORE!

What we have here is a tangled web of investment that starts with the AIG involvement in the massive mortgage fraud that brought down the economy.  Now, AIG made hundreds of billions of dollars selling insurance CDS for toxic mortgage loans everyone knew were bad.  All these CDS centered in mostly this one insurance corporations because Wall Street needed the public to be forced to bail it out so all the banks would be paid 100% on the dollar for those bad loans.  So, massive amounts of profit for AIG in selling CDS for fraudulent loans and a complete bailout when co-conspirators declared it TOO BIG TO FAIL.  Below you see a spin-off of this fraud fueled AIG----Highstar Capital.  All of AIG's wealth was allowed to be dismantled and rebuild as separate corporations and Highstar Capital was one of them.  Why is this corporation of interest in Baltimore?  IT HAS AN INTIMATE CONNECTION WITH JOHNS HOPKINS THROUGH A CEO AS ALUMNI TO BOARD MEMBERSHIP -----THEY ARE DEEPLY CONNECTED.  If you look at AIG Highstar before the 2008 crash it was loaded with Ivy League university endowments that were soaring in profits from this massive fraud.  After the collapse and the independence of this corporation-----along come all that wealth to invest in future projects.

Now, the goal of the massive fraud was to cripple government at all levels with municipal debt.  They wanted to appear to force governments to privatize all that is public and in Maryland, Hopkins had their old friend and former mayor O'Malley in the governor's office.  If you look at what the Baltimore Development Corporation has done in partnerships and deals.....it is not to be overlooked that Highstar Capital has been given all of the deals involving the public sector assets in Baltimore.

No, I have already spoken about Hopkins' involvement in SAIC as a security corporation.  I have also alluded to Hopkins as MedStar partners expanding across America.



Medstar Health Corporate Office & Headquarters 5565 Sterrett Place,5th Fl. Columbia MD 21044


Now I am looking at something that will shock and awe as Hopkins becomes the investor to profit from the Port of Baltimore, Veola Energy, Advanced Disposal, and Talyst, a health biomedical corporation that sells Hopkins' research patents.

O'Malley and now Rawlings-Blake are committed to privatizing trash collection, transportation, water and sewage, and the Port and in each case Highstar owns the corporations linked to this privatization.  Keep in mind this is happening across America as these same corporations take public assets and services.  Remember, the endowments attached are Ivy League universities like Harvard in Boston, NYC, and Stanford in San Francisco.....remember Oakland, Calif as piloting the SAIC surveillance? 

So, it appears that these Ivy League schools are taking the money made by the AIG fraud and now are trying to own all public assets for massive profits.

VEOLA is one corporation of which I speak as privatizing public transportation.  It appears that VEOLA sold controlling interest in VEOLA ENERGY and WASTE to Highstar and in exchange they were given the rights to privatize public transportations in all the above cities.  That is why we see VEOLA taking MTA bus routes all over the state, disability transport, taxis, and BWI transport.  At the same time Highstar's ownership of the Energy and Waste division is giving them Baltimore's/Maryland's public  Waste Management Water Management business.  So, this is why we are now paying for trash pickup and seeing all these Board of Estimate awards that make no sense as they control the water infrastructure development.

Keep in mind that Highstar has connections with another AIG spinoff-----in Houston Texas with the natural gas/oil pipeline corporation Kinder Morgan.  See why Maryland will be a port for exporting natural gas?  They are involved in the pipelines down the mid-west from Canada.  Have you noticed we have been getting a lot of Texas consultants and businesses coming to Baltimore to do business?

The Port of Baltimore was given to this Highstar group by O'Malley.  They own all the Ports we hear in the news with striking labor unions-----we know how much Johns Hopkins hates unions and paying anything other than poverty wages.

It is important to see the future with this kind of private ownership of an entire city by one corporation----Johns Hopkins.  It is why we are flooded with quasi-governmental organizations, private non-profits all working to circumvent the government coffers and launder corporate money into public policy written by corporations in Baltimore.

WE CAN REVERSE THIS EASY-PEASY!!!!! JUST VOTE ALL HOPKINS NEO-LIBERALS OUT OF OFFICE.....ALL MARYLAND POLS ARE NEO-LIBERALS AND RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL ELECTIONS.      If you do not fight now this will become the Hopkins City State ruled by a global corporation that we know is not benevolent!!!


ARE ALL HOPKINS DOCTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS SHAREHOLDERS IN ALL THIS?  OF COURSE!!!!

AIG spin-out Highstar Capital looking at $2bn close for latest fund

AIG Highstar Capital

AIG Highstar, the New York-based private equity partnership with a focus on infrastructure-related businesses, has closed its latest fund, AIG Highstar Capital III, on $3.5bn.

Over 90 per cent of the fund’s capital commitments were sourced from non-AIG-affiliated investors, principally from a group of pension plans, endowments, financial institutions and family investment offices, according to a statement.



This table is intended to portray Highstar Capital PrivCo-covered market activity.

Click below for Deal Details and Private Company Reports.

DateTargetTarget IndustryDeal TypeTotal Deal AmountStatus


Nov. 2012Veolia ES Solid Waste Inc.Waste Management ServicesAcquisition
Add-On$1,909,000,000CompletedDetails

Jun. 2012Link_A_Media Devices CorporationMemory ChipsAcquisition$248,000,000CompletedDetails

Jun. 2009Xanodyne PharmaceuticalsPharmaceuticalsFunding$38,000,000
CompletedDetails

Jun. 2008InterGen N.V.Energy & Utilities (Traditional)Acquisition$1,100,000,000CompletedDetails

May. 2008Talyst, Inc.Health & Medical Software
Labels & Tags Manufacturing
Other Packaging & ContainersFunding$20,000,000CompletedDetails

Apr. 2008Link_A_Media Devices CorporationMemory ChipsFunding$22,000,000CompletedDetails

Apr. 2007AMPORTS, Inc.Marine TransportationAcquisition
Leveraged Buyout (LBO)UnspecifiedCompletedDetails

Jul. 2006Advanced Disposal Services Inc.Waste Management ServicesAcquisition$470,000,000Completed


________________________________________________
Lee is a Hopkins graduate but even more important is the Board membership between Hopkins the university and all of these investment arms.  The connection to Texas with another AIG spinoff has a trade in contracts and profit.

Christopher Lee Christopher H. Lee is the Founder and Managing Partner of Highstar Capital (Highstar)

, an independent, fourth generation fund manager with over five billion dollars of assets under management. Mr. Lee is a leader in infrastructure investments, with particular expertise in public private partnerships (PPP's). Since the 1980's Mr. Lee has worked on PPP's in Asia, Latin America and the United States. He has co-authored an Op Ed for Politico with Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley on Ports America's recent 50 year PPP in the Port of Baltimore and has appeared on CNBC's 'Street Signs'. Mr. Lee is a member of the Board of Trustees of The Johns Hopkins University where he graduated in 1974 with a BA in History. Sold!
www.southernstarcentralcorp.com, 11 July 2005 [cached]Commenting on the sale, AIG Highstar Capital Managing Director Christopher Lee stated, "Since our acquisition of the pipeline, AIG Highstar Capital and the Southern Star management team have established an independent brand for this company and significantly strengthened Southern Star's service, safety and customer focus. AIG buys port operations
www.waterindustry.com, 12 Dec 2006 [cached]"We have identified the marine terminals sector as a key element in our infrastructure investment strategy, and we believe that [P&O] is one of the leading operators in this sector in the United States," said Christopher Lee, AIG's managing director. AIG Global Investment Group ...
iwon.ccbn.com, 11 Dec 2006 [cached]AIG Global Investment Group Managing Director, Christopher Lee, stated, "AIG Global Investment Group and its affiliates have been a leader in acquiring strategic, regulated infrastructure businesses and assets.

**************************************************************
One does not have to imagine too long to see that this will be the vehicle to marketing Hopkins' health patents coming from research paid for by you and me!  It complements the DRONE business.


Talyst, Inc.
Private Company Ticker Symbol™: (TALYSTP) Next Actions on Talyst, Inc.:
 Business Summary Talyst, Inc. is a privately-held, venture capital backed healthcare solutions company engaged in providing easy-to-use, automated medication management systems that helps pharmacies manage the flow of medications in hospitals and clinics. Talyst automates the process of tracking drug inventory, package barcode store and filling prescriptions using smart management software and a touch-screen kiosk interface. Talyst was founded in 2002 and is based in Bellevue, Washington.



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

This is Hopkins' connection to exporting natural gas and oil from the mid-west pipeline. As you can see they are behind all that we environmentalists hate.....this while they call Baltimore the Sustainable City.

On August 28, 2006, Kinder Morgan

announced that it would be taken private in a management-led leveraged buyout totaling approximately $22 billion. Outside participants in the transaction include Fayez Sarofim, Goldman Sachs Capital Partners and Highstar Capital (then owned by American International Group).[3]

Kinder Morgan is the largest midstream and the third largest energy company (based on combined enterprise value) in North America. We own an interest in or operate approximately 80,000 miles of pipelines and 180 terminals. Our pipelines transport natural gas, refined petroleum products, crude oil, carbon dioxide (CO2) and more. We also store or handle a variety of products and materials at our terminals such as gasoline, jet fuel, ethanol, coal, petroleum coke and steel.

In most of our businesses we operate like a giant toll road and receive a fee for our services, generally avoiding commodity price risk. Our customers include major oil companies, energy producers and shippers, local distribution companies and businesses across many industries. We invest billions of dollars each year to build new energy infrastructure and expand existing assets, as well as on integrity management programs to operate our assets safely.

The Kinder Morgan family of companies has four publicly traded entities:
Kinder Morgan, Inc. (NYSE: KMI), Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (NYSE: KMP) (one of the largest publicly traded pipeline master limited partnerships in America), Kinder Morgan Management, LLC (NYSE: KMR) and El Paso Pipeline Partners (NYSE: EPB). Combined, the Kinder Morgan companies have an enterprise value of approximately $110 billion.


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


·  7/27/2012



Bought:  Star Atlantic Waste Holdings II bythe private equity firm Highstar Capital based in New York, also acquired Interstate Waste Services in 2006, according to Highstar spokeswoman Cassie Winn. After …

·  4/27/2007

AIG subsidiary buys Amports A subsidiary of AIG Highstar Capital has agreed to buy Amports Inc. from a private equity fund run by Lincolnshire Management Inc. Terms of the deal, involving Highstar Harbor Holdings II Inc …

·  8/25/2006

Solid waste company sold Private equity firm AIG Highstar Capital has closed on a $470 million deal to buy solid waste company Advanced Disposal Services Inc. Negotiations began in April, Advanced Disposal CEO Charles …

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. Key Developments Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. Announces Executive Changes Aug 24 12 Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. has announced its senior leadership team, effective when the company closes its acquisition of Veolia ES Solid Waste. Charles Appleby, president and CEO of Advanced Disposal, will be chairman and CEO. Richard Burke, Veolia president and CEO, will be president. Scott Friedlander, general counsel of Interstate Waste Services, will be general counsel.

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


Below you see an announcement about expanding the policy of handing public assets and services to corporations for profit.  Look at who thinks this is a win for Maryland.  Keep in mind the public is treated with distain and have to be dragged from public meetings trying to voice their opinions....


Ballard Spahr, Hines, KPMG, Skanska USA, Goldman Sachs

Ballard Spahr, Ballard Spahr is a national firm with more than 500 lawyers in 14 offices in the United States. 

Setting the standard in real estate the world over. Hines is a privately owned, international real estate firm that has provided the highest level of quality, service and value to its clients and investors for more than 50 years.

Skanska.comwww.skanska.com 
Global. Skanska is a world leading project development and construction group.


The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is an American multinational investment banking firm that engages in global investment banking, securities, investment ...
 
As principal of Apgar & Company, Inc. (ACI), I recently co-led the transformation of a local government agency to a private enterprise with a public purpose, ...



Notice that the people meeting with them are the governor of Pennsylvania and Anthony Brown in lieu of O'Malley.  Local government transposed to a private enterprise with purpose says Agbar.  It is clear they intend to make everything that is public private and those global players are on the boards and shareholders of all of the other global corporations. 

IT IS A VERY, VERY SMALL WORLD FOR PROFIT-MAKING WITH THESE PEOPLE!


Maryland’s New P3 Legislation Maryland’s New Public-Private Partnerships Legislation


Maryland’s newly passed P3 Legislation sets the stage for Public-Private Partnerships to increase investment in the state. This is the best and first
chance to hear about Maryland’s new P3 law from people who know what this means for Maryland’s economy. The panel, moderated by Ballard Spahr, includes leaders from the public and private sectors with extensive P3 experience in commercial
and institutional development, as well as infrastructure projects. Keynote speakers include Maryland’s Lt. Governor Anthony Brown and former Pennsylvania
Governor Ed Rendell. Plan to join us on May 9 at the BWI Hilton. We will be announcing the panel in
the near future, so check baltimore.uli.org for details and updates. Featured Speakers:

· Maryland Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown
· Ben Stutz, State of Maryland
· Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell

Moderator: Brian Walsh, Ballard Spahr
· Chuck Watters, Hines
· Andy Garbutt, KPMG
· Leif Dormsjo. Acting Deputy Secretary, MDOT
· Chris Guthkeltch, Skanska USA
· Tom Rousakis, Goldman Sachs

Master of Ceremonies:
· Sandy Apgar, Apgar Company

_______________________________________________
 


Highstar Capital Agrees to Buy Veolia Unit for $1.9 Billion ...
www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-19/highstar-capital...   Cached [Jul 19, 2012]
 
Highstar Capital, a U.S. infrastructure fund, agreed to buy Veolia Environnement SA’s U.S. waste-management business for about $1.9 billion.~

Highstar Capital Agrees to Buy Veolia Unit for $1.9 Billion

 By Jeffrey McCracken & Sonja Elmquist - Jul 19, 2012 3:07 AM ET Stock Chart for Veolia Environnement SA (VIE) Highstar Capital, a U.S. infrastructure fund, agreed to buy Veolia Environnement SA (VIE)’s U.S. waste-management business for about $1.9 billion.

The transaction will cut Veolia’s net debt by $1.8 billion, the Paris-based world’s biggest water company said today in a statement. After the deal it will have completed 60 percent of its 5 billion euro ($6.1 billion) divestment plan, it said.

Enlarge image Highstar Capital Agrees to Buy Veolia Unit for $1.9 Billion Veolia via Bloomberg

Veolia ES Solid Waste Inc . has more than 300 locations that provide hazardous and non-hazardous waste management and industrial cleaning services, the company said on its website.

Veolia ES Solid Waste Inc . has more than 300 locations that provide hazardous and non-hazardous waste management and industrial cleaning services, the company said on its website. Source: Veolia via Bloomberg

Highstar, the infrastructure-focused private equity firm once affiliated with American International Group Inc. (AIG), beat bids from buyout firm Madison Dearborn Partners LLC and Brazilian conglomerate Estre Ambiental SA, said people familiar with the matter prior to the announcement.

Veolia is shedding the unit as it tries to cut debt by 20 percent to 12 billion euros by the end of next year. Chief Executive Officer Antoine Frerot said last month he wants to focus on “promising” countries and will pursue asset sales in the U.S. and U.K.

“The transformation of Veolia is progressing as planned,” Frerot said in the statement.

Veolia shares rose as much as 4 percent to 9.58 euros in Paris. The shares traded at 9.50 euros at 9:04 a.m. local time.

Cost Cuts Veolia plans to cut operating costs by 120 million euros in 2013 and narrow its geographic reach. On June 28, Veolia sold its U.K. regulated-water business to Infracapital Partners for 1.2 billion pounds ($1.9 billion).

The deal “will create a strong company with compelling growth prospects,” Highstar Capital Founder and Managing Partner Christopher Lee said in a separate statement. Highstar’s U.S. waste business will operate in 20 states with annual revenue of about $1.4 billion, it said.

Veolia ES Solid Waste Inc. has more than 300 locations that provide hazardous and non-hazardous waste management and industrial cleaning services, the company said on its website.

Highstar already operates U.S. waste management businesses Advanced Disposal Services Inc. and Interstate Waste Services Inc, according to the New York-based company’s website.

Deutsche Bank AG and Macquarie Group Ltd. advised Highstar on
0 Comments

September 12th, 2013

9/12/2013

0 Comments

 
As you listen to all of the revisionism of the financial collapse in 2008 at the same time we are memorializing 9-11, take time to see how the two are tied to each other.  Jihadists attacked Wall Street because they see US markets as evil and dangerous.  Several years later we have the economic crash and see that Wall Street is evil and dangerous!

PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THESE NEO-LIBERALS TO REVISE WHAT HAPPENED AS THEY TRY TO SKIRT THE TRUTH AS TO HOW CRIMINAL THE US FINANCIAL SYSTEM IS AND HOW TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FRAUD NEED TO COME BACK TO GOVERNMENT COFFERS AND INDIVIDUALS!



Regarding a revisionist look at the 2008 financial collapse:

I think anyone left listening to NPR/Marketplace on WYPR knows what was presented was propaganda and not journalism so I will just give snippets that show most of what was presented was untrue. We do want to thank public media journalists before the 2010 corporate takeover of public media for their professional and accurate journalism. We know they did so knowing their jobs may be in peril. Professionalism requires commitment to integrity and honesty and those journalists pre-2010 had just that!

In a Peabody Award winning program, NPR correspondents argued that a "Giant Pool of Money" (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) sought higher yields than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds early in the decade. This pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand with products such as the mortgage-backed security and the collateralized debt obligation that were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies.[59]

As we all know, this mortgage fraud was conceived at the same time Clinton and his Administrative team, Larry Summers and Robert Rubin were breaking the Glass Steagall wall and this fraud had as its goal the movement of massive amounts of wealth to the top earners through fraud. A goal was to clear the poor and working class from urban centers where Master Plans across the country set affluent development and blowing up the FHA with debt as Wall Street wanted control of all mortgage business.

For anyone not believing when this collapse happened that the entire massive fraud was not planned, there is no doubt today. As the current report on NPR pointed out.....every single bank had credit default swaps (insurance) for all of these mortgage investments with AIG. It is ironic that the 9-11 memory falls at the same time as the anniversary of the 2008 collapse. The jihadist attacked Wall Street for the very reasons that brought the economic collapse just years later!

Five years from the collapse we have the same conditions as existed then....no financial reform, 600 trillion dollars in derivative leverage......little capitalization and an economy ready to collapse this time with bond debt. Again, this collapse will be fueled by fraud as all of the municipal bond/sovereign debt that has happened these several years happened through public malfeasance in collusion with Wall Street just as with the pensions thrown into the stock market in 2007 as the market crashed. Loading municipalities with debt so the next economic collapse created by the bond bubble would move more public assets to the top earners. This is a second phase of wealth redistribution to the top. As everyone in Maryland knows, O'Malley and Rawlings-Blake have leveraged the state and city with so much bond debt that when this crash happens next year.....and it will be much bigger than the 2008 crash....there will be no Federal rescue. Don't worry for the banks.....they already have their credit default swaps for bond investments!

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE YET TO RECOVER TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FINANCIAL FRAUD FROM THE PAST DECADE. REMEMBER, WHEN RULE OF LAW IS SUSPENDED....SO IS STATUTES OF LIMITATION.

Why do you think Maryland is still listed as the state still having mortgage foreclosures? We were ground zero for the mortgage fraud with MERS operating from the Washington beltway. Gansler gave what was the parking ticket settlement of $1 billion to the state fund so O'Malley could claim he balanced the budget (O'Malley used huge cuts in Medicaid to do the same----what a guy...he did that for families!) The money that should have gone to communities and people effected by the fraud went to developers to pad the cost of building new and affluent homes. Baltimore now has such high homelessness, crime, and poverty because in part  politicians have refused to demand justice for the citizens of Baltimore and Maryland. Almost nothing has been done to mitigate the damages of job loss and personal savings lost from the massive mortgage fraud in Maryland. We will bring the corporate fraud back as we rebuild the public justice system state by state!

Below you see some articles that completely negate the report just given by NPR/Marketplace. There have been no real stress tests....there is no real bank capitalization.....none of the financial reform has been enacted and most has been watered away.....the banks are as leveraged and bigger than before.....AND THEY ARE STILL COMMITTING FRAUD EVERY DAY WITH NO JUSTICE!



Class Dunce Passes Fed’s Stress Test Without a Sweat.

Bank Stress Tests Viewed As Fed Deception By Critics

Posted on March 19, 2012 in Bank Lending, Banking News

Every banker knows that public confidence in the banking industry is essential.

With the banking industry approaching a near meltdown last year, the Federal Reserve decided to conduct a series of “stress tests” on the country’s largest banks in order to restore confidence in the banking system. After reviewing the results of the stress tests, many critics now say that the tests were a deception by the Federal Reserve designed to deceive the public into believing that the banking system is sound when, in fact, it is not.

Gary Shilling, who remains bearish on housing and the economy, argues that the fundamentals for the banking industry remain weak in
Bank Stress Tests Don’t End The Pain.

The business climate for major banks around the world has changed remarkably in just four years. Decades ago, they set off on a huge leveraging spree. Then, starting in 2007, many institutions holding bad private and sovereign assets had to be bailed out by central banks and governments to prevent a collapse of the global financial system.

Even with help from the release of reserves for bad loans, U.S. banks’ return on equity was 6.8 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with 15 percent in the pre-crisis salad days. Return on assets, which skips leverage, is 0.76 percent, down from 1.4 percent.

Banks will also be faced with low returns on their basic business as slow economic growth, falling house prices, small returns on stocks, low interest rates and a flat yield curve persist in the remaining five to seven years of global deleveraging that I foresee. Consumer loans will be repaid on balance, and record nonfinancial corporate liquidity and slow economic growth will continue to curb borrowing and mergers-and- acquisitions activity. Then there are the huge counterparty risks on derivatives and potential large further write downs of troubled assets.


Do current prices reflect the continuing deleveraging of banks, persistent slow loan growth, further write-offs of bad real estate and other assets, compressed interest-rate margins, increased capital requirements and increasingly stringent regulation? I’m not convinced they do.  NO!

Jonathan Weil argues in a Bloomberg article that Fed testing of regulatory capital has no connection to reality when it comes to big banks surviving another financial crisis since banks that failed or needed huge bailouts during the crash of 2008 were classified at the time as “well capitalized” by regulators.  Weil goes on to describe the Fed stress tests as a “joke” when they tested Regions Financial Corp which still hasn’t paid back TARP money and has a negative tangible common equity of $525 million


_________________________________________________

1000x Systemic Leverage: $600 Trillion In Gross Derivatives "Backed" By $600 Billion In Collateral

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/24/2012 10:07 -0400

There is much debate whether when it comes to the total notional size of outstanding derivatives, it is the gross notional that matters (roughly $600 trillion), or the amount which takes out biletaral netting and other offsetting positions (much lower). We explained previously how gross is irrelevant... until it is, i.e. until there is a breach in the counterparty chain and suddenly all net becomes gross (as in the case of the Lehman bankruptcy), such as during a financial crisis, i.e., the only time when gross derivative exposure becomes material (er, by definition). But a bigger question is what is the actual collateral backing this gargantuan market which is about 10 times greater than the world's combined GDP, because as the "derivative" name implies all this exposure is backed on some dedicated, real assets, somewhere. Luckily, the IMF recently released a discussion note titled "Shadow Banking: Economics and Policy" where quietly hidden in one of the appendices it answers precisely this critical question.
The bottom line: $600 trillion in gross notional derivatives backed by a tiny $600 billion in real assets: a whopping 0.1% margin requirement! Surely nothing can possibly go wrong with this amount of unprecedented 1000x systemic leverage.
__________________________________________________


Keep in mind that US bank capital was as high as 70% before the Reagan/Clinton bank deregulation started and most financial experts wanted financial reform to have it restored to around 40%.  Neo-liberals moved it from what was 2% at the time of the 2008 crash to what you see below. I think these numbers are high. Needless to say.....this does nothing for bank health.

Bank capitalization means how much physical assets does a bank have to back loans and credit.  As we saw with the article above on the amount of leverage now....your neo-liberal and Obama found it hard to just raise the requirement to 9-10%.   This is what causes the need to bailout these banks....they  bet $600 trillion with just a few hundred billion of capital.

US Bank Capitalization

                                 2008       09         10         11          12
United States          9.3      10.9       11.1       11.2       11.3


__________________________________________________

Giant Banks Now 30% Bigger than When Dodd-Frank Financial “Reform” Law Was Passed
Posted on April 17, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog

Size of Banks Killing Economy … But Giant Banks Have Only Gotten Bigger Since Financial “Reform” Enacted


For years, many high-level economists and financial experts have said that – unless we break up the giant banks – our economy will never recover, real reform will be blocked, and democracy and the rule of law will be corrupted.

So how did the government respond to the financial crisis which started in 2007?

Let the giant banks get even bigger.

As Bloomberg notes, the five banks that held assets equal to 43% of the US economy in 2007 before the financial crisis and the bank bailout now control assets that equal 56% of the US economy:

Two years after President Barack Obama vowed to eliminate the danger of financial institutions becoming “too big to fail,” the nation’s largest banks are bigger than they were before the credit crisis.



Five banks – JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. — held $8.5 trillion in assets at the end of 2011, equal to 56 percent of the U.S. economy, according to the Federal Reserve.

Five years earlier, before the financial crisis, the largest banks’ assets amounted to 43 percent of U.S. output. The Big Five today are about twice as large as they were a decade ago relative to the economy, sparking concern that trouble at a major bank would rock the financial system and force the government to step in as it did during the 2008 crunch.

“Market participants believe that nothing has changed, that too-big-to-fail is fully intact,” said Gary Stern, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

That specter is eroding faith in Obama’s pledge that taxpayer-funded bailouts are a thing of the past. It is also exposing him to criticism from Federal Reserve officials, Republicans and Occupy Wall Street supporters, who see the concentration of bank power as a threat to economic stability.

***

The industry’s evolution defies the president’s January 2010 call to “prevent the further consolidation of our financial system.” Embracing new limits on banks’ trading operations, Obama said then that taxpayers wouldn’t be well “served by a financial system that comprises just a few massive firms.”

Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, blames a “lack of leadership at Treasury and the White House” for the failure to fulfill that promise. “It’d be safer to break them up,” he said.

***

Regulatory burden could promote further industry consolidation, according to Wilbur Ross, chairman of WL Ross & Co., a private-equity firm.

“We think the little tiny banks, the 90-odd percent of banks that are under $1.5 billion in deposits, are pretty much an obsolete phenomenon,” he told Bloomberg Television on March 14. “We think they’ll all have to merge with each other, be acquired by bigger banks or something.”

***

In 2011, funding costs for banks with more than $10 billion in assets were about one-third less than for the smallest banks, according to the FDIC.

Some presidents of regional Federal Reserve banks have lambasted too big to fail. As Bloomberg notes:

In recent weeks, at least four current Fed presidents — Esther George of Kansas City, Charles Plosser of Philadelphia, Jeffrey Lacker of Richmond and Richard Fisher of Dallas — have voiced similar worries about the risk of a renewed crisis.

But the most powerful Fed bank – the New York Fed – and Bernanke’s Federal Open Market Committee, as well as Tim Geithner’s Treasury Department, have done everything possible to ensure that the the giant banks become too bigger to fail.



_____________________________________________

As those getting their news other than WYPR/NPR/Marketplace know.....the Fed policy and a bond bill written by Obama and neo-liberals in Congress is blowing up the bond market. THIS IS DELIBERATE....REMEMEBER, THE EUROPEAN DEBT IS SO BAD BECAUSE GOLDMAN SACHS AND DEUTSCHE BANK COLLUDED WITH FINANCIAL MINISTERS TO HIDE SOVEREIGN DEBT SO MORE AND MORE DEBT COULD BE TAKEN ON, JUST AS IS HAPPENING IN THE US TODAY!

Dennis Slothower – the financial analyst responsible for 2011's "Letter of the Year" according to MarketWatch.com - now warns...

Why Stocks Could Collapse...
Beginning as Soon as September 30th!

The Fed has propped up the equity markets for months...
but that could soon come to a disastrous end!

According to Marketwatch.com, Dennis Slothower is the guru behind “The investment letter that evaded the 2008 crash...(and) is now the top performer." -- Marketwatch.com, October 6, 2011

Right now, Dennis is issuing another dire warning.

His technical indicators suggest that the market manipulation we’ve seen over the last several months is about to come to an end.

And with very real threats to this artificially inflated market coming from a potential U.S. debt downgrade...for the possibility of a European collapse...and a sluggish U.S. economy - the bottom could fall out of the U.S. stock market at any time.

This correction could begin as soon as September 30th – so it’s important that you take action now to prepare yourself.

______________________________________________




Whiteout Press Independent News for independent thinkers and independent voters!

November 30, 2011  Special thanks to Bloomberg Marketplace for their detailed reporting.

$700 Billion Bank Bailout was Secretly $7 Trillion November 30, 2011. Washington.

In 2008, President Bush, Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke crafted a bank bailout program they termed TARP or the Toxic Asset Relief Program. It was created in the middle of the night, over a weekend, because if they didn’t act by Monday they said, there wouldn’t be an America anymore. With confusion and fear in his eyes, President Bush handed the reins of power to the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. And instead of limiting himself to the $700 billion Congress grudgingly approved, Hank Paulson printed $7 trillion dollars, funneled it through the Federal Reserve and handed it over to the world’s biggest banks with no strings attached and in total secrecy.

Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO and architect of the bank bailouts

While watching Whiteout Press’ favorite morning business show, 'In Business with Margaret Brennan' on Bloomberg TV, the show was interrupted by a startling announcement. Bloomberg investigators had uncovered details that the most powerful men in Washington and New York were desperate to keep secret. In fact, Bloomberg had to sue the Federal government for access to the events of 2009 and 2010 regarding the US bank bailout. The Federal Reserve however, insisted all details of the largest bank bailout in the history of the world had to be kept completely secret from the American people.

The government fought releasing the secret details all the way the US Supreme Court. Earlier this year, Bloomberg won their lawsuit. Treasury and the FED weren’t going to surrender to the American people that easy however. The FED turned over 29,000 documents and details of 21,000 transactions made during the time period covered by TARP and the nation’s bank bailout. Attempting to handcuff Bloomberg investigators with an avalanche of documentation, imagine their surprise when Margaret Brennan’s show was interrupted yesterday with the unbelievable news that the bank bailout American’s were led to believe was only $700 billion, was actually $7.77 trillion. According to the NY Fed, the total amount of US currency in circulation in the entire world at the time was only $829 billion.

While the events are difficult to follow for anyone who’s not familiar with the strange way America’s banking and economic system works, not to mention all the government and Wall Street secrecy, here’s a novice’s view of what happened during the panicked early days of America’s economic collapse. When the $700 billion bank bailout authorized by Congress wasn’t going to be anywhere near enough to save banks like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup and Bank of America, Ben Bernanke and the FED opened up the nation’s discount borrowing window – to the tune of $7.77 trillion dollars.


Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) could do a much better job of explaining the almost criminal nature of the FED than this Whiteout Press author ever could. With his pledge to abolish the FED, Rep Paul might explain – imagine you Joe Citizen walk into your city hall and ask for a $10 billion dollar loan at zero percent interest. They give you, and only you, that loan because you’re ‘special’. You then loan that $10 billion out to others at 5, 10 or 20 percent yearly interest for things like homes, which are guaranteed by the taxpayers, so there’s no risk of nonpayment. When that $15 or $20 billion is paid back to you, you pay back the FED the original $10 billion and keep the rest.

Instead of loaning that $7.77 trillion to the American people as the American government intended, banks throughout the world took advantage of the US taxpayer and used that money to secretly cover massive losses the banks were suffering from their stupidly investing in their own worthless financial instruments – instruments the banks knew were worthless and doomed to fail. Like a modern day shell game, trillions of dollars floated from one banking institution to another, appearing to fill all balance sheet holes everywhere. Not all the banks used the money to fill holes however. Some used it to make massive profits.

The Bloomberg reporting revealed banks like Barclays, Banco Santander and BNP Parabas made a fortune on the US taxpayer program. Barclays turned their money into a $26.7 billion profit. Banco Santander profited $29.2 billion and BNP Parabas made $17.1 billion.

They weren’t alone. According to Bloomberg’s data, 97 different financial institutions around the globe turned their ‘discount window’ into profits during the two years of the financial crisis. The most suspicious part – the US government insisted on keeping every single transaction a secret. In one day alone at the end of 2008, the Federal Reserve gave out $1.2 trillion dollars to banks – the most on any day before or since.

For those who remember, Bank of America was accused of using its funds not to bailout underwater homeowners, but instead to purchase a bank in China. Bank of America made a profit of $14.2 billion using their ‘special’ discount borrowing privilege. Bank of America wasn’t the only player in the middle of the US financial collapse that made massive profits off the US taxpayer. Wells Fargo made $12.1 billion. JP Morgan made $13.8 billion, Goldman Sachs made $12.7 billion, American Express made $1.4 billion, Discover made $1.4 billion, US Bancorp profited $7.2 billion, HSBC made $11.6 billion, PNC Financial $1.4 billion, Lloyds made $9.6 billion and the list goes on and on.

Not all the banks that made massive profits off the US taxpayers during the peak of the financial crisis were well-known American brands. Foreign banks also made billions in profits, including the National Australia Bank, Bank of Toronto, Mitsubishi, Skandinavista, Chang Hwa, the Israel Discount Bank and dozens more.



Not all banks used the US taxpayers to make billions in extra profits. Some banks tried, and lost.

Among the banks that lost money on the secret loan program were Citigroup, losing $29.3 billion, Royal Bank of Scotland lost $45.3 billion, Credit Suisse lost $4.1 billion, Deutsche Bank lost $433 million, Fifth Third lost $1 billion, Wachovia lost $31.6 billion, Merrill Lynch lost $35.9 billion, Arab Banking lost $77 million, Allied Irish Banks lost $3.4 billion, Morgan Stanley lost $3 billion, Industrial Bank of Korea lost $559 million and the list goes on and on.

Readers can take their pick regarding which aspect of this story to be most angry about. Some will be outraged that for-profit banks are taking advantage of the US taxpayer and making billions in free money. Others will be angry that based on the above list, it appears the US taxpayer is also guaranteeing the profits of foreign banks all over the world. And some will be outraged by the fact that the entire story was kept secret from not only the American people, but also their representative in Congress and even officials at the FED.

Bloomberg asked one longtime critic of giant banks, Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), to comment. “When you see the dollars the banks got, it’s hard to make the case these were successful institutions,” she says, “This is an issue that can unite the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. There are lawmakers in both parties who would change their votes now.”

Bloomberg also quotes other individuals who should have been aware of what was going on, but weren’t. Gary H. Stern, Minneapolis FED Chairman at the time, insists he, “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), member of the House Financial Services Committee, says, “TARP at least had some strings attached. With the Fed programs, there was nothing.”

Misleading Shareholders

With hindsight being 20/20, Bloomberg looked at some of the biggest emergency borrowers and compared their financial situation with the outlook and forecasts made by the bank’s CEO’s to their shareholders. One such example is Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America. On November 26, 2008 he informed shareholders that BofA was, “one of the strongest and most stable major banks in the world.” We’ll let you the reader decide - Bank of America owed the US government a staggering $86 billion on that day.


Another example is JP Morgan Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon. On March 26, 2010, he reassured his shareholders that JP Morgan didn’t need a bailout and only participated in the program in the beginning, “at the request of the Federal Reserve to help motivate others to use the system.” In reality, JP Morgan was still taking advantage of the emergency program and owed the US government $48 billion dollars more than a year after the program began.

As far as the American people go, the two Representatives of theirs in Congress that should have been made aware of what was going on, weren’t. Both the Republican and Democratic overseers of the massive bank bailout, Rep. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), both confirmed to Bloomberg they were kept in the dark.

“We were aware emergency efforts were going on” Frank said, “We didn’t know the specifics.” Congressman Frank announced his retirement earlier this week. Rep. Judd Gregg simply responded, “We didn’t know the specifics.” Former Congressman Judd Gregg is now employed by Goldman Sachs.

What’s Changed

Most Americans couldn’t explain how banks function or how the bank bailout worked if their lives depended on it. But most assume the US taxpayer loaned billions to banks to save the industry and avoid economic collapse, rampant unemployment and a housing crash. But if one were to take a step back and look at the new landscape, a new picture emerges of what the bank bailout was really about. In the five years from before the crisis in 2006 to after the crisis in 2011, the six largest US banks increased their assets, or money and property they own, from $6.8 trillion dollars to $9.5 trillion.

Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher summed up the thoughts of many when he called that fact, “un-American”.




0 Comments

August 06th, 2013

8/6/2013

0 Comments

 
The group also recommends that CSX voluntarily track air pollutants, warning that the project could increase pollutant levels above those considered dangerous by the World Health Organization.


A group that suggests voluntary tracking by a corporation is a group working for the corporation!  We need consumer/public advocates taking the lead in all this.  So, how does building a facility that the WHO considers emitting dangerous levels of pollutants right on the Chesapeake's edge meet the Sustainability Maryland pledge of O'Malley and Rawlings-Blake?  Oh, that's right, sustainability is only future campaign headlines.  If you tried, the only way to be less sustainable would be to build on Harbor Point.  These two corporate pols are on a roll!  As a country do we really want larger terminals to handle import/export or do we want domestic consumers with middle-class incomes as the consumers right here in America....producing and consuming?  THAT'S THE QUESTION AND ANSWER. 
We need to look at CSX and its business practices.  I attended a community meeting on public playgrounds built on CSX property.  CSX was partnered with Baltimore Development in turning playgrounds into parks so as to dissuade/gentrify communities with lack of access to playgrounds.  I also deal with property owned by CSX that has no upkeep..we constantly have to complain for attention.  Not so good! 

As this article makes clear CSX is not working with the communities; it is developing a plan and O'Malley and Rawlings-Blake is simply pushing what they are told.  We need to know as well that CSX is partnered in MARC train.....taxpayer money subsidizing corporate profits.  We know for example that tracks from the DC beltway to Baltimore County lack maintenance and fail code causing loss of life and property damage time and again.  CSX is waiting for taxpayers to pay for their infrastructure upgrades and could care less about safety they say!  Train derailments caused by bad switches and trucks crashing into trains because of unmarked crossings...that is not a good corporate partner!

Why would one make a harbor at the tip of the largest inland bay a huge port in an already stressed Chesapeake Bay?  Is that really good public policy?  Of course not.  It is only happening because the 1% of Maryland see Maryland as a player in the world economy.  Empty airport concourses for International flights?  So what.....we are going to be a global player if Americans want it or not!  AMERICANS DO NOT WANT IT FOR THE RECORD!  What we are seeing is a complete disregard for environment and social justice in the name of profit as this article does elude to.  People's health will be impacted so the very least we should be hearing of lucrative buyouts of all homes in the area.


Study finds planned CSX transfer station could have negative impact Intermodal project welcomed by some; feared by others


krector@baltsun.com

The study's findings will be presented at a Morrell Park Community Association meeting Tuesday night, and Morley said the organization hopes CSX will consider its recommendations as the company moves forward with the project.

Among the recommendations: Establish a plan to deal with the large number of rats expected to be displaced from the Mount Clare yard, limit the hours of operation, and work with local schools and homeowners to mitigate environmental problems, such as increased emissions from trucks.

The group also recommends that CSX voluntarily track air pollutants, warning that the project could increase pollutant levels above those considered dangerous by the World Health Organization.

Tazelaar said project planners are already devising ways to mitigate pollution. Truck companies are being encouraged to upgrade fleets with cleaner vehicles. Electric cranes will be used at the site instead of diesel cranes. The maximum number of truck trips will be restricted, and officials are looking to minimize truck traffic on residential streets, he said.

He said more changes are being considered, including landscaping to provide a buffer from nearby homes, and others are likely to be discussed with more public input.

"We're going to encourage economic development, but we're not going to do it without the public's input or at an extreme cost to the public," he said of the project.

Air quality is particularly worrisome in Morrell Park because residents who live in many of the homes surrounding the intermodal site are already disproportionately unhealthy compared to others in the state and city, with higher death rates from heart disease and chronic lower-respiratory diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, the study found.

The average age of residents is higher than in some city neighborhoods, the study found, making them more susceptible to pollution.

Douglas Sanders, who turns 75 this week, lives on Harman Avenue in a small home that backs up to the train tracks. Inside, his walls are lined with carpet to keep out the noise, but he's used to the clattering of the trains anyway, he said.

"I come from the old school in West Virginia. You really don't care as long as nobody comes on your property," he said of the rail yard behind him.

He shrugged at warnings of potential health impacts, noting he's survived a triple-bypass surgery and several other ailments over the years, including having twice been shot.

His neighbor John Stinchcomb, 72, also said he doesn't mind the noise. He spent 32 years living in a home that backed up to train tracks in Pigtown and has been in his home that backs up to the tracks in Morrell Park for 12, he said.

"It don't bother me," he said. "We kind of like sitting watching" the trains pass by, he said.

Still, other residents, like Weishorn, fear the intermodal facility will make their neighborhood unbearable. She loves her home and how quickly she can zip down Washington Boulevard to her work in Harbor East, she said, but she doesn't feel that her concerns are being addressed.

"While this isn't a palace to some people, it is my palace, and I have a lot of concerns," Weishorn said of her home. "I know this neighborhood isn't, you know, Howard County, with $500,000 houses, but it's a community."
___________________________________________________
Baltimore has VEOLA ENERGY ........everything you need to privatize all public services!!!!!!


Commenters from Indianapolis......SOUND FAMILIAR?


  • OUTRAGEOUS VEOLIA Stephen BolenJuly 13, 2011 8:24 PMHOW CAN THEY POSSIBLY LET THIS INEFFICIENT COMPANY RAISE OUR WATER RATES STILL FURTHER? THAT SHOWS A COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE CUSTOMER WHO IS ALREADY HARD PRESSED TO PAY EXISTING VEOLIA RATES. WHERE IS THE MAYOR IS ALL OF THIS?? Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Be careful what you read Chelsey the MayorOctober 19, 2009 10:35 PMShouldn't the City have found an independent consultant? A consultant that is not attempting to buy the water utility to do the study? What is the saying, The Fox is in the Hen House? Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Actually WatchdogOctober 18, 2009 11:40 PMIf you look at this, there is no problem on the Veolia side of things. They don't own anything. They operate it. The Department of Waterworks hasn't done anything for seven years. They're the ones who need the rate increase...veolia is paid a flat fee regardless of what happens in the economy.

    The bond holders could back the bonds...it just was all tied up in variable rates.

    check your facts before you reply next time how 'bout. Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Who Is Minding The Store Vox PopuliOctober 17, 2009 8:44 PMSo in short, we sold a city owned entity financed by a bad bond deal to a company that can't manage that resource and now they want more money by way of another rate increase. Why wasn't the Veolia contract structured such that the city could take back that asset if Veolia couldn't manage the resource? Why isn't the Bond Bank on the hook for choosing a bond company that can't guarantee the bonds?

Consultant: Indianapolis water utility lax in overseeing Veolia
Chris O'Malley
October 17, 2009  Indiana Business Journal

A consultant’s report filed as part of a water rate case takes the city’s Department of Waterworks to task for lax oversight of the French company that operates the city’s water utility.

The city too often relied on the Department of Waterworks’ board, on consultants and on the private operator, Veolia Water, rather than on the department’s own staff “to ensure safe and efficient operation, maintenance and management” of Indianapolis Water.

That’s one of several critical findings of a consultant hired by the department and filed as part of a 35-percent rate-hike request pending before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

The proposed rate hike, which would fund $111 million in capital improvements, is on top of an 11-percent emergency rate hike the commission approved earlier this year. In the emergency case, ratepayers are being tapped to pay more than $25 million in additional debt-servicing costs stemming from the utility’s inordinate amount of variable-rate bond debt.

While past practices of the Indianapolis Bond Bank drew much of the blame for the bond fiasco, the waterworks department and its board are squarely at issue in the latest rate case.

The department, which owns the city water system and supervises Veolia, filed the critical assessments as it tries to convince skeptical regulators it is working under new leadership to fix a flawed institutional structure.

“The Department understands that the commission is concerned about its supervision of Veolia and its ability to ‘stand up’ on behalf of ratepayers,” wrote Matthew T. Klein, whom the city tapped to take over the Department of Waterworks last March. Klein is the former head of enforcement at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

Klein took over from James Steele, a consultant who was interim head of the department following the departure of longtime waterworks head Carlton Curry, in late 2007.

The city under former Mayor Bart Peterson acquired Indianapolis Water from NiSource, the Merrillville-based gas and electric utility, in 2002. Veolia was hired to operate it under a 20-year, $1 billion contract.

Problems from start

“In general, the management structure of the department was not fully developed following the city’s acquisition,” said Alan Ispass, an executive of Englewood, Colo.-based utility consulting firm CH2M Hill, in testimony filed with the IURC.

“Thus, although the department took ownership of the physical waterworks assets, it never developed an internal institutional structure sufficient to maintain direct accountability for the management, financial and technical capacity that is essential for long-term ownership and operation of a utility,” Ispass said.

The consulting firm said the department, with seven full-time employees at last count, lacked staff to adequately monitor the utility’s financial performance or to adequately review Veolia’s capital requests, which often approach $100 million a year.

“Staffing levels are also too low to provide adequate monitoring of short- and long-term financial performance, compliance with debt covenants and rate adequacy.”

The consulting firm called it “incumbent on the department to provide an increased level of scrutiny and professional judgment as to the extent and magnitude of the capital program,” balanced with the department’s available funding and water service needs.

Responsibilities of department staff regarding matters related to Veolia are often ambiguous and ill-defined, said CH2M, adding that contract-administration recommendations made by staff “repeatedly have been overturned” in Veolia’s favor by the department’s seven-member volunteer board.

As for the city’s management agreement with Veolia, CH2M Hill found the department was allowed to award capital projects exclusively to Veolia. An amendment to the agreement in 2007 does not guarantee or assure Veolia will win projects, yet “it has been selected for almost all capital projects to date.”

It suggested the department could seek additional cost savings by broadening contract opportunities.

“Ultimately the current absence of competitive bids creates a lack of transparency and clarity in the capital project process … Greater control over the capital project process may allow the department to develop creative shared cost-savings measures to provide a mutual benefit for all parties,” the report said.

Changes under way

While airing its dirty laundry to the commission, the water department outlined steps it’s taken in recent months to correct the department’s problems. The chairman of the waterworks board, Marvin Scott, noted in testimony with the IURC that the department has sought to limit capital projects, paring Veolia’s recommended $640 million, five-year capital plan to $214 million for only “highest priority” projects over three years.

Scott and Klein said the department also plans to address other issues raised by the consultant, included hiring additional staff, such as a professional engineer and a hydrogeologist.

“I do not believe the department currently possesses the correct number and type of staff to support its obligations under the management agreement,” Klein told the commission.

After joining the department, Klein terminated an administrative assistant, a contract analyst and the chief financial officer. He replaced the CFO with Ronald J. Miller, an accountant who will be pressed to conduct more thorough long-term financial planning and performance benchmarking.

In 2005, the department, in trying to free up $45 million in additional money for capital projects, converted fixed-rate bonds to variable-rate debt with abandon. Eventually, about 60 percent of its $845 million in outstanding debt was in variable-rate instruments. Bond swaps intended to mitigate the risk of interest-rate variations failed to backstop the risk as financial firms involved in the deals failed or saw credit ratings plunge.

Klein told the commission the department has now converted all its variable-rate debt to fixed, and was considering legal action against unnamed defendants involved in its past bond financing.

“The department has taken significant steps to improve upon the management of the system and to be the active and interested owner of the system that the commission expects it to be,” Klein said.

“I guess given the close oversight that the commission continues to exercise since the emergency rate case … they don’t want to dig the hole any deeper,” said Bette J. Dodd, a Lewis & Kappes attorney representing industrial water customers.

But the department’s very existence could be in question under scenarios Mayor Greg Ballard is considering for the utility. This summer, he solicited proposals from companies interested in operating waterworks. One included an offer from Indianapolis natural gas utility Citizens Energy Group to acquire Indianapolis Water for up to $1.6 billion.•
_______________________________________________

I speak with all of Maryland's MTA workers telling them to protest now and stand up to politicians like O'Malley and all of Maryland's neo-liberals who are privatizing all that is public.  This article along with that in San Francisco shows what they will do once established.  As with the CSX expansion that disregards public interest.....all of these partnerships lead to impoverishment, fraud, and corruption!

Flash forward to 2013 and Arizona Public Transit workers are back on the picket line because they are being impoverished just as VEOLA is doing in Maryland.  Making a corporation more profitable by killing wages and benefits and lowering consumer access and quality is what is happening with these deals.  As we saw above with CSX handling train service......all of public transportation is being privatized and as with electricity----Exelon----we will see rate increases up to what market will bear as they say!

Phoenix Transit Workers Protest as Veolia Brings in "Strike Busters"

By Monica Alonzo Tue., Aug. 10 2010 at 2:37 PM  Valley Fever...Arizona




​Veolia Transportation officials and representatives of the three local transit unions continue to negotiate labor contracts and have managed to avoid a bus strike in Phoenix.

So far.

But more than two-dozen union workers who drive, fuel, clean, and repair Phoenix city buses protested, with bright-colored signs in hand, this morning in front of the Hyatt Place in Tempe, where they discovered that Veolia execs already are stashing replacement workers in anticipation of a possible bus strike.

Billy Wingfield, a Veolia operation manager from Boise, Idaho, arrived in Tempe just last night.


Billy Wingfield (left) watches protesters alongside ATU President Bob Bean, after the two shared perspectives on labor negotiations.​"We're not here to replace them. We're here to help out, to do whatever is necessary to service the customer," Wingfield told New Times while he stood outside of the Hyatt Place, watching the transit workers march up and down the sidewalk. Other out-of-town workers watched from the hotel's balcony.

"I think this is just part of the process. The company has to prepare for the worst -- but hope for the best," Wingfield said.

Union reps aren't happy because, in the midst of "good faith" negotiations, Veolia executives placed ads in the Arizona Republic seeking temporary bus drivers and have flown in about 200 replacement drivers and supervisors, like Wingfield, from all over the country.

Veolia officials said in a statement they are "committed to resolving the remaining issues with its unions," but have to be prepared in case an agreement is not reached. They said it was "a preventative measure only, focused on avoiding a total lack of transit service in the event of a work stoppage by the unions."

Labor contracts expired on June 30, but the Teamsters (employees who fuel and clean buses) and Operating Engineers (mechanics) agreed to extend their existing contracts until August 15. The Amalgamated Transit Union (bus drivers) extended its contract through September 30.

A joint statement released by all three labor unions stated that they all "plan to continue bargaining and have no plans to strike in the near future. If there is a strike, it is due to the bad faith bargaining on behalf of Veolia."

"We're out here because of the passengers, our customers" said Sebastian Aldama, a 20-year Veolia employee and ATU member. "A majority of the people who use our buses are people in need. They depend on us. We want the public to know we're not interested in a strike. We're interested in continuing negotiations."

Workers are concerned because, while they have granted Veolia two contract extensions, Veolia has not yet decided whether it will grant an extension now requested by the Teamsters, says Jerry Ienuso, a Teamsters negotiator.

And if one unions strikes, they are all expected to walk. Talks with the Teamsters are expected to resume on Saturday.

Union officials might have some cause for concern, especially since Veolia officials were able to sucker Phoenix into waiving a $50,000-a-day fine that their company otherwise would have been required to pay if workers went on strike.

It's not a typo. Written into the five-year city-bus contract that started on July 1 was a steep $25,000-a-day fine for each bus facility (and Veolia operates two in Phoenix) that the company had to pay Phoenix to make up for the reduced levels of bus service. 

Why would Phoenix give Veolia a pass on those sanctions meant to be an incentive for the company to avoid a strike and maintain bus service at full capacity?

Well, when Phoenix refused to ante up the money that Veolia wanted for expenses linked their old city-bus contract, company officials told the city that they would walk away from the new contract. Giving Veolia a pass on strike-related fines during initial negotiations was one of several concessions that Phoenix had to make in order to get the new contract signed.

Bob Bean, president of the ATU, predicts that Veolia is going to hand the Teamsters a final "take it or leave it" offer and not grant the extension. He believes that Veolia would rather have workers go on strike now and wait them out -- when it won't cost them potentially millions in fines -- instead of down the road when fines are back in place and workers have some leverage.

____________________________________________________

  • BUSINESS
  • November 21, 2009
Investor to Help Baltimore Port Prepare for Bigger Ships

    By
  • CHRISTOPHER CONKEY  Wall Street Journal

A private investment group led by Highstar Capital has agreed to invest as much as $1.3 billion to expand the Port of Baltimore as ports in the eastern U.S. push to make changes needed to serve a new generation of supersize cargo vessels.


The deal, announced Friday, is essentially a 50-year lease between the Maryland Port Administration and Ports America Group, a company owned by Highstar Capital, a New York private-equity fund. In exchange for the right to operate Baltimore's cargo-container terminal for 50 years, Ports America will make an upfront payment of $100 million and a series of infrastructure improvements at the port. Chief among them: deepening the water at the cargo terminal to 50 feet from its current depth of 45 feet.

The improvements will enable Baltimore to compete for the supersize cargo vessels that are expected to start passing through the Panama Canal after its expansion is complete in 2014 or so. The vessels are capable of carrying twice as many 40-foot containers as the cargo vessels that typically call on East and Gulf Coast ports.

Other ports are considering similar expansions and hunting for the capital to get them done. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is examining a number of proposals to fix its biggest impediment to serving bigger cargo ships: a bridge that isn't high enough for the vessels to fit under.

Port officials in Charleston, S.C., are studying plans to increase the depth of its water, which fluctuates by six feet along with tides. The port is also moving to develop its Navy Base Terminal, which would boost container capacity by 50% when finished.

Officials in Savannah, Ga., are improving rail connections, purchasing new gantries and upgrading technology in an effort to more than triple the number of containers the port can process. The port will find out within the next year or so whether it can proceed with a channel-deepening project that would enable it to handle the larger vessels.

"The canal expansion is clearly going to be a game-changer in international trade," said Curtis Foltz, chief operating officer at the Georgia Ports Authority.

The port in the best position east of the Panama Canal may be in Norfolk, Va. The water is already 50 feet deep there, and the port has joined with freight rail company Norfolk Southern Corp. and others on the Heartland Corridor, a rail connection to the Midwest that can accommodate trains double-stacked with 40-foot cargo containers.

"We do know [traffic] is going to go up" after the canal is widened, "and we're definitely going to be ready for it," said Joe Harris, a spokesman for the Virginia Ports Authority.

Private infrastructure groups are looking for opportunities at a time when many state and local governments are strapped for cash. Florida recently signed a deal with a private consortium to build and operate a tunnel at the Port of Miami. Earlier this year, the Port of Oakland agreed to turn over some of its terminals to Ports America, which has gradually established a presence at virtually every major port in the country.

"Difficult economic times also open the door for new business opportunities," said Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, referring to Baltimore's deal with Ports America. Maryland officials said the deal could ultimately bring 5,700 jobs to the state, which plans to spend the $100 million upfront payment on road, bridge and tunnel upgrades.

In a statement, Christopher Lee, president of Ports America Chesapeake and managing partner of Highstar Capital said the company is looking forward to implementing "the critical infrastructure required to maintain the Port of Baltimore's competitiveness and importance to the Maryland economy."

Another promise of lots of jobs and the first thing we hear is automation of the port will kill lots of jobs!  Think this isn't going to happen in Maryland!  LIPSTICK ON A PIG!

Longshoremen's union rallies against plans to automate Jersey City-Bayonne port

Print By Steve Strunsky/The Star-Ledger
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on January 09, 2012 at 3:00 AM


Some 27,000 longshoremen worked the region's docks before the use of bus-sized, steel containers revolutionized the shipping trade in the mid-1960s.

The number of local longshoreman since has dwindled to about 3,500.

Now, shipping's latest technological revolution is coming to the region. Global Container Terminals plans to create the region's first automated port at its Jersey City-Bayonne location on the Port Jersey peninsula. It is part of a $312 million expansion that Global agreed to under a June 2010 deal with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

And, it's not going over well with the International Longshoremen's Association, the union that represents Global and other dockworkers.

About 150 members from ILA locals rallied Friday outside Global’s Jersey City offices to protest what they feel is a serious threat to their job security.

“We want to let everyone know that we’re here to protect our jobs and our members,” said Stephen Knott, general vice president of the ILA.

“We helped build these companies. We went along with containerization. Now that they want automation, we want to make sure that we’re as much a part of it as possible and that any new jobs created are ILA jobs. That’s very, very important to us.”

The term “automated-port” is somewhat a misnomer in that all ship-to-shore cranes are still operated by a person, said Joe Harris, a spokesman for the Virginia Port Authority. It runs the nation’s only automated port, a facility built by the Maersk shipping line that opened in Portsmouth in 2007.

The automated portion involves a separate crane that transfers containers, though even a significant portion of that is controlled by a person from a remote location, Harris said.

The combination of automated and manual crane operation results in a faster transfer, Harris said. For example, the Portsmouth terminal operates at a rate of 45 container-moves per hour, compared with a nationwide average of 35 to 38 moves.

“It’s a highly efficient terminal,” Harris said.

Industry officials said the Jersey City terminal would be similarly automated.

But automation is anathema to the ILA, and it was not mentioned when the expansion was announced 18 months ago.

In the announcement, the Port Authority said it would purchase Global’s 98-acre site and lease it back to Global, which is based in Vancouver, Canada. The Port Authority also said it would provide up to $150 million in financing.

Global declined to comment at the time. And Friday, James Devine, the executive in charge of the company’s Jersey City facility, did not return a call seeking comment.





0 Comments

August 01st, 2013

8/1/2013

0 Comments

 

WHY DO YOU THINK MARYLAND HOSPITALS ARE TIED WITH GUAM AND PUERTO RICO FOR NOT REPORTING DATA?

Remember, Maryland is ranked at the bottom nationally for fraud, corruption, and lack of transparency.....THAT'S WHY!



Don’t see your hospital? Here’s why: Unfortunately, our experts often do not have enough information on every hospital to issue a fair score. This is because certain hospitals are exempt from the requirement to publicly report on safety. Exempt hospitals include:

  • Maryland hospitals
  • Guam hospitals
  • Puerto Rico hospitals
  • Some specialty hospitals, such as children’s hospitals and surgical centers
  • Critical access hospitals



It is important to see from the blog yesterday that public health departments are now being dismantled and handed to private contractors who will then grow their small business and then be absorbed by a national chain.....that is how you move public services to the private sector after all.  Can you imagine all of public health care shielded behind the same cloak of public private partnerships that give us Baltimore Development Corporation just as health care is being made third world?  You will see no valid statistics coming about how many people are dying from lack of access to care.  THIS IS CRITICAL FOLKS AND IT IS BEING BROUGHT TO YOU BY VERY CORRUPT NEO-LIBERALS! 

REBUILD THE PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC PARTY......RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE CANDIDATES NEXT ELECTIONS!


The Schools of Social Work are teaching students how to be entrepreneurs!

The intent of privatization is to keep the poor and working class to home as they age rather than in nursing homes or retirement centers.  Given the conditions of nursing homes around the country....in Maryland people who have loved ones in state care centers feel they need to visit every day or the level of care will disappear.
  Imagine what will happen to these elderly left alone in their homes as they age.  I have shown the data detailing social workers over the last few decades have case loads in the hundreds, far over the stated limits and we know the management of the mentally ill case loads is almost non-existent.  WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN THESE PEOPLE FALL INTO A SYSTEM OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE WITH NO OVERSIGHT AND NO PUBLIC ASSESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY AT A TIME WHEN HEALTH CARE IS BECOMING A MARKET? 

YOU BETCHA.....A DISASTER IN THE MAKING!


This is from the Board of Estimates hiring announcements:

Since 1994, the Health Department has also been authorized to manage the Montgomery County Personal Care Program and is reimbursed by the DHMH per case for every client in Montgomery County. The maximum number of assigned cases per individual case monitor at anytime is 75, unless a waiver is granted.

The Case Monitors will make home visits at least once every 90 days.....

In Maryland, most people are scared to go to the hospital because our health care has been moving towards privatization for a decade or two....THE MODEL FOR NATIONAL HEALTH CARE REFORM SAYS HOPKINS!  You won't see many Maryland hospitals in these top rankings....it's about the profits in Maryland!

Below you hear a comment from a Hopkins spokesman on hospital safety....people who study this know that Hopkins had the highest rate of death from infection in major hospitals in the country just a few decades ago.....now it is ranked in the middle.  What was made clear from these reports.....data is not available from Maryland to allow for a complete assessment.....DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?


Raise your hand if you think all of this will get better as health reform makes markets out of public health....NO ONE!

But more needs to be done. “Hospitals haven’t given safety the attention it deserves,” says Peter Pronovost, M.D., senior vice president for patient safety and quality at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. Nor has the government, he says. “Medical harm is probably one of the three leading causes of death in the U.S., but the government doesn’t adequately track it as it does deaths from automobiles, plane crashes, and cancer. It’s appalling.”

HOPKINS SUPPORTS THE POLICY OF 'COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS' THAT HAS CUT THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF ALL ACCOUNTABILITY OF BUSINESS.....IF IT IS APPALLING.....WHICH IT IS....THEN HOPKINS CREATES THE CONDITIONS!


Johns Hopkins Hospital had less than half the rate of infections of the national benchmark. But we couldn’t rate it for safety because Maryland hospitals don’t participate in the standard Medicare payment system that’s also used to collect data for some of the measures in our Ratings.

Don’t see your hospital? Here’s why: Unfortunately, our experts often do not have enough information on every hospital to issue a fair score. This is because certain hospitals are exempt from the requirement to publicly report on safety. Exempt hospitals include:

  • Maryland hospitals
  • Guam hospitals
  • Puerto Rico hospitals
  • Some specialty hospitals, such as children’s hospitals and surgical centers
  • Critical access hospitals


Highest-scoring Teaching Hospitals Hospital Location Safety score

Mayo Clinic Hospital
Phoenix
69

Mayo Clinic Jacksonville
Jacksonville, Fla.
68

Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center
La Crosse, Wis.
66

Bronson Methodist Hospital
Kalamazoo, Mich.
65

Saint Mary’s Hospital
Waterbury, Conn.
65

Mayo Clinic-Saint Marys Hospital
Rochester, Minn.
65

Indiana University Health Ball Memorial Hospital
Muncie, Ind.
64

Avera McKennan Hospital and University Health Center
Sioux Falls, S.D.
63

Baystate Medical Center
Springfield, Mass.
63

University of Utah Health Care - Hospital and Clinics
Salt Lake City
62

Safety still lags in U.S. hospitals

Our updated Ratings show most hospitals need to improve Consumer Reports magazine: May 2013 Looking for good news about hospital safety? More hospitals are required to track and report more data, so our updated hospital safety Ratings now include 2,031 hospitals—up from 1,159 institutions in our August 2012 report.


But we still find cause for concern:

  • The lowest-scoring hospital, Clinch Valley Medical Center in Richlands, Va., got only a 14 on our 100-point scale. Beth Stiltner, the hospital’s quality/risk manager, says that the score represents “only a small piece of the entire hospital’s performance” and that in 2012 the hospital reduced its infection rates. We’ll incorporate new data into future updates when they’re released by the government.
  • The average score for all hospitals was 49. “When it comes to health care, average should never be good enough, and this average is clearly not even close,” says John Santa, M.D., director of the Consumer Reports Health Ratings Center.
  • The highest-scoring hospital, Bellin Memorial Hospital in Green Bay, Wis., got just a 74. That shows that even top-scoring hospitals have room for improvement.
In addition, teaching hospitals, which are supposed to prepare future doctors, are lagging. Almost two-thirds of the nation’s 258 teaching hospitals that report enough data for us to calculate a safety score ranked below average. “Those hospitals should set the bar higher,” Santa says. “But that is not happening.”

That trend is especially acute in and around New York City: 27 of the 28 teaching hospitals in the region scored below the national average. The exception: Winthrop University Hospital in Mineola, N.Y. Overall, 58 of the area’s 70 hospitals with a safety score ranked below average.


Our updated safety score focuses on five key measures: readmissions, complications, communication, the overuse of CT scans, and infections. The data, which come from federal and state governments, cover different time ranges, depending on the specific measure. See a full description of how we rate hospitals.


___________________________________________

You see below that laws are passed in response to public outrage and then they are not enforced.  It happens in Maryland in every avenue of public sector.  You see as well that Montgomery County is tied to Baltimore.....the richest county in the country filled with wealth inequity tied to the poorest in the state.  Maryland funds social services at a rate lowest in the country.  HOW DOES IT GET TO BE A BLUE DEMOCRATIC STATE?  IT ISN'T .....IT IS NEO-LIBERAL WORKING FOR WEALTH AND PROFIT.

This article was from 2000 but articles just written say the same thing.  Look at the Urban Institute article below that to see the plan to privatize public services.  URBAN INSTITUTE WAS THRIVING IN MARYLAND FOR THESE FEW DECADES AND IT IS WHY QUALITY OF LIFE IS THIRD WORLD!  THIS IS A NEO-LIBERAL ORGANIZATION.  YOU CAN SEE THIS TREND TO PRIVATIZE THE PUBLIC SECTOR TOOK HOLD WITH THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION!

Why should the middle-class care about low-income people and their health?  We are covered by good insurance and disposable income!  OH REALLY!  THIS IS THE SAME TIME CLINTON'S POLICIES OF FREE MARKET/GLOBALIZATION SENT THE MIDDLE-CLASS PACKING! Most people will end up in this category if we do not

REBUILD THE PEOPLE'S PARTY BY RUNNING LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL COMING ELECTIONS!


Social workers demand reduced caseloads

Laws ordering cuts not implemented, demonstrators say


March 03, 2000|By Kate Shatzkin | Kate Shatzkin,SUN STAFF

About 100 social workers and students rallied in Annapolis yesterday to urge Gov. Parris N. Glendening to fulfill the terms of a 2-year-old law that would reduce caseloads for caseworkers charged with protecting children.

The General Assembly passed the law after the high-profile death of Rita Fisher, a 9-year-old Pikesville girl who starved to death in 1997. Social workers had not removed the girl from her home despite receiving repeated reports of abuse.

The law ordered lower caseload ratios, required competency testing and banned the use of contractual employees in child welfare positions except in emergencies.

Chanting and marching outside the State House, the social workers said yesterday that the most important part of the law -- reducing caseloads -- hasn't come to pass.

"Workers are so overloaded that they aren't able to give each child the attention they need," said Claudia Harding, a student at the University of Maryland School of Social Work who said she has a hard time getting help for the children at the South Baltimore elementary school where she works. "It's very hard to reach them in the field."

Caseload reduction has started in three pilot locations -- two in rural Caroline and Allegany counties, in addition to Northwest Baltimore. In those places, the number of workers has been doubled.

Last year, legislators passed another law to require caseloads statewide to be brought down by 2003 -- a $50 million proposition. But Glendening has included only an extra $500,000 -- to reduce Montgomery County caseloads -- in his budget for 2001.

Legislators in the House and Senate have sponsored bills this session to try to ensure Glendening brings the caseloads down.

A Child Welfare League of America study commissioned by the state Department of Human Resources recommended in 1997 that the state reduce its average caseloads to 15 foster care cases per worker, and to 12 child protective cases per worker.

At a budget hearing yesterday, Linda Mouzon, director of the state's Social Services Administration, said the administration was on target to meet those goals by 2003, as last year's legislation required.

She said the department is waiting for many counties to undergo an accreditation process that will improve the level of service and more accurately pinpoint what the caseloads should be in each place.

"We don't think it's a snail's pace," Mouzon said, objecting to a fiscal analyst's description of the way the department was moving.

"I don't know," retorted Sen. Christopher Van Hollen Jr., a Montgomery County Democrat and sponsor of one of the bills to hire more workers. "It sounds pretty accurate to me."

In some counties, workers have twice the number of cases recommended by the Child Welfare League study -- numbers social workers protesting yesterday said were untenable. Because of the heavy loads, many workers leave their jobs, compounding the problem. The current statewide average: 17.2 child protective cases and 18.6 foster cases per worker.

Deaths from child abuse and neglect are up sharply in Maryland, according to state statistics. Thirty-six children died from mid-1998 to mid-1999, compared with 24 during the previous one-year period.

At the same time, the number of cases in which social workers found that abuse or neglect was "indicated" fell, leading advocates to suspect that high caseloads have led to incomplete investigations.

Human-resources officials downplay the numbers, saying the sharp increase in deaths reflects that they have gotten better at finding out when a death results from abuse or neglect.


_______________________________________________

Urban Institute is a neo-liberal organization committed to gentrifying city centers!

Privatization of Public Social Services A Background Paper

Demetra Smith Nightingale, Nancy M. Pindus


Print this page
Share:
| E-mailDocument date: October 15, 1997
Released online: October 15, 1997 This paper was prepared at the Urban Institute for U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, under DOL Contract No. J-9-M-5-0048, #15. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the positions of DOL, the Urban Institute or its sponsors.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Urban Institute, its board, its sponsors, or other authors in the series


1. Introduction The purposes of the paper are to provide a general overview of the extent of privatization of public services in the areas of social services, welfare, and employment; rationales for privatizing service delivery, and evidence of effectiveness or problems. Examples are included to highlight specific types of privatization and actual operational experience. The paper is not intended to be a comprehensive treatment of the overall subject of privatization, but rather a brief review of issues and experiences specifically related to the delivery of employment and training, welfare, and social

services. The key points that are drawn from a review of the literature are:

  • There is no single definition of privatization. Privatization covers a broad range of methods and models, including contracting out for services, voucher programs, and even the sale of public assets to the private sector. But for the purposes of this paper, privatization refers to the provision of publicly-funded services and activities by non-governmental entities.

  • Privatization is not a new concept. The current rationales for privatization and their implementation strategies differ very little from earlier privatization initiatives (even as early as the 1930s). Perhaps the biggest single change in the current privatization environment in the area of social and human services is the possibility of private companies being contracted with to administer entire public-funded systems (e.g., all of welfare, all of child support, all of workforce development).

  • The real issue is not so much public vs. private--it is monopoly vs. competition. A key issue in the current trend towards what is commonly referred to as "privatization" is the introduction of competition (e.g., public-public competition, public-private competition, competition between public-private ventures, public-nonprofit competition) to increase efficiency, reduce costs, and improve quality and customer satisfaction.

  • Privatization is not inherently good or bad--the performance or effectiveness depends on implementation. The little empirical analysis comparing the effectiveness of public versus private service delivery shows no clear evidence that private service delivery is inherently more effective or less effective than public service delivery, although the public, private, and nonprofit sectors each have their own relative strengths and weaknesses. There are examples of success and failure in both sectors. Most of the research suggests that the key factor is whether there is clear accountability for results, clear criteria in contracts, and clear public objectives. The government is responsible for assuring that public services are effective, whether or not the services are publicly delivered.

  • Privatization does reduce the number of public employees if services formerly performed in the public sector are shifted to the private sector. But it is not clear that workers are necessarily worse off in terms of employment, wages, morale, or job satisfaction. There are many examples of negotiated arrangements for transferring public employees to private employment or to other public agencies. There is undoubtedly, though, a clear reduction in public employee members of unions, although some number of privatized workers may join other unions.

  • It is still too soon to know whether the most recent and highly-publicized privatization efforts will be effective or not. There are, however, many potential problem areas (e.g., profit motivation to cream and minimize costs) that, if unaddressed in the public contracts, could reduce service quality. There are many reasons for cautiously scrutinizing the process.


2. Current State of Privatization Similar to trends in the private sector, there is some indication that public agencies are increasingly considering downsizing and outsourcing as ways to address both financial constraints and a desire to improve performance. The Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-356) states:

To be successful in the future, government must, like the private sector, adopt modern management methods, utilize meaningful program performance measures, increase workforce incentives and flexibility without sacrificing accountability, provide for humane downsizing opportunities and harness computers and other technology to strengthen service delivery. However, privatization is not a new phenomenon. Gurin (1989) notes that privatization of government social services has, in fact, increased at major watershed points in the history of social policy (the Progressive era in the late 19th century, New Deal, Great Society, and Reagan years), both at times of expansion and during contraction of government services. For example, during the 1970s, federal funding for social services increased greatly under Title XX of the Social Security Act, and for human development and employment services under the Economic Opportunity Act and the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). Nonprofit organizations and for-profit businesses both emerged to fill the need for government contracted service providers. In contrast, during the early 1980s when federal funding for social programs was dramatically reduced, there was also some increase in contracting out services (in some locales) as one way to reduce unit costs and gain efficiencies despite reduced overall funding.

More recent interest in privatization of public social services is stimulated by both expansion and contraction of publicly funded programs. Federal funding for employment and training declined during the early 1990s, and this was one motivation for workforce development system redesign, which includes considering new ways to deliver services. At the same time, the 1996 welfare reform legislation increases the responsibility states have for redesigning their welfare systems and, at least in the short run, provides more federal funding for both income support and programs that promote employment. Privatization is one of the various welfare system redesigns that are being considered.

The recent dramatic emergence of large private corporations into the welfare field (discussed below) has raised many concerns about the appropriateness of this degree of privatization. The traditional approach to contracting in social services had been noncompetitive, quasi-grant arrangements, primarily with non-profit organizations (Hatry and Durman 1985). The increased emphasis on competition and performance contracting for the delivery of social services is consistent with private sector initiatives focusing on efficiency and customer service. Some organizations, such as the Reason Foundation, have been promoting the benefits of privatization for decades, and recently their efforts are gaining new momentum, providing technical advice and guidance to businesses and public officials on how to develop business ventures and effective public/private partnerships. In addition to welfare reform, several other recent federal initiatives also encourage more privatization, most notably in one-stop career centers and child support enforcement.



One-Stop Career Centers The federal One-Stop Career Center initiative encourages an expanded use of vouchers and competitive selection of administrative entities (e.g., for one-stop centers). Although national regulations do not specifically endorse privatization of services, they do encourage expanded competitiveness for the selection of center administrative and service delivery agents, allowing public and nonprofit organizations as well as private for-profit companies to compete openly for one-stop service contracts. The Massachusetts' One-Stop Career Center Initiative is a current example of the trend toward privatization in the one-stop and workforce development area. The state plan allows private firms to compete with public agencies for contracts to manage career centers, which serve as gateways to the states's new workforce development system. However, the initiative has run into opposition on several fronts due to competition for funds among rival employment and training agencies, high demand for services at the career centers, and concerns expressed by public employee unions (Boston Globe, 2/11/97).



Child Support Enforcement Federal child support enforcement legislation also supports an expanded role for non-profit and private contractors. The 1986 child support legislation specifically encourages states to consider contracts with private companies for technical activities such as locating absent parents and maintaining tracking and payment systems. The Reason Foundation reports that, in 1995, there were twenty states and dozens of local governments that had privatized one or more child support services, and that five more states were planning to do so in 1996. These states contract out for activities such as location, collection, payment processing, distribution of payments, and fully privatized offices. Georgia and Virginia give full caseload responsibility to private providers. The success of the private sector in increasing collections of child support payments is attributed to several factors: first private firms can bring technology and equipment to the tasks that governments typically cannot afford; second, private firms can expand or contract operations quickly as they are not bound by government personnel systems; and private firms use performance incentives, such as bonus pay, to increase collections per employee. (Reason Foundation pp 45-46)

A 1996 General Accounting Office Report (GAO, October 1996) found that in the fifteen states with some privatization of child support, there was a tendency to especially contract out collections of child support payment from hard to locate absent parents and parents with past-due support.1 Many contractors receive payment only if they collect, often retaining a percentage of the collection (ranging from 8 to 24 percent). In general, GAO found that both the federal and state governments benefitted financially (net) from contracts that were targeted on cases that might not otherwise be worked--in effect, the private contracting supplemented what the public agency could do. The net benefit is derived from collections on AFDC cases and from federal performance incentives attached to child support collections for both AFDC and non-AFDC collections.



Welfare Reform Increased requirements under welfare reform, coupled with spending restrictions that limit the amount of hiring that can occur in public agencies, have led some states to more seriously consider outside service contractors for welfare service delivery functions. For example, welfare officials in Nebraska and Arizona plan to increase their use of outside contractors (both for-profit and non-profit) to deliver services such as job placement and parenting skills training. (ETR 11/27/96) Other states may make similar decisions. "Private industry buzzwords such as 'streamlining' and 'cost-containment' have spilled over to the public sector, and welfare officials are moving to share risk and cut costs." (ETR 10/9/96) The recent welfare reform law, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, is the latest federal policy that contributes to the privatization trend. The 1996 law removes previous restrictions that essentially prohibited states from contracting out initial welfare (AFDC) intake and eligibility determination functions. This has apparently opened a new market for private companies. In the past, service delivery contracting in the social welfare arena was mainly for direct service delivery such as job training, job search instruction, and day care provision; and service providers were mostly non-profit, although some for-profit companies have provided job training or other employment services. Large for-profit companies were mainly involved as contractors for data systems. Intake and eligibility determination for welfare programs remained with public agencies.

Now that welfare agencies can contract out the entire welfare system, including intake and eligibility determination, large for-profit companies are moving into the welfare service delivery market (e.g., EDS, Lockeed Martin, IBM). States are also more seriously considering privatization options because of concerns over cost and the need to meet specific federal goals fairly quickly. Large companies had already gained a foothold into some of the human service agencies, primarily through health care and child support enforcement, for data systems and, more recently in child support, for service delivery functions. "Before the new welfare law, moving people from welfare to work was the domain of nonprofit organizations and three relatively small businesses (America Works, Curtis and Associates, and Maximus). Now, some large companies see a potentially multibillion-dollar industry that could run entire welfare programs for states and counties." (Bernstein, 1996)

The three small for-profit companies referred to in the New York Times article (Bernstein, 1996) are:

  • America Works: $7 million in contracts in New York City, Albany NY and Indianapolis; provides supportive services for the first four months a welfare client is on a job. The client receives minimum wage, but the employer pays America Works a higher wage, similar to the arrangement with temporary employment agencies. In addition, the government agency pays America Works $5000 per successful placement (defined as one that lasts 4 months).

  • Curtis & Associates: $9.2 million in business last year in selected sites in 11 states, including California, New Jersey, Indiana, Vermont and Wisconsin; provides a job club model for agency clients; sells training manuals and materials.

  • Maximus, Inc.: $100 million total government contracts, much but not all in the welfare area; has contracts for child support enforcement activities in 6 states, a $10 million contract in California to recruit recipients into HMOs, and welfare-to-work contracts in selected sites in California, Massachusetts, and Virginia; has also had many contracts for data systems development in the human services area.
The most recent development, in fact, is a dramatic increase in the extent to which larger companies are seeking out welfare business on a major scale, going beyond their traditional contracts related to information systems and technology to work preparation, and now possibly including contracts for entire welfare systems including intake and eligibility determination as well as employment and social services.2 "Big companies are concentrating on lucrative contracts that require ...large scale participation." (ETR 10/9/96) The New York Times article (Bernstein, 1996) offers the following information about these "giant" private corporations now seeking welfare contracts:



  • Andersen Consulting: $4.2 billion global management and technology consulting company that is an affiliate of the big accounting firm; now has contracts in 14 states, mostly for child support and child welfare activities. Marketing a profit-sharing approach to welfare, and recently won contracts for running welfare in two Canadian provinces.

  • Electronic Data Systems: $12.4 billion information technology services company. Began with computerization of Medicaid billing and welfare reporting systems. Now has contracts in 20 states. EDS was recently awarded a new contract by the state of Texas which focusses on reengineering eligibility determination and service delivery for health and human services programs and securing a new computer system for the state.3

  • Lockheed Martin Information Management Services: a nonmilitary division of the $30 billion dollar Lockheed Martin Corporation; has child support enforcement contracts in 16 states plus the District of Columbia; also has contracts in 20 states to convert various welfare benefits to an electronic debit card system. Now launching a major new "welfare reform/self-sufficiency line of business." (Bernstein 1996).
Wisconsin and Texas are the most prominent examples today of the privatization trend in welfare.

Wisconsin's latest major welfare reform effort, called W-2 (Wisconsin Works), for example, is based on market competition for delivery of services. Public, private and non-profit entities can compete for contracts to deliver the entire welfare system in specific localities. In the initial round of competition, proposals were submitted not by individual companies or agencies, but by consortia. Four (or five) consortia were formed to bid on the W-2 contracts and each consortium included at least one major private company, and public or non-profit agencies. The initial round did not produce many proposals, though, in part because of the very complex and inflexible criteria and requirements included in the state solicitation. Nonetheless, four contract consortia have been selected, and each will be responsible for the entire welfare administration in the four geographic areas within Milwaukee.

It is still unclear whether there will be a sharp increase in private companies assuming major responsibilities for work-welfare programs though, even in a state like Wisconsin. Wisconsin had, even before the latest reforms, already moved more towards privatization of welfare services, especially for work-related activities. In Milwaukee, for example, Manpower Temporaries, Inc. was, until recently, a primary contractor for administering a Welfare Job Center, delivering job placement services and coordinating services provided by other, mainly non-profit and public contractors. While the nature of the work was similar to Manpower's traditional business, the private firm's role has gradually shrunk in part because of the difficulty it had working with clients with serious employability barriers and collaborating with a disparate network of public and private organizations. (Employment and Training Reporter, 9/18/96)

Texas has received considerable attention recently because of its proposed privatization of the Texas Integrated Enrollment System (TIES). The TIES system was intended to integrate and streamline eligibility determination for fifteen programs, including AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. Officials in Texas emphasized that their objective was not to contract out government functions arbitrarily, but rather to improve efficiency and customer service in government through increased competition. Contracting with private, for-profit companies for Medicaid claims processing, child support payment tracking, and other information systems requirements are already accepted practices in Texas government.

The proposed privatization of TIES differed from other privatization initiatives because the eligibility determination functions to be contracted out were traditionally carried out by state employees. This change raised two concerns: the potential loss of jobs for state employees; and the appropriateness of having private rather than public employees make decisions related to program eligibility. The TIES privatization was strongly opposed by public employee unions, which launched a major public relations campaign to gain public support to oppose the state's plan ( Houston Chronicle, April 14, 1997 ). The potentially large size (estimated at $2.8 billion over 7 years) of the TIES privatization contract attracted major private corporations such as EDS and Lockheed-Martin, each in partnership with state agencies as part of the bidders' teams (Texas Department of Human Services [TDHS] with EDS and Texas Workforce Commission [TWC] with Lockheed-Martin).

Implementation of the contracting process for TIES was delayed for nine months pending federal approval of the state's draft "Request for Offers." The 1996 federal welfare reform did not prohibit non-government employees from determining eligibility for TANF, as had been the case for AFDC. However, the historic restriction still remained for other federal assistance programs, particularly Food Stamps and Medicaid, which were unaffected by the 1996 legislation. The state privatization plan, therefore, required special federal approval as an exception to policy. In May 1997, the Clinton administration ruled that privatization of Food Stamp and Medicaid eligibility was not allowable under federal law.

At about the same time as the federal administration's decision, the Texas legislature was reshaping the TIES project. HB 2777, which was enacted in June 1997, directed the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to coordinate the TIES effort in consultation with TDHS and TWC. As a result, these state agencies have terminated their teaming arrangements with private sector vendors. Recommendations developed by TDHS in partnership with EDS during the bidding process will serve as a starting point for the reengineering efforts required in the $3.7 million 15-month contract awarded to EDS (Kinsey, 1997). Thus, Texas has turned to an incremental approach for integrating and improving eligibility systems, and will build upon lessons learned and innovations proposed during planning of the TIES procurement.



Employment and Training Throughout the history of employment and training programs, contracting has been a common model for delivering services, often including intake and eligibility determination as well as training, job placement and other employment-related services. MDTA, CETA, YEDPA, Job Corps, and now JTPA all involve extensive contracting for service delivery--Job Corps is totally contracted, and Center operators include some small and large for-profit companies (e.g., ITT Industries; BDM International/Vinnell; ResCare, Inc.). In fact, the majority of federally-funded E&T services since the 1960s have been contracted out by the administering public agency. Most of the E&T service contractors have been non-profit or public entities (e.g., community colleges, public school districts, vocational schools, employment service). In some localities, for-profit companies have also provided services under contract (e.g., proprietary training institutions and schools, for-profit companies operating job clubs or job placement services). The best-known for-profit companies today that have contracts to provide job placement services to welfare recipients are America Works and Curtis and Associates. Ironically, Job Corps is the only major federally-administered E&T program and the only one that is totally contracted out. It has also been found to be among the more effective programs. In part the success of Job Corps is attributed to its mix of public direction, oversight, monitoring, and clear competitive contracting with performance expectations (Gurin 1989). The government role in policy development, planning, monitoring and oversight is a critical factor in the Job Corps success. Job Corps centers can't affect their performance measures by screening applicants (i.e., "creaming") or by securing jobs for applicants because they have no control over this (Donahue 1989).

The Job Corps program operates through a partnership of government, labor and the private sector, at 111 Job Corps Centers in 46 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico. Private corporations and private nonprofit organizations-- including Teledyne, ITT, Vinnell, Management and Training Corporation, Career Systems Development Corporation, Res-Care, and MINACT--operate 81 Job Corps centers under contracts with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). An additional 30 Job Corp Centers are operated by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior--called civilian conservation centers--on public lands throughout the country under interagency agreements with the U.S. DOL. A nationwide network of other public, private, nonprofit, business, and labor union subcontractors provide services for Job Corps, ranging from intake and application to occupational training, job placement and post-program support services.



Child Welfare Child Welfare privatization of service delivery also expanded greatly in the 1970s and 1980s as caseloads of child abuse and neglect rose, budgets were increasingly constrained, and public agencies' flexibility in staffing up was severely limited by personnel policies and state or local restrictions on spending. Agencies contract for various services from investigation to substitute care and therapeutic services. For example, in New York City, contract agencies take care of 70 percent of the city's children in foster care (Giuliani 1996). In fact, the majority of publicly financed social services programs in New York City are delivered through contracts. These private suppliers, mostly well-established non-profit service agencies, both secular and religiously affiliated, have provided an ongoing source of political support for the city's human service activities (Bendick 1989).

3. Models of Privatization As the brief discussions above suggest, there is no single definition of privatization. But for the purposes of this paper, privatization refers to the provision of publicly-funded services and activities by non-governmental entities. There are also various methods by which services can be privatized, including contracts, formal agreements, vouchers, grants, subsidies, public/private partnerships, and collaborative service delivery. In general, though, the common use of the term privatization refers to formal contracting out of services by the government to the private for-profit or non-profit sector. One way to think about privatization is to consider two separate but related dimensions:

    (1) degree of market competition--ranging, for example, from open competition for all or public services, to government contracting for specific services; and (2) role of the public sector vis a vis other sectors--for example, government oversight of private services versus separate systems of services operated by government, for-profit and/or non-profit entities, versus public-private partnerships.

Market Competition. Osborne and Gaebler in Reinventing Government (1992) quote Gov. Mario Cuomo, who stated that (p. 30) "It is not government's obligation to provide services, but to see that they're provided." Their conception of a reinvented government would involve broader service options, including using a competitive process for selecting deliverers of public services. "Competition will not solve all our problems. But perhaps...it holds the key that will unlock the bureaucratic gridlock that hamstrings so many public agencies," by encouraging innovation, flexibility, efficiency and performance. This would mean ending the tradition that certain public agencies be presumptive deliverers of services. Public agencies would have to compete against each other and against non-profit and for-profit providers for a particular services market. Even within the public sector, competition can be introduced through the establishment of franchise funds which provide certain administrative services to "customers" within the public agency.

Some of the most recent examples of privatization in the welfare and workforce development area, such as in Texas, Wisconsin and Massachusetts have adopted versions of such a broad-based competitive model where public-private teams compete for contracts. In Indianapolis, public employees are required to compete against privately owned businesses for contracts to deliver all services with the exception of police, fire, and zoning operations. Initially, city employees and their union opposed the privatization initiative and feared losing their jobs. After negotiating changes to "level the playing field," such as consulting assistance to prepare bids and streamlining the city workforce by reducing middle management, unionized employees have gone on to win 37 of the 86 contracts put out for bid by the city (Jeter 1997).

Sectoral Roles. A second dimension of the privatization concept relates to activities or functions performed by the governmental and non-governmental sectors, regardless of whether funds actually are exchanged and regardless of whether there is a formal contract or agreement. Much of the current discussion about privatization refers to for-profit businesses, but as Starr (1989) explains, there are actually four types of "private" providers: (1) personal, informal, mutual aid; (2) voluntary non-profit sector; (3) small businesses, entrepreneurial companies; and (4) corporate for-profit sector. The responsibilities and services of each may or may not result from contractual arrangements or exchange of funds.

For example, the welfare reform law of 1986 included strong language that would encourage community-based and faith-based organizations to be formal providers of services, presumably with government contracts. But underlying welfare reform's focus on individual and family responsibility is that the informal community, charities, and neighbors are also an important source of support for persons in times of need.



4. Effectiveness and Potential of Privatization There are strong and vocal advocates and opponents of privatization, but little empirical evidence about whether the public sector or the private sector is more effective.

Arguments For and Against Privatization Arguments for Privatization. There are major advantages generally put forth for contracting for services with private (non-profit and for-profit) organizations, as indicated in Exhibit 1. In general, the strongest arguments for privatization of public services are:

    1. Increased flexibility resulting from a reduction of bureaucratic complexity and procedures, and 2. Reduced costs resulting from improved efficiency, especially if there is a truly competitive process with clear performance criteria.

Public decisions to privatize have in fact been motivated by a number of factors, (Hatry and Durman 1985) such as:



  • discontent with the performance of the public sector;
  • desire for more flexibility (e.g., personnel, operations, innovations);
  • desire to reduce costs; and
  • desire to "empower" service intermediaries (e.g., CBOs).
GAO (1996), for example, found that the primary reason state and local child support enforcement agencies contract out services is because of general state fiscal pressure that makes it difficult to hire more agency staff despite growing caseloads and sometimes even despite increased program funding. Motivation of public officials to privatize resulted from (1) "a desire to improve child support services," (2) "need to serve soaring caseloads," and (3) "inability to deploy additional staff." (p. 6) Some states also wanted to expand child support services in areas not well-covered in the past, or to assume operations when a public agency withdrew (usually district attorney's office). The increasing speed with which computer equipment and information systems require upgrading also provides an incentive for privatization. Equipment provided by a private contractor is not budgeted as a capital expenditure for the public agency. Contractors that provide similar equipment and software to several public agencies or state administrations can spread their costs over several projects and achieve economies of scale, which may enable them provide the service to each client at a lower cost.



Exhibit 1
Reasons for Using the Private Sector
  • To obtain special skills or supplement staff for short periods of time
  • To meet demands beyond current government capacity
  • To reduce costs
  • To improve service quality
  • To provide clients with more choice of providers and levels of service
  • Ideology--less government is better.
        Source: Adapted from Allen, et al, The Private Sector in State Service Delivery.
        Washington, D.C. The Urban Institute Press, 1989
Arguments Against Privatization. The major concerns, summarized in Exhibit 2, voiced in opposition to privatization in the social services area relate mainly to quality of service and the impact on public sector jobs. In terms of service delivery, there are concerns that the profit motive of private companies will result in a reduction in services and a propensity to "cream," or serve those who are most easily served and most likely to succeed. Every contract has the problem of unintended adverse impacts on individuals, especially if payment is based on a fixed cost per client. The more vulnerable the client and the more involuntary the client's participation (e.g., hospitals, prisons, child welfare), the higher the risk; but a well-structured contract can cover these issues and protect those who are to be served (Hatry 1989).

The strongest opposition to privatization comes from public employees and unions representing public employees, stemming essentially from a fear that public sector jobs will be lost. The prospect of massive layoffs of government workers is one of the barriers that "keeps governments from moving into a more catalytic mode regarding privatization," according to Osborne and Gaebler (1992)--a fear, they note, that is "legitimate." The federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently reported that executive branch employees covered by union agreements dropped by 13 percent between 1992 and 1997. Almost all of the decline in union representation can be attributed to the government's downsizing, particularly base closings and cutbacks at the Defense Department (Barr and McAllister 1997).



Exhibit 2
Major Arguments for Opposing Privatization
  • Major loss of public employee jobs
  • Relinquishes public responsibility for public funds. "Private business has no business allocating public funds...or monitoring the use of public funds." "Threatens fiscal accountability"
  • Weakens community ability to assert collective interests; decreases citizen participation in government
  • High potential for fraud, financial conflicts-of-interest and cost-overruns
  • Any resulting cost savings are directed away from taxpayers and towards the contractor.
  • Threatens confidentiality of private information
  • Financial conflicts of interest
  • Increases temptation to reduce quality of services and "cream" the best clients to reduce costs and maximize profit.
        Source: Adapted from materials prepared by the AFL-CIO, Public Employee Department


Evidence of Effectiveness Thus, there are strong reasons for privatization and some equally-strong concerns and fears (see Exhibit 3). Most analysts, though, concur that each sector may actually have certain relative strengths, and private sector delivery of services is not inherently better or worse than public service delivery. "Business does some things better than government, but government does some things better than business. The public sector tends to be better, for instance, at policy management, regulation, ensuring equity, preventing discrimination or exploitation, ensuring continuity and stability of services, and ensuring social cohesion... Business tends to be better at performing economic tasks, innovating, replicating successful experiments, adapting to rapid change, abandoning unsuccessful or obsolete activities, and performing complex or technical tasks. The [non-profit] sector tends to be best at performing tasks that generate little or no profit, demand compassion and commitment to individuals, require extensive trust on the part of customers or clients, need hands-on, personal attention..., and involve the enforcement of moral codes and individual responsibility for behavior." (Osborne and Gaebler 1992) Bendick (1989) agrees, noting that private contractors are well-suited for straightforward or specialized services such as refuse collection, processing payments, data processing, and computer systems design. But, as one moves to "more complex, undefinable long-range, and 'subjective' services characteristic of the social welfare field, the record of successful experience rapidly thins." (e.g., training ex-offenders, drug addicts, mentally ill, least employable welfare recipients) (p. 15) He attributes this mainly to the "limited ability of privatized systems to tackle the most difficult cases or to pursue the most complex objectives." (p. 16) Bendick further notes the nonprofit sector is better able than the for-profit sector to deal with complex and high risk cases, mainly because it is less motivated by profit. But nonprofit deliverers are not noticeably better or worse than the public sector (p. 18) because of high risk and/or high cost associated with complex cases.



Exhibit 3
Major Potential Advantages and Problems with Delivery of Public Services by For-Profit Companies
Potential Advantages Potential Problems
  • Less red tape and bureaucracy
  • More competition
  • Lower unit costs, especially if operating in multiple jurisdictions/sites
0 Comments

July 27th, 2013

7/27/2013

0 Comments

 
MOST PEOPLE WILL BE PUSHED INTO THESE PREVENTATIVE CARE PROGRAMS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR OR THEY ARE WORKING CLASS AND UNABLE TO AFFORD A GOLD POLICY THAT HAS FULL COVERAGE WE ARE USED TO TODAY.  REMEMBER, ANALYSTS ARE SAYING THAT A FAMILY OF FOUR WILL NEED ALMOST $100,000 OF INCOME TO AFFORD THE LEVEL OF CARE WE HAVE ALWAYS RECEIVED....AND THAT WILL EAT MUCH OF THE FAMILY'S DISPOSABLE INCOME

The problem with cost?  Health care fraud and health industry profit!



Below you will see a course offered by Johns Hopkins .....the drive behind making most people in America only accessible to primary care....public health checkups.  It is indeed a policy taken from care implemented by Hopkins around the third world.  It is third world health policy.  It makes it hard to impossible for people to access hospital or procedures that have cost.  Rather, the idea is to simply do preventative care to allow people to live as long as advanced care is not needed.  So, prevent heart disease with nutrition and exercise, but don't come to the hospital for heart by-pass or transplants.  At Unviersity of  Maryland Medical Center, when these rules were put into action as part of health reform, a cancer patient went from having a doctor that was moving forward with cancer treatments, to being told University of Maryland does not give that treatment on Maryland's public health insurance.  The man was told to go home and die.

The fastest growing health care businesses are those that treat in this fashion.  They are convenient and affordable to low-income people.....but that's all there is my friend.



Preventative care and services are measures that are performed in an effort to prevent an illness or injury.

Common examples of preventative care are immunizations and yearly physicals. In fact, any screening test done in order to catch a disease early is considered a preventative service, such as routine Pap tests for women or prostate exams for men. Medications, like low-dose daily aspirin therapy, and counseling services, such as nutrition and exercise guidance, are also examples of preventative care and services.

In this article, we'll find out if these preventative steps actually make any difference in your health.

According to an August 2007 study by the Partnership for Preventative Care (think there is bias?  For those middle-class that get all this preventative care....do you find this as comforting exclusive coverage?
), preventative services are grossly underused, with racial and ethnic minorities receiving the least amount of preventative care in the United States. After studying the top 12 preventative care services, the authors concluded that if Americans began to utilize any five of them, up to 100,000 lives could be saved in just one year.

These lifesaving preventative measures are not expensive or particularly physically taxing. For example, the study estimates that less than half of adults in America use low-dose aspirin therapy. However, if 90 percent of all men over 40 and women over 50 took a daily low-dose aspirin, it could save up to 45,000 lives a year.

Similarly, more than 42,000 lives could be saved annually if doctors offered their smoking patients medications or counseling services in order to help them stop smoking. Today, doctors offer such medications or services to a mere 28 percent of patients after they have advised them to stop smoking. An additional 30,000 lives could be spared with the use of screening tests for breast and colorectal cancers, along with a simple flu shot. Currently, these screening tests and immunizations are underused, with less than 40 percent of all adults getting an annual flu shot.

Some may assume that preventative care is reserved for aging baby boomers. But the next section explains who can benefit from preventative care and exactly which services they should be utilizing.

Most Effective Preventative Services 1. Daily aspirin use for men over 40 and women over 50

2. Childhood immunizations

3. Smoking cessation advice and tools to help you quit

4. Hypertension screening and treatment for adults 18 and older

5. Cholesterol screening and treatment for men 35 and older and women 45 and older



Children are the most frequent recipients of preventative care and services. The majority of these services are in the form of immunizations, which work to prevent children from developing illness such as polio, measles and mumps. The rate of immunizations is rising each year and remains one of the few preventative services with little disparities in rates between racial and ethnic groups. Other preventative services for children include the charting of the child's height and weight, which works as an early screening tool for any developmental problems. Due to the increase incidence of Type II diabetes and obesity in young patients, increasingly common preventative services include nutritional services and exercise information. ­

­Women have a number of preventative screening tests to take advantage of. Adult women (and men) should have their cholesterol levels checked yearly and their blood pressure checked every two years. Once sexually active, or once they've reached the age of 21, every woman should get a Pap test, which is a screening tool for cervical cancer. As long as these test results are normal, the test can be repeated once every one to three years. Women over the age of 40 have different preventative needs. At this age, women should begin to get mammograms every year or so, which screen for breast cancer. Women over 50 should also get a test to screen for colorectal cancer. Women over 65 should have regular bone density testing to screen for osteoporosis.

Along with screening tests, there are several medications that can help women prevent illnesses like osteoporosis. Calcium is a common preventative medicine that can prevent a number of bone problems. Pregnant patients often take a plethora of preventative medications, including prenatal vitamins, iron and folic acid -- all in an effort to prevent any complications.

The first and most common preventative tests for adult men are regular checks of their weight, cholesterol levels and blood pressure. For men over 50, a test to screen for colorectal cancer is recommended. Men older than 50 should also consider prostate exams to screen for prostate cancer, with current studies suggesting that they should be done every four years. Of course, along with these tests, preventative care includes counseling on different prevention practices including proper diet and exercise, safe sex practices and even smoke detectors in the home.

________________________________________________

As this article states preventative medicine does not save in health carer cost....it actually is shown to increase costs.  This is true because as with all health care fraud....it is these lab tests and Xrays.....the primary care office visits that cost the most in health fraud so if you are doubling down on the very procedures known to be filled with fraud.....you will lose money....Medicaid and Medicare is full of this.

I know here in Baltimore doctors are having people back to their offices every three months just to take blood levels and have the primary care doctor counsel the patient to stop eating this and walk more.


So why is this the backbone of the health reform?  All this may cost more for taxpayers and patients, but it is the cheapest medicine to apply.  It makes profits soar when people do this and are not being able to access hospital stays.


FOR RESIDENTS OF MARYLAND.....THE ENTIRE HEALTH REFORM CENTERS ON THESE POLICIES.  I HAVE ALREADY SHARED THAT DENTAL SERVICES COMING TO BALTIMORE SCHOOLS ARE ABUSING THE CHILDREN WITH UNNECESSARY PREVENTATIVE TREATMENT JUST TO MAKE PROFIT.



The Truth-O-Meter Says: "Preventive care … saves money, for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody."

Barack Obama
on Friday, February 10th, 2012 in a briefing at the White House

Barack Obama says preventive care 'saves money' Share this story: President Barack Obama, accompanied by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, announces the revamp of his contraception policy that required religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, on Feb. 10, 2012, at the White House.

It’s been a staple of health care politics for years -- the claim that preventive care saves money. A little money up front, lots of money saved on the back end. Patients living longer and healthier lives. That makes sense, right?

But while there’s little doubt that preventive care saves lives, the money is a different story. In general, academic studies do not support the idea that paying for preventive care ultimately saves money.

We first published that conclusion in 2009, when we rated True a claim by New York Times columnist David Brooks that preventive care does not save the government money. When President Barack Obama claimed it did save money in a September 2009 speech to Congress, we rated it False.

On Feb. 10, 2012, Obama revived this line of argument. His comments came during a media briefing to announce a partial reversal of a policy that would require church-affiliated organizations such as hospitals to provide a package of free preventive coverage, including contraception. Catholic groups criticized the policy -- which was set in motion by Obama’s health care law in 2010 -- on the grounds that it conflicted with churches’ religious beliefs.

In announcing a partial shift of policy, Obama said, "As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost. That means free check-ups, free mammograms, immunizations and other basic services. We fought for this because it saves lives and it saves money –- for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody. That’s because it’s a lot cheaper to prevent an illness than to treat one."

However, as we wrote in 2009, it’s not true that preventive care generally "saves money."

Brooks' critique relied on estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in an Aug. 7, 2009, letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, the top Republican on a congressional subcommittee involved in the debate.

Elmendorf explained that while the cost of a simple test might be cheap for each individual, the cumulative cost of many tests adds up:

"But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. ... Preventive care can have the largest benefits relative to costs when it is targeted at people who are most likely to suffer from a particular medical problem; however, such targeting can be difficult because preventive services are generally provided to patients who have the potential to contract a given disease but have not yet shown symptoms of having it."

In fact, a government policy to encourage prevention could end up paying for services that people are already receiving, including breast and colon cancer screenings and vaccines, Elmendorf said.

Other studies backed up the CBO's analysis, including a Feb. 14, 2008, article in the New England Journal of Medicine that was written in response to campaign promises for more preventive care.

"Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention ... are overreaching," according to the paper. "Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs." They write that "the vast majority" of preventive health measures that were "reviewed in the health economics literature do not" save money.

"Some preventive measures save money, while others do not, although they may still be worthwhile because they confer substantial health benefits relative to their cost," the authors write. "In contrast, some preventive measures are expensive given the health benefits they confer. In general, whether a particular preventive measure represents good value or poor value depends on factors such as the population targeted, with measures targeting higher-risk populations typically being the most efficient."

Meanwhile, a separate study conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society concluded that, while interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease would prevent many strokes and deaths, "as they are currently delivered, most of the prevention activities will substantially increase costs."

To make sure that the data hadn’t changed dramatically since we last looked at this issue, we contacted Peter J. Neumann, director of the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at the Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies at Tufts Medical Center. He was one of the three co-authors of the New England Journal of Medicine article.

He said the patterns his group found in 2008 have not shifted dramatically since then.

"Sometimes preventive measures save money, sometimes not," Neumann said. "The general message is that it depends."

Milton C. Weinstein, one of Neumann's co-authors, agreed. "In general, the comparative effectiveness literature supports the general proposition that preventive care does not save money," said Weinstein, a professor of health policy and management at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Our ruling

As a general notion, the idea that "preventive care … saves money, for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody" is no more true today than it was in 2009. Yes, preventive measures often save lives and keep patients healthier. Certain preventive measures may save money as well. But the findings of CBO and physicians who have studied the medical literature indicate that Obama’s sweeping generalization that preventive services save money is not accurate. We rate the statement False.


_____________________________________________
Here we have our corporate master.......Johns Hopkins who is pushing this policy of ending health care access for most in exchange for preventative public health care.  They are doing that because Hopkins is now going corporate with patents and luxury boutique health care bringing all kinds of profit to this corporation.  Keeping the working class and poor out of hospitals and limiting care to only preventative care has already made health institutions in Maryland more profitable Hopkins reports!

Below you see a course by Hopkins that is teaching medical students to push preventative care as the 'Health Care for All' answer.  Everyone knows that getting a lab test for cholesterol with a lecture from a doctor does not have strong efficacy.  The attitude will be 'we told you what to do and you ignored it'....like the law Bloomberg tried to pass banning extra-large sodas.  Meanwhile, the wealthy are living in excess of food and drink and able to pay to treat their gout for example.


PREVENTATIVE CARE DOES NOT EQUATE TO HEALTH CARE FOR ALL!


Health for All Through Primary Health Care

Dr. Henry Perry

This course explores why primary health care is central for achieving Health for All. It provides examples of how primary health care has been instrumental in approaching this goal in selected populations and how the principles of primary health care can guide future policies and actions.

Workload: 3-4 hours/week Watch intro videoSessions:May 29th 2013 (5 weeks long)Sign UpFuture sessions

  About the Course

Two of the most inspiring, least understood, and most often derided terms in global health discourse are “Health for All” and “Primary Health Care.” In this course, we will explore these terms in the context of global health, their origins and meanings, the principles upon which they rest, and examples of how these principles have been implemented both at small scale as well as at large scale. We will also explore some ultra-low-cost approaches to Health for All through primary health care and the promise that primary health care holds for eventually achieving Health for All.


_____________________________________________

This is another O'Malley lie.  Maryland has long had in place a tiered system of access to health care that has the poor and working class showing life spans as much as 20 years shorter than affluent because of lack of quality care.  We have people in Maryland hating to go to the hospital because of fear of outcomes either from bad service or infection.  Johns Hopkins had the highest death from infection rates in the country for decades.

What we see in Maryland are the low premiums that will have large deductibles and co-pays that keep people from accessing most care other than preventative care.  Just like catastrophic auto insurance.....you may pay less in premiums....but you will not be able to pay the piper to use it!  Maryland has a growing contingent of Universal Care groups because they know there will be no access for most in Maryland!


The Gold Premium is obviously that plan closest to what Americans have always gotten so just because they call it an insurance premium.....it is not access to care!


Maryland Touts Low Obamacare Health Insurance Premiums

Posted: 07/26/2013 6:45 pm EDT  |  Updated: 07/26/2013 10:11 pm EDT   Huffington Post

  Health coverage sold on Obamacare's health insurance exchange in Maryland will be among the cheapest in the country, state officials said Friday.

A 21-year-old nonsmoker will be able to buy health insurance that costs as little as $93 a month on the Maryland Health Connection, the state's health insurance exchange, starting Oct. 1 for coverage that takes effect Jan 1, the Maryland Insurance Division revealed in a press release. Rates for insurance with richer benefits and lower deductibles will be higher and premiums will vary by age, residence location, tobacco use and whether family members enroll.

Maryland is the latest state to disclose how much health insurance actually will cost under President Barack Obama's health care reform law. The state joins California, New York and elsewhere in achieving monthly premiums below estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and others. Officials in states including Indiana have released preliminary findings suggesting health insurance costs will skyrocket as a result of the law.

Younger, healthier people who buy inexpensive, bare-bones insurance on today's market may see higher prices for more comprehensive coverage on the exchanges, while older people are expected to see lower rates. People with pre-existing conditions can't be turned down or be charged higher premiums because of their medical histories. The law also prohibits women being charged more than men.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) and his administration have wholeheartedly embraced Obamacare implementation, in stark contrast to the the 34 states, mostly with Republican governors, that left the federal government to erect the health insurance exchanges that will be used by residents who don't get health benefits at work or are employed by small businesses. Maryland also exercised its regulatory authority to force health plans to curb rate increases for next year, such as the 25 percent hike initially requested by CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield in April.

In the Baltimore metropolitan area, a 25-year-old nonsmoker will have access to "bronze" level coverage -- the second-least generous of four tiers of benefits -- for $124 to $237 a month. A 50-year-old nonsmoker will see monthly prices for a "silver" plan ranging from $267 to $470, according to a Maryland Insurance Administration analysis.

By contrast, the median cost of an individual health insurance plan for a 30-year-old, nonsmoking man in Maryland this year is $190 a a month and the cheapest is $62, according to a report issued by the Government Accountability Office this week. An exact comparison can't be made because current plans aren't subject to Obamacare's minimum benefit standards and the least expensive policy has a $10,000 deductible -- far higher than will be allowed on the health insurance exchanges.



The new exchange prices don't account for tax credits available on a sliding scale to people who earn from the federal poverty level -- $11,490 for a single person this year -- and four times that amount. The Maryland Insurance Administration estimates that three-quarters of the people who will use the health insurance exchange will qualify for tax credits that will cut the cost of their coverage. Maryland also is expanding Medicaid to anyone earning up to 133 percent of poverty under Obamacare next year, joining 22 states and the District of Columbia in doing so.

The Maryland Insurance Administration said the state's health insurance premiums are among the lowest available in 12 states that have released pricing information to date.

"Among Bronze plans compared for young adults, Maryland rates were lower than those proposed or approved in all other eight states for which a comparison was possible. For example, the lowest price for a Bronze plan for a 25-year-old in Maryland was $114, compared to $134 in Virginia, $146 in Colorado, $163 in Ohio, $167 in Washington State, and $174 in California," a report by the Maryland Health Connection concludes.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that premiums in 10 states and the District of Columbia will be lower than Congressional Budget Office projections. The federal government won't issue information about the rates on federally run exchanges until nearer to the beginning of the six-month Obamacare enrollment period that begins in October.


____________________________________________

Regarding this 25% rate hike that O'Malley and commissioners famously held at beigh; remember when O'Malley stopped a doubling of electricity rates from BGE/Constellation before his election and then after his election Exelon comes and asks for that doubling.  Too embarrassed to give it all at once these Public Service commissioners will simply do it in two steps.  That is what this negotiated rate will do....it will be implemented when O'Malley finishes his 2016 campaign.

What O'Malley's claim to fame will be that he joined neo-liberals in turning health care into a market.....a private one at that rather than going with the public option that will lead to Universal Care....which all of Maryland citizens want.  So, rather than spin the data, let's look for real information outside of Maryland and Baltimore mainstream media.  Try PNHP  Physicians for a National Health Program



Premiums to go up as much as 25 percent under health reform Insurance administrator improves rates for plans to be sold on state exchange


By Andrea K. Walker, The Baltimore Sun 8:42 p.m. EDT, July 26, 2013

Marylanders who buy health insurance on a state exchange under health reform could see their premiums jump as much as 25 percent under rates approved by state regulators, but those increases are less than insurers sought.

Maryland Insurance Commissioner Therese M. Goldsmith approved premium increases Friday for nine insurance companies who applied to sell plans to individuals through a state exchange, called Maryland Health Connection, established under health reform.

The rates were significantly lower than what insurance companies had requested, but still higher than the 6 percent to 7 percent annual premium increase that is typical across the country. Insurers said they were seeking the increases to cover the uncertainty of new costs associated with health care reform.

The full impact of Goldsmith's decision is not known because it is not certain how many people will buy insurance from the exchange. The rate increases would not affect most people who purchase insurance through their jobs, but there are many others who buy insurance individually or who are uninsured who will be able to buy from the exchange.

Maryland Health Connection estimates 180,000 people will buy from the exchange for 2014. They largely will come from the 146,078 Marylanders who currently buy in the individual market and from the estimated 740,000 uninsured people in the state.

The rate review process was scrutinized by critics who thought insurers were seeking exorbitant hikes. Goldsmith approved increases as much as 33 percent below what insurers asked. The commissioner said she sought to balance the needs of both consumers and insurers.

"The rate review process is designed to test data and assumptions underlying proposed rates and to ensure those rates are neither excessive nor inadequate," Goldsmith said in an email through a spokeswoman.

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act acknowledged rates would go up, but also said consumers will get plans with better coverage.

"A lot of the lower rates have been a result of people having really poor coverage with high deductibles with really minimum coverage," said Vincent DeMarco, president of the Maryland Citizens Health Initiative. "Everybody is going to get full coverage now. When you have coverage with a $5,000 deductible, you basically have no coverage."

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler said the rate increases still were too high given the uncertainty of what will happen when health reform is fully implemented Jan. 1. Nobody knows how many people will sign up for insurance or how much more it will cost the system, if anything, he said. Gansler had proposed capping rate increases to no more than 5 percent.

"It certainly seems that insurance companies are taking advantage of the Affordable Care Act coming down the road and using that to be greedy at a time when we don't know if it will cause costs to go up or lower costs," he said.

Rep. Andy Harris, who opposes the health reform law, said the premiums demonstrate that "Obamacare will in fact lead Marylanders to pay more for their health care. It is hardly welcome news for young Marylanders who are already struggling in this economy to say their health insurance will still go up under Obamacare, but not as much. Despite promises by President Obama and others that this law would lead to lower premiums, the exact opposite is turning out to be true — Marylanders will be paying more."

The highest rate increase of 25.4 percent was granted to Aetna Life Insurance Co.. The rate was 29 percent lower than the insurer sought. Aetna also recently bought Coventry Health.

Walt Cherniak, a spokesman for both companies, said the insurer still was reviewing the recommendations before commenting.

There is an appeal process if insurers don't like the commisioner's decision.

Kaiser Permanente of the Mid-Atlantic States had the lowest premium increase at 4.3 percent, about 1 percent less than it requested

"[We] worked with Maryland officials to ensure our 2014 rates are as consumer friendly as possible," the company said in a statement. "We believe all residents should have access to high quality, affordable care, and we're confident our rates reflect that."

CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, the state's largest insurer, wanted to raise rates an average of 25 percent on those who buy coverage individually. Goldstein approved increases of 11.3 percent, 15.4 percent and 12.1 percent for various CareFirst insurance brands.

CareFirst, which has 2.2 million customers in Maryland, about 48 percent of the market, said in a statement that the commissioner's rate adjustments were "modest" and that its plans under the exchange "are competitively priced."

"We look forward to the launch of the exchange this fall," the statement said.





0 Comments
<<Previous

    Author

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

    Archives

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

    Categories

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

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.